1 Tight Hardness Results for Some Approximation Problems [Raz,Håstad,...] Adi Akavia Dana Moshkovitz & Ricky Rosen S. Safra.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Completeness and Expressiveness
Advertisements

A threshold of ln(n) for approximating set cover By Uriel Feige Lecturer: Ariel Procaccia.
Inapproximability of Hypergraph Vertex-Cover. A k-uniform hypergraph H= : V – a set of vertices E - a collection of k-element subsets of V Example: k=3.
Inapproximability of MAX-CUT Khot,Kindler,Mossel and O ’ Donnell Moshe Ben Nehemia June 05.
Approximation Algorithms Chapter 14: Rounding Applied to Set Cover.
Inapproximability Seminar – 2005 David Arnon  March 3, 2005 Some Optimal Inapproximability Results Johan Håstad Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
MaxClique Inapproximability Seminar on HARDNESS OF APPROXIMATION PROBLEMS by Dr. Irit Dinur Presented by Rica Gonen.
Lecture 23. Subset Sum is NPC
Lecture 22: April 18 Probabilistic Method. Why Randomness? Probabilistic method: Proving the existence of an object satisfying certain properties without.
Parallel Scheduling of Complex DAGs under Uncertainty Grzegorz Malewicz.
The Probabilistic Method Shmuel Wimer Engineering Faculty Bar-Ilan University.
Introduction to PCP and Hardness of Approximation Dana Moshkovitz Princeton University and The Institute for Advanced Study 1.
Complexity ©D.Moshkovits 1 Hardness of Approximation.
The number of edge-disjoint transitive triples in a tournament.
Complexity 11-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov NP-Completeness.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Analysis of Boolean Functions Fourier Analysis, Projections, Influence, Junta, Etc… And (some) applications Slides prepared with help of Ricky Rosen.
Computability and Complexity 15-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov NP-Completeness.
1. 2 Gap-QS[O(n), ,2|  | -1 ] 3SAT QS Error correcting codesSolvability PCP Proof Map In previous lectures: Introducing new variables Clauses to polynomials.
1. 2 Gap-QS[O(1), ,2|  | -1 ] Gap-QS[O(n), ,2|  | -1 ] Gap-QS*[O(1),O(1), ,|  | -  ] Gap-QS*[O(1),O(1), ,|  | -  ] conjunctions of constant.
Complexity 19-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov More Probabilistic Algorithms.
–Def: A language L is in BPP c,s ( 0  s(n)  c(n)  1,  n  N) if there exists a probabilistic poly-time TM M s.t. : 1.  w  L, Pr[M accepts w]  c(|w|),
1 CSE 417: Algorithms and Computational Complexity Winter 2001 Lecture 23 Instructor: Paul Beame.
1 Tight Hardness Results for Some Approximation Problems [mostly Håstad] Adi Akavia Dana Moshkovitz S. Safra.
1 INTRODUCTION NP, NP-hardness Approximation PCP.
Integer Programming Difference from linear programming –Variables x i must take on integral values, not real values Lots of interesting problems can be.
1 On the Computation of the Permanent Dana Moshkovitz.
The Importance of Being Biased Irit Dinur S. Safra (some slides borrowed from Dana Moshkovitz) Irit Dinur S. Safra (some slides borrowed from Dana Moshkovitz)
Complexity 1 Hardness of Approximation. Complexity 2 Introduction Objectives: –To show several approximation problems are NP-hard Overview: –Reminder:
1 The PCP starting point. 2 Overview In this lecture we’ll present the Quadratic Solvability problem. In this lecture we’ll present the Quadratic Solvability.
Complexity ©D.Moshkovits 1 Hardness of Approximation.
1 The PCP starting point. 2 Overview In this lecture we’ll present the Quadratic Solvability problem. We’ll see this problem is closely related to PCP.
1 Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz. Adapted from things beyond us.
1 Joint work with Shmuel Safra. 2 Motivation 3 Motivation.
1 Hardness Result for MAX-3SAT This lecture is given by: Limor Ben Efraim.
Dana Moshkovitz, MIT Joint work with Subhash Khot, NYU.
Graph Coalition Structure Generation Maria Polukarov University of Southampton Joint work with Tom Voice and Nick Jennings HUJI, 25 th September 2011.
Lecture 22 More NPC problems
Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.
EMIS 8373: Integer Programming NP-Complete Problems updated 21 April 2009.
Approximation Schemes Open Shop Problem. O||C max and Om||C max {J 1,..., J n } is set of jobs. {M 1,..., M m } is set of machines. J i : {O i1,..., O.
1/19 Minimizing weighted completion time with precedence constraints Nikhil Bansal (IBM) Subhash Khot (NYU)
Linear Program Set Cover. Given a universe U of n elements, a collection of subsets of U, S = {S 1,…, S k }, and a cost function c: S → Q +. Find a minimum.
CS6045: Advanced Algorithms NP Completeness. NP-Completeness Some problems are intractable: as they grow large, we are unable to solve them in reasonable.
1 2 Introduction In this lecture we’ll cover: Definition of PCP Prove some classical hardness of approximation results Review some recent ones.
CSE 421 Algorithms Richard Anderson Lecture 27 NP-Completeness Proofs.
Approximation Algorithms based on linear programming.
Theory of Computational Complexity Yusuke FURUKAWA Iwama Ito lab M1.
CHAPTER SIX T HE P ROBABILISTIC M ETHOD M1 Zhang Cong 2011/Nov/28.
Theory of Computational Complexity Probability and Computing Chapter Hikaru Inada Iwama and Ito lab M1.
Tight Hardness Results for Some Approximation Problems [Håstad]
More NP-Complete and NP-hard Problems
Richard Anderson Lecture 26 NP-Completeness
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 7/23/ :02 PM x x x x
Richard Anderson Lecture 26 NP-Completeness
Chapter 5. Optimal Matchings
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
Where Can We Draw The Line?
ICS 353: Design and Analysis of Algorithms
Richard Anderson Lecture 25 NP-Completeness
Introduction to PCP and Hardness of Approximation
More NP-Complete Problems
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Theorem 8.19 If algorithm A has absolute approximation ratio RA , then the shifting algorithm has absolute approximation (KRA+1)/(K+1) Proof. If N is.
PCP Characterization of NP:
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Switching Lemmas and Proof Complexity
The Satisfiability Problem
Presentation transcript:

