The year-to-year increase in communications end market revenue in fiscal 2014 was primarily a result of increased wireless base station deployment activity and, to a lesser extent, an increase in revenue as a result of the Acquisition.
Industrial end market revenue increased year-over-year in fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013 as a result of an increase in demand in this end market, which was most significant for products sold into the instrumentation and automation sectors and, to a lesser extent, an increase in revenue as a result of the Acquisition.
The year-to-year increase in automotive end market revenue in fiscal 2014 was primarily a result of increasing electronic content in vehicles and higher demand for new vehicles.
The year-toyear decrease in revenue in the consumer end market in fiscal 2014 was primarily the result of the sale of our microphone product line in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013.
The year-to-year decrease in revenue in the industrial and consumer end markets in fiscal 2013 was primarily the result of a weak global economic environment and one less week of operations in fiscal 2013 as compared to fiscal 2012.
Automotive end market revenue increased in fiscal 2013 primarily as a result of increasing electronic content in vehicles.
Revenue Trends by Product Type The following table summarizes revenue by product categories.
The categorization of our products into broad categories is based on the characteristics of the individual products, the specification of the products and in some cases the specific uses that certain products have within applications.
The categorization of products into categories is therefore subject to judgment in some cases and can vary over time.
In instances where products move between product categories, we reclassify the amounts in the product categories for all prior periods.
Such reclassifications typically do not materially change the sizing of, or the underlying trends of results within, each product category
## Table 0 ##
The sum of the individual percentages does not equal the total due to rounding.
The year-to-year increase in total revenue in fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013 was the result of improving demand across most product type categories and the result of the Acquisition, which was partially offset by declines in the other analog product category, primarily as a result of the sale of our microphone product line in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013.
The year-to-year decrease in total revenue in fiscal 2013 as compared to fiscal 2012 was the result of one less week of operations in fiscal 2013 as compared to fiscal 2012 and a broad-based decrease in demand across most product type categories.
Revenue Trends by Geographic Region Revenue by geographic region, based upon the primary location of our customers' design activity for its products, for fiscal 2014, 2013 and 2012 was as follows.
ANALOG DEVICES, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
## Table 1 ##
As it relates to our market-based restricted stock units, the Company utilizes the Monte Carlo simulation valuation model to value these awards.
The Monte Carlo simulation model utilizes multiple input variables that determine the probability of satisfying the performance conditions stipulated in the award grant and calculates the fair market value for the market-based restricted stock units granted.
The Monte Carlo simulation model also uses stock price volatility and other variables to estimate the probability of satisfying the performance conditions, including the possibility that the market condition may not be satisfied, and the resulting fair value of the award.
Information pertaining to the Company's market-based restricted stock units and the related estimated assumptions used to calculate the fair value of market-based restricted stock units granted using the Monte Carlo simulation model is as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Market-based restricted stock units were not granted during fiscal 2013 or 2012.
Expected volatility — The Company is responsible for estimating volatility and has considered a number of factors, including third-party estimates.
The Company currently believes that the exclusive use of implied volatility results in the best estimate of the grant-date fair value of employee stock options because it reflects the market’s current expectations of future volatility.
In evaluating the appropriateness of exclusively relying on implied volatility, the Company concluded that: (1) options in the Company’s common stock are actively traded with sufficient volume on several exchanges; (2) the market prices of both the traded options and the underlying shares are measured at a similar point in time to each other and on a date close to the grant date of the employee share options; (3) the traded options have exercise prices that are both near-the-money and close to the exercise price of the employee share options; and (4) the remaining maturities of the traded options used to estimate volatility are at least one year.
Expected term — The Company uses historical employee exercise and option expiration data to estimate the expected term assumption for the Black-Scholes grant-date valuation.
The Company believes that this historical data is currently the best estimate of the expected term of a new option, and that generally its employees exhibit similar exercise behavior.
Risk-free interest rate — The yield on zero-coupon U. S.  Treasury securities for a period that is commensurate with the expected term assumption is used as the risk-free interest rate.
