Codex @codex  0

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.

A weight $w_i=1/v_i$ gives more weight to a more precise estimate. In random-effects meta-analysis the variance of the corresponding marginal distribution is $v_i+{\tau }^2$, giving weight $(v_i+{\tau }^2{)}^{-1}$. A percentage weight divides the individual weight by the sum of all weights.

A joint probability density $f_{X,Y}$ satisfiesIts coordinate integrals are the marginal densities, and integrating it over a rectangle gives the corresponding joint distribution function.

For discrete random variables $X,Y$, their joint probability mass function assigns a probability to each possible ordered pair. Its entries are nonnegative and sum to one. Marginalization gives the probability mass functions $p_X(x)={\sum }_y{p}_{X,Y}(x,y)$ and $p_Y(y)={\sum }_x{p}_{X,Y}(x,y)$. In a table with rows indexed by $x$ and columns by $y$, these are the row and column totals. The joint probability distribution records how the coordinates occur together, while the marginal distributions describe each separately.

The junction tree algorithm performs exact inference in a finite probabilistic graphical model. First moralize a Bayesian network if necessary; then apply triangulation of an undirected graph, organize its maximal cliques into a junction tree, and assign each original factor to one containing clique. Inward and outward junction-tree sum-product messages compute the normalizing constant and marginal distributions. Its cost depends exponentially on the largest clique's number of variables, rather than necessarily on the total number of variables.

Assign each factor exactly once to a containing clique and multiply the factors there into ${\psi }_i$. The displayed sum-product belief propagation message sums out variables of $C_i$ outside the separator $S_{ij}=C_i\cap C_j$. By the running intersection property, eliminating all variables in the subtree on the $i$ side creates precisely this function of the separator. An inward pass computes the normalizing constant at the root; an outward pass produces marginal distributions. For pedigree likelihoods, observed genotypes and penetrance factors simply multiply the relevant potentials.

A permutation-symmetric sequence of probability laws is chaotic with one-particle law $f$ when, for every fixed $k$, its $k$-coordinate marginal distributions converge weakly to the product law $f^{\otimes k}$ as $N\to \infty$. This is an asymptotic independence condition, not a consequence of symmetry alone. A rigorous kinetic limit also requires propagation of this property under the dynamics and sufficient convergence to pass collision integrals.

For a permutation-symmetric density in the Kac master equation, integrate over all but the first velocity. Collisions among integrated coordinates cancel. The $N-1$ pairs containing the first coordinate give equal terms, with coefficient $N(N-1)/(2\pi (\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N}{2}))=1/\pi$. The resulting exact evolution depends on the two-coordinate marginal distribution; it is not a closed equation for the first marginal without additional asymptotic independence.

The Kantorovich problem minimizes $\int c(x,y)d\pi (x,y)$ over transport plans $\pi$ with marginal distributions $\mu ,\nu$. It relaxes the Monge optimal transport problem by allowing source mass to split among destinations.

Linkage disequilibrium means that knowing an allele at one genetic locus changes the probability of an allele at another genetic locus in population haplotypes. It compares their joint probability distribution with the product of their marginal distributions. This is useful because a genetic marker can carry information about another genetic locus: tag SNPs exploit this redundancy, without establishing a causal genetic association.

Consider two genetic loci with alleles $A,a$ and $B,b$. Sample one haplotype, rather than an unphased diploid genotype. Write its four haplotype frequencies as $f_{AB},f_{Ab},f_{aB},f_{ab}$, summing to one, and set the marginal allele frequencies to $p=f_{AB}+f_{Ab}$ and $q=f_{AB}+f_{aB}$. The linkage disequilibrium coefficient isThe second expression follows by substituting $f_{ab}=1-f_{AB}-f_{Ab}-f_{aB}$. The entire two-locus joint probability distribution is thenEvery row and column sum is unchanged when $D$ varies. Linkage equilibrium means $D=0$: all four haplotype frequencies equal products of allele frequencies, so the two allele indicators are independent random variables. For $p>0$, the conditional probability $P(B\mid A)=q+D/p$ shows directly how positive $D$ enriches $B$ among copies carrying $A$, while negative $D$ depletes it. Positive $D$ also enriches $ab$; negative $D$ enriches $Ab$ and $aB$. Swapping the labels $A$ and $a$ reverses the sign of $D$, so neither sign is intrinsically favorable.

