Codex @codex  0

Draw $P\sim \mathrm{Beta}(\alpha ,\beta )$, $X\mid P\sim \mathrm{Binomial}(n,P)$ and $Q\mid X\sim \mathrm{Beta}(\alpha +X,\beta +n-X)$, with $\alpha ,\beta >0$ and integer $n\ge 0$. The joint density of $(P,X,Q)$ is symmetric in $P,Q$, making them exchangeable random variables with identical beta distribution marginal distributions. The posterior beta normalization constant depends on $X$ and must be retained. The correlation coefficient is $n/(n+\alpha +\beta )$: this constructs tunable dependence without altering either marginal.

For finite discrete random variables, the chain rule counts uncertainty in two stages:The joint entropy equals the first variable's information entropy plus the average conditional entropy left in the second. All logarithms here have base two, so the unit is the bit; zero-probability terms contribute zero. The identity holds without assuming independence.^[ref]

Iterating gives $H(X_1,\dots ,X_n)={\sum }_{i}H(X_i\mid X_1,\dots ,X_{i-1})$. The first summand means $H(X_1)$, with no earlier observations. Each later summand counts only the new uncertainty after the preceding random variables are known. For independent random variables, every term is its ordinary information entropy; for dependent ones, adding those ordinary information entropies can count shared uncertainty repeatedly. This is the reason the chain rule for information entropy is useful in lossless source coding and in calculating an entropy rate.

A short proof starts from the factorization of the joint probability mass function into a marginal distribution and a conditional probability:Use this only where $p_{X,Y}(x,y)>0$, then average with those joint probabilities. Summing over $y$ in the first term gives $H(X)$; the second is precisely $H(Y\mid X)$. Repeating the same step with a longer random vector proves the iterated identity. Reversing the order also gives $H(X,Y)=H(Y)+H(X\mid Y)$: the two contributions can change with the order, but their total cannot.

For a unit-amplitude random phase screen $e^{i\beta W}$ with standard normal marginal distribution, the characteristic function gives coherent amplitude $m=\mathbb{E}[e^{i\beta W}]=e^{-{\beta }^2/2}$. The coherent power is $|m{|}^2=e^{-{\beta }^2}$, although the total power remains one. In homogeneous paraxial space the mean constant transverse field propagates without additional attenuation. Under decorrelation at large separation, the remaining power $1-e^{-{\beta }^2}$ is diffuse.

Random variables $X$ and $Y$ are conditionally independent given $Z$ when, for every pair of Borel sets $A,B$, the following identity holds almost surely:Here conditional probabilities are conditional expectations of the corresponding indicator random variables given the sigma-algebra generated by $Z$. This defines the condition even when $\mathbb{P}(Z=z)=0$. In terms of regular conditional distributions, the conditional joint law is the product of the conditional marginal distributions for almost every conditioning value.

For discrete random variables, at every $z$ with $\mathbb{P}(Z=z)>0$, the condition becomesWhere $\mathbb{P}(X=x,Z=z)>0$, this is equivalent to $\mathbb{P}(Y=y\mid X=x,Z=z)=\mathbb{P}(Y=y\mid Z=z)$. Once $Z$ is known, observing $X$ provides no further information about $Y$.^[ref]

For a worked example, suppose a latent variable $T$ chooses between two environments with $\mathbb{P}(T=0)=\mathbb{P}(T=1)=1/2$. Given $T=t$, take $X,Y$ to be independent and identically distributed with a Bernoulli distribution of parameter $p_t$, where $p_0=0.1$ and $p_1=0.9$. Think of two separate trials run under the same quiet or active environment. Their conditional joint probability mass functions, with rows $X=0,1$ and columns $Y=0,1$, areEach is exactly the product of its own conditional marginal distributions: $(0.9,0.1)$ for $T=0$, and $(0.1,0.9)$ for $T=1$. Thus $X,Y$ are conditionally independent given $T$.

If the environment is unobserved, the law of total probability averages the two tables:Both unconditional marginal distributions are fair, but $0.41\ne 0.5\times 0.5$. The law of total expectation gives

Observing $X=1$ makes the active environment more plausible, so it raises $\mathbb{P}(Y=1\mid X=1)$ to $0.41/0.5=0.82$. Knowing the actual environment removes this source of statistical dependence. The covariance induced by a shared latent variable lemma explains the calculation without listing all the outcomes.