Expected dividend yield — Expected dividend yield is calculated by annualizing the cash dividend declared by the Company’s Board of Directors for the current quarter and dividing that result by the closing stock price on the date of grant.
Until such time as the Company’s Board of Directors declares a cash dividend for an amount that is different from the current quarter’s cash dividend, the current dividend will be used in deriving this assumption.
Cash dividends are not paid on options, restricted stock or restricted stock units.
an adverse development with respect to one claim in 2008 and favorable developments in three cases in 2009.
Other costs were also lower in 2009 compared to 2008, driven by a decrease in expenses for freight and property damages, employee travel, and utilities.
In addition, higher bad debt expense in 2008 due to the uncertain impact of the recessionary economy drove a favorable year-over-year comparison.
Conversely, an additional expense of $30 million related to a transaction with Pacer International, Inc.  and higher property taxes partially offset lower costs in 2009.
Other costs were higher in 2008 compared to 2007 due to an increase in bad debts, state and local taxes, loss and damage expenses, utility costs, and other miscellaneous expenses totaling $122 million.
Conversely, personal injury costs (including asbestos-related claims) were $8 million lower in 2008 compared to 2007.
The reduction reflects improvements in our safety experience and lower estimated costs to resolve claims as indicated in the actuarial studies of our personal injury expense and annual reviews of asbestos-related claims in both 2008 and 2007.
The year-over-year comparison also includes the negative impact of adverse development associated with one claim in 2008.
In addition, environmental and toxic tort expenses were $7 million lower in 2008 compared to 2007.
Non-Operating Items

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">2014</td><td colspan="2">2013</td><td colspan="2">2012</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Revenue</td><td>% ofTotalProductRevenue*</td><td>Y/Y%</td><td>Revenue</td><td>% ofTotalProductRevenue*</td><td>Revenue</td><td>% ofTotalProductRevenue*</td></tr><tr><td>Converters</td><td>$1,285,368</td><td>45%</td><td>9%</td><td>$1,180,072</td><td>45%</td><td>$1,192,064</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Amplifiers/Radio frequency</td><td>806,975</td><td>28%</td><td>18%</td><td>682,759</td><td>26%</td><td>697,687</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>Other analog</td><td>356,406</td><td>12%</td><td>-4%</td><td>372,281</td><td>14%</td><td>397,376</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal analog signal processing</td><td>2,448,749</td><td>85%</td><td>10%</td><td>2,235,112</td><td>85%</td><td>2,287,127</td><td>85%</td></tr><tr><td>Power management & reference</td><td>174,483</td><td>6%</td><td>1%</td><td>172,920</td><td>7%</td><td>182,134</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td>Total analog products</td><td>$2,623,232</td><td>92%</td><td>9%</td><td>$2,408,032</td><td>91%</td><td>$2,469,261</td><td>91%</td></tr><tr><td>Digital signal processing</td><td>241,541</td><td>8%</td><td>7%</td><td>225,657</td><td>9%</td><td>231,881</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Total Revenue</td><td>$2,864,773</td><td>100%</td><td>9%</td><td>$2,633,689</td><td>100%</td><td>$2,701,142</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Stock Options</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Options granted (in thousands)</td><td>2,240</td><td>2,407</td><td>2,456</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted-average exercise price</td><td>$51.52</td><td>$46.40</td><td>$39.58</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted-average grant-date fair value</td><td>$8.74</td><td>$7.38</td><td>$7.37</td></tr><tr><td>Assumptions:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Weighted-average expected volatility</td><td>24.9%</td><td>24.6%</td><td>28.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted-average expected term (in years)</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.4</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted-average risk-free interest rate</td><td>1.7%</td><td>1.0%</td><td>1.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted-average expected dividend yield</td><td>2.9%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>3.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Market-based Restricted Stock Units</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Units granted (in thousands)</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Grant-date fair value</td><td>$50.79</td></tr><tr><td>Assumptions:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Historical stock price volatility</td><td>23.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-free interest rate</td><td>0.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected dividend yield</td><td>2.8%</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the growing rate of Amplifiers/Radio frequency in table 0 in the year with the most Converters in table 0?
Answer: 0.18193