1 Tight Hardness Results for Some Approximation Problems [Raz,Håstad,...] Adi Akavia Dana Moshkovitz & Ricky Rosen S. Safra

2 “Road-Map” for Chapter I “Road-Map” for Chapter I Parallel repetition lemma  X  Y is NP-hard expander par[ , k]   Gap-3-SAT-7   Gap-3-SAT  

3 Maximum Satisfaction Def: Max-SAT Instance: Instance: A set of variables Y = { Y 1, …, Y m } A set of variables Y = { Y 1, …, Y m } A set of Boolean-functions (local-tests) over Y  = {  1, …,  l } A set of Boolean-functions (local-tests) over Y  = {  1, …,  l } Maximization: Maximization: We define  (  ) = maximum, over all assignments to Y, of the fraction of  i  satisfied We define  (  ) = maximum, over all assignments to Y, of the fraction of  i  satisfied Structure: Structure: Various versions of SAT would impose structure properties on Y, Y’s range and  Various versions of SAT would impose structure properties on Y, Y’s range and 

4 Max-E3-Lin-2 Def: Max-E3-Lin-2 Instance: a system of linear equations L = { E 1, …, E n } over Z 2 each equation of exactly 3 variables [whose sum is required to equal either 0 or 1] Instance: a system of linear equations L = { E 1, …, E n } over Z 2 each equation of exactly 3 variables [whose sum is required to equal either 0 or 1] Problem: Compute  (L) Problem: Compute  (L)

5 Example Assigning x 1-6 =1, x 7-9 =0 satisfy all but the third equation. Assigning x 1-6 =1, x 7-9 =0 satisfy all but the third equation. No assignment can satisfy all equation, as the sum of all leftwing of equations equals zero (every variable appears twice) while the rightwing sums to 1. No assignment can satisfy all equation, as the sum of all leftwing of equations equals zero (every variable appears twice) while the rightwing sums to 1. Therefore,  (L)=5/6. Therefore,  (L)=5/6. x 1 +x 2 +x 3 =1 (mod 2) x 4 +x 5 +x 6 =1 x 7 +x 8 +x 9 =1 x 1 +x 4 +x 7 =0 x 2 +x 5 +x 8 =0 x 3 +x 6 +x 9 =0