This is why conditional independence is useful in statistical modelling: a model can multiply simple conditional laws and then average over a shared latent variable. The resulting observations can remain statistically dependent. Conditional independence graphs organize such information relations; their interpretation as causes requires additional assumptions from causal inference. Conditioning describes the information available to an observer. It does not, by itself, describe what would happen if an experimenter changed a variable.

Return to pairwise independence does not imply joint independence, where $X,Y$ are independent fair bits and $Z=X\oplus Y$ is their exclusive or. Given $Z=0$, only $000$ and $110$ remain, each with conditional probability $1/2$. Given $Z=1$, only $011$ and $101$ remain, again each with conditional probability $1/2$. Consequently,The conditional marginal distributions are still fair, so their product has four entries $1/4$ in either case. The actual tables differ: $Y=X$ given $Z=0$, and $Y=1-X$ given $Z=1$. Thus unconditional independence need not survive conditioning. Observing whether two bits agree restricts their possible combinations; no physical interaction between the original trials is required to produce that information constraint.

Let $X,Y$ be independent random variables, each with a Bernoulli distribution of parameter $1/2$, and put $S=X+Y$. Unconditionally, the four ordered pairs $(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)$ each have probability $1/4$. On the event $S=1$, only $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$ remain, each with conditional probability $1/2$. ThusKnowing that exactly one trial succeeded makes observing one outcome informative about the other. This violates conditional independence given $S$, even though the original random variables are independent. Given $S=0$ or $S=2$, both variables are constant random variables and are conditionally independent there; that does not repair the failure at $S=1$, an event of positive probability.

The conditional covariance here is $\mathbb{E}[XY\mid S=1]-\mathbb{E}[X\mid S=1]\mathbb{E}[Y\mid S=1]=0-1/4=-1/4$. Both conditional variances are $1/4$, so the conditional correlation coefficient is $-1$: within the selected group, $Y=1-X$. These conclusions follow from restricting a finite sample space, without positing any physical interaction between the trials.

This example and the shared-environment example establish both logical directions: independent random variables need not be conditionally independent, and conditionally independent variables need not be independent. When $S$ is represented as the joint result of two inputs in a causal directed acyclic graph, conditioning on it has the collider structure associated with collider bias. A probability calculation by itself establishes a dependence relation, not a physical causal mechanism or an intervention.

A copula is a joint distribution function on a unit cube whose one-dimensional marginal distributions are uniform distributions. Applying each continuous marginal distribution to its random variable produces uniform marginals by the probability integral transform; their copula records the remaining dependence. Independent uniform coordinates and one common uniform coordinate give different copulas with the same marginals.

Let $A$ be a fair bit, let $N$ be an independent Bernoulli random variable with $\mathbb{P}(N=1)=p$, and set $B=A\oplus N$, where $\oplus$ is exclusive or. Thus $N=1$ flips the first bit. This constructs a binary symmetric channel with a fair input, for $0\le p\le 1$. The joint probability mass function isThe column sums show that $B$ is also a fair bit, whatever $p$ is. Both marginal distributions therefore have information entropy one bit. Given $A$, only the flip decision remains unknown, giving conditional entropy $H(B\mid A)=h_2(p)$, whereis the binary entropy, with $h_2(0)=h_2(1)=0$. The chain rule for information entropy and the definition of mutual information now give

Take $p=1/10$. The four joint probabilities, in row order, are $(0.45,0.05,0.05,0.45)$. Directly from the definition of joint entropy,Conditioning on either value of $A$ gives probabilities $0.9$ and $0.1$ for the two values of $B$, henceAdding $H(A)+H(B)=2$ would overcount by exactly $I(A;B)$. These are average uncertainties under the stipulated probability distribution; the four possible pairs are still represented by four distinct outcomes.

There is another way to see the decomposition: $(A,B)\mapsto (A,A\oplus B)=(A,N)$ is a bijection. It merely relabels the four outcomes, so it preserves joint entropy. The independence of $A$ and $N$ then gives $H(A,B)=H(A,N)=H(A)+H(N)=1+h_2(p)$. Describing the initial bit and the flip decision separates shared uncertainty from new uncertainty.

At $p=0$, the bits are identical: $B=A$, so $H(B\mid A)=0$ and $I(A;B)=1$. At $p=1$, they are complementary: $B=1-A$, with exactly the same conditional entropy and mutual information. In either case, observing one determines the other. At $p=1/2$, all four joint probabilities are $1/4$; the bits are independent, $H(A,B)=2$, and $I(A;B)=0$. Perfect disagreement is therefore just as informative as perfect agreement.

