  We are concerned with an appropriate mathematical measure of resilience in
the face of targeted node attacks for arbitrary degree networks, and
subsequently comparing the resilience of different scale-free network models
with the proposed measure. We strongly motivate our resilience measure termed
\emph{vertex attack tolerance} (VAT), which is denoted mathematically as
$\tau(G) = \min_{S \subset V} \frac{|S|}{|V-S-C_{max}(V-S)|+1}$, where
$C_{max}(V-S)$ is the largest connected component in $V-S$. We attempt a
thorough comparison of VAT with several existing resilience notions:
conductance, vertex expansion, integrity, toughness, tenacity and scattering
number. Our comparisons indicate that for artbitrary degree distributions VAT
is the only measure that fully captures both the major \emph{bottlenecks} of a
network and the resulting \emph{component size distribution} upon targeted node
attacks (both captured in a manner proportional to the size of the attack set).
For the case of $d$-regular graphs, we prove that $\tau(G) \le d\Phi(G)$, where
$\Phi(G)$ is the conductance of the graph $G$. Conductance and expansion are
well-studied measures of robustness and bottlenecks in the case of regular
graphs but fail to capture resilience in the case of highly heterogeneous
degree graphs. Regarding comparison of different scale-free graph models, our
experimental results indicate that PLOD graphs with degree distributions
identical to BA graphs of the same size exhibit consistently better vertex
attack tolerance than the BA type graphs, although both graph types appear
asymptotically resilient for BA generative parameter $m = 2$. BA graphs with $m
= 1$ also appear to lack resilience, not only exhibiting very low VAT values,
but also great transparency in the identification of the vulnerable node sets,
namely the hubs, consistent with well known previous work.