6 2-Variables Functional SAT Def[ ]:  over Def[  X  Y ]:  over variables X,Y of range R x,R y respectively variables X,Y of range R x,R y respectively each  is of the form  x  y : R x  R y each  is of the form  x  y : R x  R y an assignment A(X  R x, Y  R y ) satisfies  x  y iff  x  y (A(x))=A(y) [ Namely, every value to x determines exactly 1 satisfying value for y] Thm: distinguishing between  A satisfies all   A satisfies all   A satisfies <  fraction of   A satisfies <  fraction of  is NP-hard as long as |R x |,|R y |>  -0(1)

7 Proof Outline Def: 3SAT is SAT where every  i is a disjunction of  3 literals. Def: gap-3SAT-7 is gap-3SAT with the additional restriction, that every variable appears in exactly 7 local-tests Theorem: gap-3SAT-7 is NP-hard  X  Y is NP-hard par[ , k] Gap-3-SAT-7 Gap-3-SAT ?

8 Expanders Def: a graph G(V,E) is a c-expander if for every S  V, |S|  ½|V|: |N(S)\S|  c·|S| [where N(S) denotes the set of neighbors of S] Lemma: For every m, one can construct in poly- time a 3-regular, m-vertices, c-expander, for some constant c>0 Corollary: a cut between S and V\S, for |S|  ½|V| must contain > c·|S| edges  X  Y is NP-hard par[ , k] Gap-3-SAT-7 Gap-3-SAT Expanders ?

9 Reduction Using Expanders Assume  ’ for which  (  ’) is either 1 or  /c.  is  ’ with the following changes: an occurrence of y in  i is replaced by a variable x y,i an occurrence of y in  i is replaced by a variable x y,i Let G y, for every y, be a 3-regular, c-expander over all occurrences x y,i of y Let G y, for every y, be a 3-regular, c-expander over all occurrences x y,i of y For every edge connecting x y,i to x y,j in G y, add to  the clauses (  x y,i  x y,j ) and (x y,i   x y,j ) For every edge connecting x y,i to x y,j in G y, add to  the clauses (  x y,i  x y,j ) and (x y,i   x y,j ) It is easy to see that: 1. |  |  10 |  ’| 2. Each variable x y,i of  appears in exactly 7  i   ensuring equality constructible by the LemmaLemma

10 Correctness of the Reduction 1.  is completely satisfiable iff  ’ is 2. In case  ’ is unsatisfiable:  (  ’) < 1-20  /c Let A be an optimal assignment to  Let A maj assign x y,i the value assigned by A to the majority, over j, of variables x y,j Let F A and F A maj be the sets of    unsatisfied by A and A maj respectively: |  |·(1-  (  )) = |F A | = |F A  F A maj |+|F A \F A maj |  |F A  F A maj |+½c|F A maj \F A |  ½c|F A maj | and since A maj is in fact an assignment to  ’  (  )  1- ½c(1-  (  ’))/10 < 1- ½c(20  /c)/10= 1-  and since A maj is in fact an assignment to  ’  (  )  1- ½c(1-  (  ’))/10 < 1- ½c(20  /c)/10= 1- 

11 Notations Def: For a 3SAT formula  over Boolean variables Z, Let Z k be the set of all k-sequences of  ’s variables Let Z k be the set of all k-sequences of  ’s variables Let  k be the set of all k-sequences of  ’s clauses Let  k be the set of all k-sequences of  ’s clauses Def: Let Y=Z k and X=  k, and R Y be the set of all assignments to k variables R Y be the set of all assignments to k variables R X be the set of all sat. assignments to k clauses R X be the set of all sat. assignments to k clauses Def: For any set of k variables y  Z k, and a set of k clauses x  k, denote y x  y is a choice of one variable of each clause in x.