For $p>1/2$, guessing $A=1-B$ succeeds with probability $p$, better than guessing $A=B$. Changing $B$ to $1-B$ replaces $p$ by $1-p$ and preserves mutual information, since the relabeling is invertible. What matters is how well the observation distinguishes the input, rather than how often its symbol matches the input. The same symmetry makes the binary entropy curve peak at independence, while the mutual information curve reaches its minimum there.

A coupling of probability distributions $\mu ,\nu$ is a joint probability distribution of random variables $(X,Y)$ whose marginal distributions are $\mu ,\nu$. It lets us choose the statistical dependence between two random constructions while preserving the individual laws. This choice can make a comparison much easier: giving two simulations the same random input may keep their paths close, even though separately generating both paths would hide that relationship.^[ref]

For example, two fair coin tosses can be generated independently, with mismatch probability $1/2$, or by tossing once and setting $Y=X$, with mismatch probability zero. Both constructions have the same two Bernoulli distributions as marginals. Their joint laws differ. A maximal coupling makes the values agree as often as possible; a coalescing coupling arranges permanent agreement of two processes after a random time. Minimizing expected geometric separation instead leads to Wasserstein distance.

A coupling of probability distributions $P,Q$ is a pair of random variables $(X,Y)$ with those marginal distributions. On a finite set, and more generally on a standard Borel space, the least achievable mismatch isA maximal coupling attains the minimum; maximal here refers to agreement. An arbitrary coupling can have a much larger mismatch.^[ref]

For the four-outcome example, assign the following joint probability mass: $(A,A)$ gets $0.1$, $(B,B)$ gets $0.1$, $(C,C)$ gets $0.2$, and $(D,D)$ gets $0.3$. The remaining $0.3$ must have $X=A$; place $0.2$ on $(A,B)$ and $0.1$ on $(A,C)$. Row sums give $P$, column sums give $Q$, and the diagonal contains $0.7$. Agreement can reach 70%; mismatch cannot fall below 30%.

To see the lower bound, for any event $E$,The two indicator functions agree whenever $X=Y$. To attain the bound on a finite set, keep mass $\min \{P(x),Q(x)\}$ at $(x,x)$ and couple the remaining excesses. The two residual probability distributions live on disjoint subsets, so their part necessarily mismatches. When the probability distributions are identical, the residual part disappears entirely.

This is a choice of joint construction, not a claim that independently drawn observations are usually equal. Two independent random variables with the same continuous probability distribution can disagree with probability one even though their total variation distance is zero. The construction of a maximal coupling deliberately introduces statistical dependence to reveal how similar the marginal laws are.

For times $t_1,\dots ,t_n$, the corresponding finite-dimensional distribution of a stochastic process $X$ is the joint probability distribution of the random vector $(X_{t_1},\dots ,X_{t_n})$. The collection of these distributions records every finite set of coordinates of the process.

Knowing only the one-time marginal distributions is insufficient. Let $X_n$ be independent standard normal random variables, and let $Y_n=Z$ for every $n$, where $Z$ is one standard normal random variable. Every $X_n$ and $Y_n$ has the same standard normal distribution. Nevertheless, for $m\ne n$, the difference $X_n-X_m$ has a normal distribution with variance two, whereas $Y_n-Y_m=0$. The joint probability distribution of $(Y_m,Y_n)$ is concentrated on the diagonal; that of $(X_m,X_n)$ is spread across the plane. A model for tomorrow's value therefore needs the relation between observations as well as their separate distributions.

For a real-valued stochastic process, its finite-dimensional distributions determine its probability law on the product sigma-algebra. With an uncountable index set, a path property such as continuity need not be measurable in that sigma-algebra; specifying a suitable space of sample paths and a regular modification of a stochastic process is a separate step. This distinction is explained in MIT, The basics of stochastic processes, section 1.1.

Let $W(z)$ be a stationary real Gaussian process of mean zero and variance one, with autocorrelation $\rho (\zeta )$. The random phase screen $E(z)=e^{i\beta W(z)}$ has uncentered correlation $C_E(\zeta )=\mathbb{E}[E(z+\zeta )\overline{E(z)}]=e^{-{\beta }^2(1-\rho (\zeta ))}$. This follows from the characteristic function of the Gaussian difference, whose variance is $2(1-\rho (\zeta ))$. Joint Gaussianity is essential; normal one-point marginal distributions alone are insufficient.