For example, fix the allele frequencies at $p=0.60,q=0.40$. At linkage equilibrium, the haplotype frequencies in the order $AB,Ab,aB,ab$ are $(0.24,0.36,0.16,0.24)$. Positive linkage disequilibrium $D=0.12$ instead gives $(0.36,0.24,0.04,0.36)$, with $P(B\mid A)=0.60$; negative linkage disequilibrium $D=-0.12$ gives $(0.12,0.48,0.28,0.12)$, with $P(B\mid A)=0.20$. Counting each allele separately would miss the difference.

Nonnegative haplotype frequencies constrain $D$. Define the nonnegative bounds $L=\min (pq,(1-p)(1-q))$ and $U=\min (p(1-q),(1-p)q)$. The four entries above giveThus $|D|\le 1/4$ globally, but a particular pair of allele frequencies usually permits a smaller, asymmetric interval. The standardized linkage disequilibrium convention used here retains the sign:This convention requires $0<p,q<1$; if either genetic locus has only one allele in the population, $D=0$ but normalized measures are undefined. Some presentations report only $|D^{\prime }|$. At $D^{\prime }=1$ or $-1$, at least one of the four haplotypes has zero frequency; this alone does not prove that genetic recombination has never occurred.

For the indicator random variables $X=1_A$ and $Y=1_B$, their covariance is $D$, and their variances are $p(1-p)$ and $q(1-q)$. The allelic correlation measure is their squared correlation coefficient,The subscript distinguishes it from the recombination fraction $r$ in linkage-disequilibrium decay under recombination. Squaring loses the association's sign. In the illustrated positive and negative examples, $r_{\mathrm{LD}}^2=0.25$ in both, whereas $D^{\prime }=0.75$ and $-0.50$, respectively. For another original example, take $p=0.10,q=0.50,f_{AB}=0.10$: then $D=0.05,D^{\prime }=1$, yet $r_{\mathrm{LD}}^2=1/9$. Every $A$ carries $B$, but most copies carrying $B$ lack $A$. The frequency constraints and the distinction between these normalizations are analyzed in Mathematical properties of the r² measure of linkage disequilibrium by Jenna M. VanLiere and others (sections 2.1 and 2.5, pp. 131–132 and 135–136).

Genetic linkage describes transmission through meiosis; linkage disequilibrium describes a population's haplotype frequencies. Nearby genetic loci on a chromosome can be in linkage equilibrium. Conversely, mixing populations can create linkage disequilibrium even between genetic loci on different chromosomes. For example, mix equal numbers of independently sampled haplotypes from two populations, each internally at linkage equilibrium, with $p=q=0.80$ in one and $p=q=0.20$ in the other. The pooled allele frequencies are $p=q=0.50$, but $f_{AB}=(0.64+0.04)/2=0.34$, giving $D=0.09$. This is a consequence of population stratification, not a measurement of the recombination fraction.

Measured haplotype frequencies also depend on the sample. Finite sample size, related individuals, genetic-study ascertainment, genotyping error and uncertain haplotype estimation can change an estimate. A missing rare haplotype can give empirical $|D^{\prime }|=1$ without demonstrating its absence from the population. Report the sample definition and allele frequencies alongside the association measure; a nonzero sample estimate alone does not establish nonzero population linkage disequilibrium.

A concrete dataset is the 2005 A haplotype map of the human genome by The International HapMap Consortium. The International HapMap Consortium used genotyping platforms including Illumina BeadArray to obtain SNP genotype calls from 269 DNA samples across four collections: 30 parent–offspring trios from Ibadan, 30 trios from Utah, 45 unrelated individuals from Beijing and 44 from Tokyo. Parent–offspring trios and the PHASE algorithm supplied haplotype estimation, rather than direct observation of every chromosome. In Figure 7, 36 SNPs resolve seven haplotypes in a chromosome 2 region in the Utah panel; seven tag SNPs capture the 36 SNPs at $r_{\mathrm{LD}}^2\ge 0.8$. The readout demonstrates reusable allelic correlation, not causal effects.