12 Parallel SAT Def: for a 3SAT formula  over Boolean variables Z, let par[ , k] be the following 2-var functional SAT par[ , k]’s variables: Y=Z k (one var. for each k z’s) each y‘s range is R Y Y=Z k (one var. for each k z’s) each y‘s range is R Y X  k (one var. for each k  ‘s) each x‘s range is R X X  k (one var. for each k  ‘s) each x‘s range is R X par[ , k] local-tests:  x  y for every y x which accepts if x’s value restricted to y is y’s value [namely, if the assignments are consistent] |R Y |=2 k |R X |=7 k

13 Gap Increases with k Note that if  (  ) = 1 then  (par[ , k]) = 1 On the other hand, if  is not satisfiable: Lemma:  (par[ , k])   (  ) c·k for some c>0 Proof: first note that 1-  (par[ , 1])  (1-  (  ))/3 now, to prove the lemma, apply the Parallel- Repetition lemma [Raz] to par[ , 1]    par[ , 1] In any assignment to  s variables, any unsatisfied clause in  ”induces“ at least 1 (out of corresponding 3) unsatisfied  par[ , 1]  X  Y is NP-hard par[ , k] Gap-3-SAT-7 Gap-3-SAT Parallel repetition lemma

14 Conclusion: Conclusion:  X  Y is NP-hard distinguish between: distinguish between:  A satisfies all   A satisfies all   A satisfies <  p fraction of   A satisfies <  p fraction of  is NP-hard as long as |R x |,|R y |   p -0(1)

15 “Road-Map” for Chapter II “Road-Map” for Chapter II  (  ) =   (  )   LLC-Lemma: LLC-Lemma:    (L  ) = ½+  /2   (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 Long code L L   X  Y is NP-hard

16 Main Theorem Thm: gap-Max-E3-Lin-2(1- , ½+  ) is NP- hard. That is, for every constant 0<  <¼ it is NP- hard to distinguish between the case where  1-  of the equations are satisfiable and the case where  ½+  are. [ It is therefore NP-Hard to approximate Max-E3-Lin-2 to within factor 2-  for any constant 0<  < ¼ ]

17 This bound is tight A random assignment satisfies half of the equations. A random assignment satisfies half of the equations. Deciding whether a set of linear equations have a common solution is in P (Gaussian elimination). Deciding whether a set of linear equations have a common solution is in P (Gaussian elimination).

18 Distributional Assignments Let  be a SAT instance over variables Z of range R. Let  (R) be all distributions over R Def: a distributional-assignment to  is A: Z   (R) Denote by   (  ) the maximum over distributional-assignments A of the average probability for  to be satisfied, if variables` values are chosen according to A Clearly  (  )    (  ). Moreover Prop:  (  )    (  ) LLC-Lemma: LLC-Lemma:    (L  ) = ½+  /2   (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 Long code L L   X  Y is NP-hard

19 Distributional-assignment to  x1x1 x2x2 x3x3 xnxn

20 Restriction and Extension Def: For any y  Y over R Y and x  X over R X s.t  x  y  The natural restriction of an a  R X to R Y is denoted a |y The natural restriction of an a  R X to R Y is denoted a |y The elevation of a subset F  P[R Y ] to R X is the subset F *  P[R X ] of all members a of R X for which  x  y (a)  F F* = { a | a |y  F } The elevation of a subset F  P[R Y ] to R X is the subset F *  P[R X ] of all members a of R X for which  x  y (a)  F F* = { a | a |y  F }

21 Long-Code In the long-code the set of legal-words consists of all monotone dictatorships This is the most extensive binary code, as its bits represent all possible binary values over n elements LLC-Lemma: LLC-Lemma:    (L  ) = ½+  /2   (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 Long code LL  X  Y is NP-hard

22 Long-Code Encoding an element e  [n] : Encoding an element e  [n] : E e legally-encodes an element e if E e = f e E e legally-encodes an element e if E e = f e F F F F T T T T T T

23 Long-Code over Range R BP[R]  the set of all subsets of R of size ≤½|R| Our long-code: in our context there’re two types of domains “R”: R x and R y. Our long-code: in our context there’re two types of domains “R”: R x and R y. Def: an R-long-code has 1 bit for each F  BP[R] Def: a legal-long-code-word encoding an element e  R, is E R e : BP[R]  {-1, 1} that assigns the Boolean value e  F to every subset F  BP[R] |BP[R]| = 2 |R|-1 -1