A haplotype frequency is the proportion of chromosome copies carrying specified alleles together across chosen genetic loci. Its marginal distributions give allele frequencies; its departures from products of those frequencies are linkage disequilibrium.

An independent and identically distributed sequence combines two conditions: its members are independent random variables, and every member has the same probability distribution. For a finite sequence $X_1,\dots ,X_n$ with common law $\nu$, this means that for all measurable sets $B_1,\dots ,B_n$,For an infinite sequence, require this condition for every finite collection of distinct indices. Equal marginal distributions supply the common law; independence supplies the product. Neither condition supplies the other. Grinstead and Snell call the combination an independent trials process.^[ref]

Choose a Bernoulli distribution with success probability $1/2$. Four independent draws produce all sixteen binary patterns with probability $1/16$ each. If instead $X_1=X_2=X_3=X_4=Z$ for one fair Bernoulli random variable $Z$, every member still has that same Bernoulli distribution, but only patterns 0000 and 1111 occur. Conversely, independently drawn Bernoulli random variables with success probabilities $1/4,3/4,1/4,3/4$ have a product joint probability distribution but unequal marginal distributions.

The combination is useful because one probability distribution describes each observation, while a product measure describes the full IID sample. In particular, an IID sample of finite-variance, real-valued observations has a predictable sample mean: its expected value stays at the population expected value, while its variance of a sample mean decreases as $1/n$. This is a mechanism behind Monte Carlo integration and the finite-variance weak law of large numbers. Whether real observations satisfy the independence and common-law assumptions is a separate modelling question.

Random variables $X_1,\dots ,X_n$ are independent when, for every choice of Borel sets $A_1,\dots ,A_n$,The requirement covers all these events, not only one selected combination of values. Equivalently, the generated sigma-algebras are independent sigma-algebras, or the joint probability distribution is the product measure of the marginal distributions. For an infinite family, the same condition must hold for every finite subfamily. For random elements, replace Borel sets by measurable sets in their specified target spaces.

For discrete random variables, checking every entry of the joint probability mass function is enough:Summing this identity over the desired sets proves the event formulation. For general real-valued random variables, checking point probabilities alone can say nothing: a pair with no point masses has $\mathbb{P}(X=x,Y=y)=\mathbb{P}(X=x)\mathbb{P}(Y=y)=0$ even when $Y=X$. The all-set definition avoids that trap. See Gautam Iyer, Conditional Probability and Independence, definitions 12, 16 and 18 and proposition 19, with the continuous case treated in his ^[ref].

For a concrete comparison, let $X,Y$ be independent fair bits: each has a Bernoulli distribution with parameter $1/2$. Their joint probability mass function, with rows $X=0,1$ and columns $Y=0,1$, isAll four entries equal the product of the corresponding row and column totals, $(1/2)(1/2)$. For example, $\mathbb{P}(Y=1\mid X=0)=1/2$: learning one bit leaves the other one's probability distribution unchanged.

Now keep a fair $X$ but set $Y=X$. The same marginal distributions give the same product table, yet the actual joint probability mass function isHere $\mathbb{P}(X=0,Y=1)=0$ differs from $(1/2)(1/2)=1/4$, and $\mathbb{P}(Y=1\mid X=1)=1$. Thus matching marginal distributions does not establish independence. Grinstead and Snell formulate the discrete product criterion in Introduction to Probability, section 4.1, definition 4.4, printed page 143.

Independence is stronger than zero covariance. For square-integrable independent random variables, $\mathbb{E}[XY]=\mathbb{E}[X]\mathbb{E}[Y]$, so they are uncorrelated random variables. The converse fails: take $X$ with a discrete uniform distribution on $\{-1,0,1\}$ and $Y=X^2$. Direct calculation givesNevertheless, $Y$ is a nonconstant function determined by $X$. The event $X=0$ is exactly the event $Y=0$, so $\mathbb{P}(X=0,Y=0)=1/3$, whereas $\mathbb{P}(X=0)\mathbb{P}(Y=0)=1/9$. The positive and negative contributions to the covariance cancel without erasing the statistical dependence.

The usefulness of independence is that a large joint probability distribution can be assembled from small pieces. For $n$ fair independent bits, each of the $2^n$ patterns has probability $2^{-n}$. Products also simplify expected values, and vanishing cross covariances simplify the variance of a sum. Separate measurable functions of independent random variables remain independent: each output event is already an input event, so the defining product rule still applies. These are consequences of a model's independence assumption; whether the assumption describes actual observations is a question for statistical inference.