 indirect effects through influence cascades; 3) the Potential-Buyer Filtering is considered to derive $u$’s pricing-sensitive importance from accumulating all $u$’s direct and indirect effects on all the other potential buyers.

1.  **Normalized Weight.**

    By intuition, for commodity promotion, an individual $u$’s importance towards another individual $v$ can be evaluated from how much $v$’s valuation approaches the pricing due to $u$’s effect. Inspired by this intuition, PRUB+IF calculates the normalized weight $\hat{w}_{uv}$, indicating $u$’s importance towards $v$’s adoption, as follows.

    &\_[uv]{} =&

    $$\label{E:nW}
    \footnotesize
    \begin{cases}
    0, &\text{if } p \leq X_{A}(v) \\
    \min\{1, \frac{F(w_{uv}+\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})-F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})}{ p-X_{A}(v)}\}, &\text{otherwise}
    \end{cases}
   ,$$

    where $X_{A}(v) = \chi_v+F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})$ is $v$’s valuation of the commodity under the current seed group $A$’s effects. In the case of $p \leq X_{A}(v)$, it means $v$ has adopted the commodity. So the normalized weight $\hat{w}_{uv} = 0$, indicating that $u$’s importance towards $v$ is none due to no impact from $u$ on $v$’s adoption of the commodity. For the other case, the normalized weight from $u$ to $v$ is bounded by 1, and is the portion of $u$’s impact on $v$’s adoption of the commodity.

    \[Ex:Wnorm\] Given the monetizing social network in Figure \[Fig:ex\] and the concave influence function $F(x)=x$, consider the promotion of a concert. Given $p= \$7$ and $A=\{\}$, no one has adopted the concert tickets. Under this condition, $X_{\{\}}(a)=\$2$ is less than the pricing of $\$7$, and the
indirect effects through influence cascades; 3) the Potential - Buyer Filtering is considered to deduce $ u$ ’s pricing - sensible importance from accumulate all $ u$ ’s direct and collateral effects on all the early potential buyers. 

 1.   * * normalize Weight. * * 

     By intuition, for commodity promotion, an individual $ u$ ’s importance towards another individual $ v$ can be measure from how much $ v$ ’s valuation approaches the pricing due to $ u$ ’s impression. Inspired by this intuition, PRUB+IF calculates the normalize system of weights $ \hat{w}_{uv}$, indicating $ u$ ’s importance towards $ v$ ’s adoption, as follows. 

     & \_[uv ] { } = & 

     $ $ \label{E: nW } 
     \footnotesize 
     \begin{cases } 
     0, & \text{if } p \leq X_{A}(v) \\ 
     \min\{1, \frac{F(w_{uv}+\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})-F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv }) } { p - X_{A}(v)}\ }, & \text{otherwise } 
     \end{cases } 
   , $ $ 

     where $ X_{A}(v) = \chi_v+F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})$ is $ v$ ’s valuation of the commodity under the current seed group $ A$ ’s consequence. In the case of $ p \leq X_{A}(v)$, it means $ v$ has assume the commodity. So the normalized weight $ \hat{w}_{uv } = 0 $, indicating that $ u$ ’s importance towards $ v$ is none ascribable to no impact from $ u$ on $ v$ ’s borrowing of the commodity. For the other case, the normalized weight from $ u$ to $ v$ is bound by 1, and is the portion of $ u$ ’s impact on $ v$ ’s adoption of the commodity. 

     \[Ex: Wnorm\ ] Given the monetizing social network in number   \[Fig: ex\ ] and the concave influence officiate $ F(x)=x$, consider the promotion of a concert. Given $ p= \$7 $ and $ A=\{\}$, no one has adopted the concert tickets. Under this condition, $ X_{\{\}}(a)=\$2 $ is less than the pricing of $ \$7 $, and the
 infirect effects through ikfluence cascades; 3) the 'otentizl-Buyer Wiltering is considered to dxrivw $u$’s kgicing-sensitive imporgance frol accumuoatiig all $u$’s direct and indlxect snfectv on all the otmer potentidl buyers.

1.  **Norkauived Weight.**

    By intuition, for commoqity prpmltion, an indivyduak $u$’s jmportance towards another individhal $v$ cen be evaluated from how much $v$’s valuatioj aporoaches the pricijg due to $u$’w efswct. Inspired by this intuition, PRUG+IF calculates the normalized wdight $\hat{w}_{uv}$, ineixatltg $u$’s imporvance nowards $v$’s adoption, av folloes.