24 Linearity of a Legal-Encoding An assignment A : BP[R]  {-1,1}, if legal, is a linear-function, i.e.,  F, G  BP[R]: A(F)  A(G)  A(F  G) Unfortunately, any character is linear as well

25 The Variables of L Consider  (  x  y  ) with small constant  p (to be fixed later) L  has 2 types of variables: 1. a variable z[y,F] for every variable y of  and a subset F  BP[R Y ] 2. a variable z[x,F] for every variable x of  and a subset F  BP[R X ] LLC-Lemma: LLC-Lemma:    (L  ) = ½+  /2   (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 Long code LL  X  Y is NP-hard

26 The Distribution   Def: denote by   the distribution over all subset of R x, which assigns probability to a subset H as follows: Independently, for each a  R x, let a  H with probability  a  H with probability  a  H with probability 1-  a  H with probability 1-  H One should think of   as a multiset of subsets in which every subset H appears with the appropriate probability

27 Linear equation L  ‘s linear-equations are the union, over all  x  y  par[ ,k], of:   x  y, F, G, H there’s a test z[y, F] + z[x, G] = z[x, F *  G  H ] (mod 2) ‘F*  G  H’ symmetric difference FS C GH ‘F*  G  H’ is the symmetric difference of the extension of F to S C, G and Hextension

28 Revised Representation Multiplicative Representation: True  -1 True  -1 False  1 False  1 L: L: z[X,*], z[Y,*]  {-1, 1} z[X,*], z[Y,*]  {-1, 1} z[X, F] z[Y, G] z[X, F* G H ] = 1 z[X, F] z[Y, G] z[X, F* G H ] = 1 Representation by Fourier Basis Claim 2  (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 Claim 1 4   2 Claim 3: The expected success of the distributional assignment  on  [C,V]  par[ ,k] is at least 4   2  General Fourier Analysi s facts Multiplicative representatio n 

29 Prop: if  (  ) = 1 then  (L  ) = 1-  Proof: Let A be a satisfying assignment to . Assign all variables of L  according to the legal encoding of A’s values. A linear equation of L , corresponding to X,Y,F,G,H, would be unsatisfied exactly if A(x)  H, which occurs with probability  over the choice of H. LLC-Lemma:  (L  ) = ½+  /2   (  ) > 4  2  = 2  (L) -1  p  p Note: independent of  p ! (Later we define  p small enough). LLC-Lemma: LLC-Lemma:    (L  ) = ½+  /2   (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 L L   X  Y is NP-hard

30 Hardness of approximating Max-E3-Lin-2 Main Theorem: For any constant  >0: gap-Max-E3-Lin-2(1- ,½+  ) is NP- hard. Proof: By proposition  (  ’) = 1   (L  ’ )  1-  proposition

31 Lemma  Main Theorem Prop: Let  be a constant >0 s.t.: (1-  )/(½+  /2)  2-  Set  p 0 s.t.: (1-  )/(½+  /2)  2-  Set  p < 4  3 Then  (  ) < 1   (L  ’ )  ½+  /2  ½+  Proof: Assume, by way of contradiction, that  (L)  ½+  /2 then: 4  3 >  (  ’) c·k   (  ) > 4  2, which implies that  > . Contradiction! of the parallel repetition lemma

32 Long-Code as an inner product space Def: { A : BP[R]  {-1,1} } { A : BP[R]  {-1,1} } is an inner-product space:  A, B  { A : BP[R]  {-1,1} }

33 An Assignment to L  For any variable x of  The set z[x,*] of variables of L  represents the long- code of x Let be the Fourier-Coefficient For any variable x of  The set z[x,*] of variables of L  represents the long- code of x Let be the Fourier-Coefficient For any variable Y of  The set z[Y,*] of variables of L  represent the long- code of y Let be the Fourier-Coefficient For any variable Y of  The set z[Y,*] of variables of L  represent the long- code of y Let be the Fourier-Coefficient

34 The Distributional Assignment Def: Let be a distributional-assignment to  as follows: For any variable x For any variable x Choose a set S  R x with probability, Choose a set S  R x with probability, Uniformly choose a random assignment a  S. Uniformly choose a random assignment a  S. For any variable y For any variable y Choose a set S  R y with probability, Choose a set S  R y with probability, Uniformly choose a random assignment b  S. Uniformly choose a random assignment b  S.