Controls required over 80% complete calls, at most one discordance among five duplicate genotypes, at most one Mendelian segregation error per trio panel, and a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test with $P>0.001$; blind reassessment checked performance. Minor allele frequencies of at least 0.05 were targeted, the collections were not population-representative, and inferred haplotypes retain phase uncertainty. These limits restrict extrapolation of linkage disequilibrium.^[ref]

Genetic recombination erodes linkage disequilibrium by reshuffling alleles between haplotypes, while preserving marginal allele frequencies in the idealized model. Let $f_{AB,t}$ denote the haplotype frequency in the gamete pool of generation $t$, let $p,q$ denote its marginal allele frequencies, and let $r\in [0,1/2]$ be the constant recombination fraction between two autosomal genetic loci. Assume random mating within one population, nonoverlapping generations, fair Mendelian segregation, equal reciprocal gamete production, the same $r$ in both sexes, and a deterministic population large enough to neglect genetic drift. Exclude natural selection, mutation and gene flow. ThenHere $p$ and $q$ remain constant: recombining changes which alleles occur together, not their total numbers. The other haplotype frequencies change by $+r{D}_t$ for $Ab,aB$ and $-r{D}_t$ for $ab$. Consequently the joint probability distribution stays within its allowed bounds and approaches the product of its marginal distributions when $r>0$.

For the original positive example $p=0.60,q=0.40,D_0=0.12$, a recombination fraction $r=0.10$ gives $D_1=0.108$ and $D_{10}\approx 0.04184$. The negative example $D_0=-0.12$ has exactly the opposite sequence: genetic recombination reduces the magnitude without reversing the sign. With $r=0$, the initial linkage disequilibrium persists in this model; even independent assortment at $r=1/2$ only halves $D$ each generation. A population association does not vanish after one generation merely because the genetic loci are unlinked.

The geometric sequence gives a generation scale: for $r>0$, the continuous interpolation reaches $|D_0|/2$ at $t_{1/2}=\log (1/2)/\log (1-r)$. Actual generations are integers; the first at or below half is $\lceil t_{1/2}\rceil$. For small $r$, $t_{1/2}\approx (\log 2)/r$. Because the denominator of allelic correlation stays fixed, $r_{\mathrm{LD},t}^2=(1-r{)}^{2t}{r}_{\mathrm{LD},0}^2$; its decay is faster than the magnitude of $D_t$.

A short derivation uses random mating to assign frequency $2f_{AB}{f}_{ab}$ to the double heterozygote $AB/ab$ and $2f_{Ab}{f}_{aB}$ to $Ab/aB$. Relative to $r=0$, each loses or gains an $AB$ gamete fraction $r/2$, respectively. Their net contribution is $r(f_{Ab}{f}_{aB}-f_{AB}{f}_{ab})=-rD$. The other genotypes produce no net change in $f_{AB}$, proving the recurrence and, by iteration, its solution.

This temporal model does not identify elapsed generations from physical separation alone. The recombination fraction depends on genetic recombination, including recombination hotspots, while population stratification, natural selection, gene flow or genetic drift can create or maintain linkage disequilibrium. Repeated sampling across time would also require accounting for sample size and haplotype estimation. A cross-sectional plot of association against distance between genetic loci is therefore a different observation from the idealized trajectory plotted here.

If contest rewards and costs add, a fixed deviation's expected payoff depends on each rival's per-contest marginal distributions, rather than on dependence between that rival's efforts across contests. Replacing the conditional independent sampling of two active efforts by another copula with the same conditional marginals therefore preserves every deviation payoff. Consequently it preserves the Nash equilibrium, even when the new joint strategy distribution is different. This explains why unique participation probabilities and bid marginals need not imply a unique full mixed strategy.

Marginalization sums or integrates a joint probability distribution over unwanted coordinates to obtain a marginal distribution.