    &\_[uv]{} =&

    $$\lsben{E:nQ}
    \footnotesize
    \uegin{cases}
    0, &\text{is } p \leq F_{A}(r) \\
    \min\{1, \frac{F(w_{uv}+\sum\oinits_{i\hn \shgma(X)}q_{iv})-W(\suj\lmmifs_{i\in \digja(A)}w_{iv})}{ p-X_{A}(b)}\}, &\text{otherqise}
    \end{cases}
   ,$$

    where $X_{A}(v) = \cgi_v+F(\sui\lymits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})$ is $v$’s valuation of tve dommodity under the cureent seed group $A$’s efvects. In ehe case of $p \leq X_{A}(v)$, it means $v$ has adopted the wommovigy. Wo gye normalized weight $\hat{w}_{uv} = 0$, indicating that $u$’f ikpprtance towardf $v$ is none dke jo no impact ftom $u$ ou $v$’a adoption of the fommodijy. For the othew caxe, the normalized weight frim $u$ to $v$ is vounded by 1, and is the portiou of $u$’x impsct on $v$’s adoption of tke comjodity.

    \[Ed:Wnorm\] Gibdn the monetizine spchal network in Figure \[Fig:ex\] and the roncare infludnce functyon $F(x)=x$, cojsidev the promotion of w coneert. Civen $p= \$7$ ajd $A=\{\}$, no one has adopted the conrxrt tickets. Umdar nhis condntion, $W_{\{\}}(a)=\$2$ is less than the pricing oy $\$7$, and tke
indirect effects through influence cascades; 3) the is to derive pricing-sensitive importance from indirect on all the potential buyers. 1. Weight.** By intuition, for commodity promotion, individual $u$’s importance towards another individual $v$ can be evaluated from how much valuation approaches the pricing due to $u$’s effect. Inspired by this intuition, PRUB+IF the weight indicating importance towards $v$’s adoption, as follows. &\_[uv]{} =& $$\label{E:nW} \footnotesize \begin{cases} 0, &\text{if } p \leq \\ \min\{1, \frac{F(w_{uv}+\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})-F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})}{ p-X_{A}(v)}\}, &\text{otherwise} \end{cases} where $X_{A}(v) = \chi_v+F(\sum\limits_{i\in is $v$’s valuation of the under current seed $A$’s In case of $p X_{A}(v)$, it means $v$ has adopted the commodity. So the normalized weight $\hat{w}_{uv} = 0$, indicating that importance towards none due no from on $v$’s adoption commodity. For the other case, the $u$ to $v$ is bounded by 1, and the portion $u$’s impact on $v$’s adoption of commodity. \[Ex:Wnorm\] Given the monetizing social network in \[Fig:ex\] and the concave influence function $F(x)=x$, consider the promotion of a concert. Given $p= $A=\{\}$, no one has the concert tickets. this $X_{\{\}}(a)=\$2$ less the pricing $\$7$, and the
 indirect effects through infLuence cascAdes; 3) tHe POteNtIal-BUyer filtering is conSIderEd to derive $u$’s pricing-senSitivE iMPortANcE from AccumulATiNG All $U$’s DiRecT aND iNdireCt eFfects oN all the othEr pOtEntial buyers.

1.  **nOrMalized WeiGht.**

    by intuition, fOr cOmmodiTy ProMOtion, An iNdiviDual $u$’s IMportaNce towardS aNOther iNDividuaL $V$ CaN be eValuated from how muCH $v$’S Valuation approAches tHe PRiCINg dUe tO $u$’s effect. INsPired BY this inTUiTION, PRub+IF calculates The normalizED weIght $\haT{w}_{Uv}$, iNDicatiNg $u$’s iMpORtaNce towards $v$’S adoPtion, as foLlows.

    &\_[uV]{} =&

    $$\Label{E:nw}
    \FootnotEsize
    \bEgiN{caSes}
    0, &\tEXt{If } P \leQ X_{a}(V) \\
    \miN\{1, \FrAc{F(W_{Uv}+\sUm\limits_{I\iN \sIgma(A)}W_{iv})-F(\SUM\LImitS_{i\iN \sigMa(A)}w_{iV})}{ p-X_{A}(v)}\}, &\text{otheRwiSe}
    \enD{CasEs}
   ,$$

    wheRe $X_{A}(v) = \Chi_v+f(\sUm\limIts_{i\in \Sigma(a)}w_{Iv})$ is $v$’s valuation Of thE commoditY unDeR thE cUrrenT Seed grOup $a$’s eFfects. IN the casE Of $p \LeQ x_{a}(V)$, iT means $v$ has adopted tHe COMmOdity. So tHe normALiZeD Weight $\haT{w}_{Uv} = 0$, iNdicATIng thAt $u$’s IMpOrtance tOwards $V$ Is NoNe due to No Impact FrOm $u$ On $v$’S adopTIon oF the coMmodity. FOr the OTher case, the norMAlized weight fROm $U$ TO $v$ IS bouNdeD by 1, and is the PortIOn of $U$’s imPAcT on $V$’S adopTion oF tHE cOMmodity.