35 Home Assignment Given an assignment to a Longcode A:BP[R]  {-1, 1}, show that for any (constant)  > 0: | {e  R |  (E e, A) > ½ + ½  } |   -2 where  (A 1, A 2 ) is the fraction of bits A 1 and A 2 differ on. Given an assignment to a Longcode A:BP[R]  {-1, 1}, show that for any (constant)  > 0: | {e  R |  (E e, A) > ½ + ½  } |   -2 where  (A 1, A 2 ) is the fraction of bits A 1 and A 2 differ on.

36 What’s Ahead: We would show that ‘s expected success on  x  y  is > 4  2 in two steps: First we show (claim 1) that ‘s success probability, for any  x  y  is claim 1claim 1 Then show (claim 3) that value to be  4  2 claim 3claim 3

37 Claim 1 Claim 1: The success probability of on  x  y  is Proof: That success probability is at least Proof: That success probability is at least and there is at least one b  S s.t. b |y  S’ Multiplicative representation Representation by Fourier Basis Claim 2  (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 4   2 Claim 3: The expected success of the distributional assignment  on  [C,V]  par[ ,k] is at least 4   2  General Fourier Analysis facts Claim 1  go to claim3

38 Lemma’s Proof - Claim 2 (1) Claim 2: Proof: The test accepts iff z[y, F]z[x, G]z[x,F*GH] = 1 By our assumption, this happens with probability  /2+½. Now, according to the definition of the expectation: E  x  y, f, g, h [z[y, F]z[x, G]z[x, F*GH]] = 1( ½ +  /2) + (-1)(1 -( ½ +  /2)) =  Multiplicative representation Representation by Fourier Basis  (par[ ,k]) > 4  2 Claim 1 4   2 Claim 3: The expected success of the distributional assignment  on  [C,V]  par[ ,k] is at least 4   2  General Fourier Analysi s facts Claim 2  go to claim3

39 Lemma’s Proof - Proposition

40 Lemma’s Proof - Claim 3 Claim 3: The expected success of the distributional assignment on  x  y  is at least 4  2 Proof: Claim 1 gives us the initial lower bound for the expected success: Claim 1Claim 1

41 Lemma’s Proof - Claim 3 As we’ve already seen,. Hence, our lower-bound takes the form of seen Or alternatively, Which allows us to use the known inequality E[x 2 ]  E[x] 2 and get known

42 Lemma’s Proof - Claim 3 By auxiliary lemmas (4  |S|) -1/2  e -2  |S|  (1-2  ) |S|, i.e. |S| -1/2  (4  ) 1/2 ·(1-2  ) |S|, which yields the following bound auxiliary lemmas auxiliary lemmas That is, Now applying claim 2 results the desired lower bound claim 2claim 2

43 Lemma’s Proof -Conclusion We showed that there is an assignment scheme with expected success of at least 4  2,  There exists an assignment that satisfies at least 4  2 of the tests in    (  ) > 4  2 Q.E.D.

44 Home Assignment Show it is NP-hard, for any  > 0, given a 3SAT instance , to distinguish between the case where  (  ) = 1, and the case in which  (  ) 0, given a 3SAT instance , to distinguish between the case where  (  ) = 1, and the case in which  (  ) < 7/8+  Hint: Let  ’s variables be as in L , and  ’s clauses to take the form f OR g OR ‘f* + g + h’ for f and g chosen in the same way as in L , while h is chosen as follows: h(b) = 1 for b such that f(b |V ) and g(b) are both FALSE h(b) = 1 for b such that f(b |V ) and g(b) are both FALSE For all other b’s, independently for each b, h(b)=1 with probability , and 0 with probability 1-  For all other b’s, independently for each b, h(b)=1 with probability , and 0 with probability 1- 