Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr 12;6:24252. doi: 10.1038/srep24252

Table 3. The percentage of common optimal driver nodes in the outcome of Task 1 (when only the location of drivers is optimized and Task 3 (when both location of drivers and feedback gains are simultaneously optimized), and the absolute difference (in percentage) between the feedback gains in Task 2 (when the feedback gains are optimized for the drivers found in Task 1) and Task 3.

Network Common Nodes between tasks 1 and 3 Mean feedback gains difference between tasks 2 and 3 Network Common Nodes between tasks 1 and 3 Mean feedback gains difference between tasks 2 and 3
BA (m = 2) 90% 2.3% WS (P = 0.08) 60% 1.1%
BA (m = 3) 100% 0.6% WS (P = 0.1) 80% 0.9
BA (m = 4) 90% 2.9% WS (P = 0.12) 70% 1.4%
BA (m = 5) 100% 2.8% WS (P = 0.14) 70% 1.6%
BA (m = 6) 100% 1.6% WS (P = 0.16) 75% 0.7%
BA (m = 7) 100% 0.9% WS (P = 0.18) 75% 2.4%
BA (m = 8) 90% 1% WS (P = 0.2) 80% 1.2%
BA (m = 9) 90% 1.5%      
BA (m = 10) 90% 0.3%      

The networks are Barabasi-Albert (BA) scale-free with different m and Watts-Strogatz (WS) small-world with different rewiring probability P.