    \[Ex:Wnorm\] Given ThE monetIzing Social network In Figure \[FiG:EX\] And the coNcavE InFLuence function $f(x)=x$, coNsider the pROmotion oF a conCert. GiveN $p= \$7$ and $A=\{\}$, no oNE Has adoptEd tHe cOncErt TICkEts. Under this cONDitiOn, $x_{\{\}}(a)=\$2$ is lesS thAn the prIciNg oF $\$7$, anD thE
 indirect effects throughinfluencecasca des ; 3 )thePote ntial-Buyer Fi l teri ng is considered to de rive$u $ ’s p r ic ing-s ensitiv e  i m p ort an ce  fr om ac cumul ati ng all$u$’s dire ctan d indirect e f fe cts on all  th e other pote nti al buy er s.1.  * *No rmali zed We i ght.** 

    Byin t uition ,  for co m m od itypromotion, an ind i vi d ual $u$’s impo rtance  t o wa r d s a not her indivi du al $v $  can be ev a l u ate d  from how muc h $v$’s val u ati on app ro ach e s theprici ng due  to $u$’s e ffec t. Inspir ed byt his int u ition,PRUB+I F c alc ulat e sth e n or m ali z ed  we i ght  $\hat{w }_ {u v}$,indi c a t i ng $ u$’ s im porta nce towards $ v$’ s ad o pti on, a s fol lows .
   &\_[uv ]{} = &
    $$\label{E :nW} 
    \foo tno te siz e    \ b egin{c ase s}    0,&\text{ i f }  p \ l eq  X_{A}(v) \\
    \ mi n \ {1 , \frac{ F(w_{u v }+ \s u m\limits _{ i\i n \s i g ma(A) }w_{ i v} )-F(\sum \limit s _{ i\ in \sig ma (A)}w_ {i v}) }{p-X_{ A }(v) }\}, & \text{ot herwi s e}
    \end{ca s es}
   ,$$

 w h er e  $X_ {A} (v) = \chi_ v+F( \ sum\ limi t s_ {i\ i n \si gma(A )} w _{ i v})$ is $v$’s valua ti on ofthe c ommodity unde r the curr e n t  seed gr oup$ A$ ’ s effects. Inthe c ase of $p\ leq X_{A }(v)$ , it mea ns $v$ ha s adoptedthe  co mmo dit y .  S o the normali z e d we ig ht $\ha t{w }_{uv}= 0 $,ind ica ti ng that $ u$’s imp or ta nc etow ards$ v$ is no ne  du etono im p act fr om $u $ on  $ v$ ’ s a doption of t he c om mo dity . F or  theothe r  ca se, the  normaliz edw eigh tfr om $u$to $v$ is bou nd ed by 1, a nd  is  the p o r tion of$u$’s impact on $v$’s a d optionofthe c ommo dity.

   \ [Ex:Wn orm \ ] Give n themonet iz ing s ocial n et wor kin Figure\ [ Fig :ex\]  a nd t he conc ave influence func t ion  $F(x)=x$, co nsi dert h epro m ot i onof a c o n cert. Given $p=  \$7$ and$A = \{ \}$, no on e  ha sadopted  the co ncert tickets . Under t his condi ti on,$ X _{\ {\}}(a)=\$ 2$ is le ss than t h e pri c in g of$\$ 7$, an dthe 
 indirect_effects through_influence cascades; 3) the_Potential-Buyer Filtering_is_considered to_derive_$u$’s pricing-sensitive importance_from accumulating all_$u$’s direct and indirect_effects on all_the_other potential buyers.

1.  **Normalized Weight.**

    By intuition, for commodity promotion,_an_individual $u$’s_importance_towards_another individual $v$ can be_evaluated from how much $v$’s_valuation approaches_the pricing due to $u$’s effect. Inspired by_this_intuition, PRUB+IF calculates_the normalized weight $\hat{w}_{uv}$, indicating $u$’s importance towards $v$’s_adoption, as follows.

   _&\_[uv]{} =&

 ___$$\label{E:nW}
   _\footnotesize
    \begin{cases}
 _  0, &\text{if } p_\leq X_{A}(v) \\
    \min\{1,_\frac{F(w_{uv}+\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})-F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})}{ p-X_{A}(v)}\}, &\text{otherwise}
 _  \end{cases}
  _,$$

 _  where $X_{A}(v) =_\chi_v+F(\sum\limits_{i\in \sigma(A)}w_{iv})$ is_$v$’s valuation_of the commodity_under the current seed group $A$’s_effects. In the_case of $p \leq X_{A}(v)$, it_means_$v$ has adopted_the_commodity._So the_normalized weight $\hat{w}_{uv}_=_0$, indicating_that_$u$’s importance towards $v$ is none_due_to no impact from $u$ on $v$’s_adoption of the commodity._For_the other case, the_normalized weight from $u$ to_$v$ is bounded by 1, and_is the_portion of_$u$’s impact on $v$’s adoption of the commodity.

   _\[Ex:Wnorm\] Given the monetizing social network_in Figure \[Fig:ex\] and the_concave influence_function_$F(x)=x$, consider the_promotion_of a_concert. Given $p= \$7$ and $A=\{\}$, no_one has_adopted the concert tickets. Under this_condition, $X_{\{\}}(a)=\$2$ is less_than_the pricing of $\$7$, and the