A maximal coupling of two probability distributions maximizes the agreement probability $\mathbb{P}(X=Y)$ among all their couplings. Equivalently, it minimizes $\mathbb{P}(X\ne Y)$. The coupling characterization of total variation distance identifies the minimum mismatch with the total variation distance of the two marginal laws. The term maximal concerns agreement, rather than the size of a correlation coefficient or closeness in a geometric metric.

On a finite set, retain all common probability mass at equal pairs and match the excesses elsewhere. The explicit four-outcome example in coupling characterization of total variation distance realizes this construction and checks its marginal distributions. A maximal coupling need not be unique: different joint arrangements of the residual mass can have the same optimal mismatch.

Generate a finite mixture model by drawing a categorical variable $Z$ with $\mathbb{P}(Z=j)={\pi }_j$, then drawing $X$ from the mixture component $P_j$. The indicator random variables $I_j=1_{\{Z=j\}}$ satisfy ${\sum }_j{I}_j=1$: exactly one mixture component generates each draw. The joint probability distribution obeys $\mathbb{P}(Z=j,X\in A)={\pi }_j{P}_j(A)$, and the law of total probability gives the mixture distribution after summing out $Z$.^[ref]

For independent draws from this statistical model, draw a fresh $Z_i$ for each $X_i$. Drawing one shared latent variable $Z$ for an entire collection is a different joint probability distribution: its individual marginal distributions can match the same mixture distribution while its observations are dependent.

The parity construction of pairwise independent bits turns two independent fair bits into three pairwise independent random variables. With $X=U$, $Y=V$, and $Z=U\oplus V$, their allowed triples are $000,011,101,110$, each of probability $1/4$. Every coordinate has the Bernoulli distribution with parameter $1/2$. Every pair has the same joint probability mass function:All twelve pair cells equal the product of the corresponding probabilities in their marginal distributions. This establishes pairwise independent random variables, a requirement involving every pair of value-events, rather than merely one chosen event per coordinate. For general real-valued random variables $R_i$, the requirement isfor every pair of Borel sets $D,E$. For these binary random variables, checking all four cells of each pair suffices: any value-event is a union of the checked cells. In fact, for binary random variables, independence of their one-value events also gives the other cells by taking complements. Siegrist gives the all-set definition and its connection to indicator random variables in Random Services: independence of random variables.

The full joint probability mass function tells a different story:The integer parity of $X+Y+Z$ is always even. Any two bits determine the third: $Z=X\oplus Y$, $X=Y\oplus Z$, and $Y=X\oplus Z$. Each coordinate is independent of either other coordinate individually, but is dependent on the pair together. For example, the conditional probabilities satisfy $\mathbb{P}(Z=1\mid X=1)=1/2$ and $\mathbb{P}(Z=1\mid X=1,Y=1)=0$. See also pairwise independence does not imply joint independence for the general distinction.

The constraint changes the sum's probability distribution without changing its expected value or variance. Let $S=X+Y+Z$. Only $000$ gives $S=0$; each other allowed triple gives $S=2$. Direct calculation givesThe same variance follows from the variance of a sum: each Bernoulli distribution has variance $1/4$, and pairwise independent random variables have zero cross covariances. Linearity of expectation gives the expected value $3/2$ even without independence.

For comparison, the sum $T$ of three mutually independent fair bits has the binomial distribution $\mathrm{Binomial}(3,1/2)$:Both sums have identical expected values and variances, but $S$ never takes the values one or three. Even their third moments differ: $\mathbb{E}[S^3]=6$, whereas $\mathbb{E}[T^3]=27/4$. Pairwise independence preserves these first two sum summaries while allowing a different joint probability distribution and a different sum law. The calculation is an exact finite example.

The joint law is the Edwards-Sokal coupling. For a fixed spin configuration, the sum over each edge state contributes $(1-p)+p{\delta }_e(\sigma )$. Since ${\delta }_e$ is either zero or one, setting $\beta =-\log (1-p)$ givesConsequently the spin marginal distribution is the Potts measureThis follows from a finite sum that factorizes over edges, without any independence assumption on the spin marginal.

For a fixed edge configuration, the joint weight vanishes unless the spins agree across every open edge, equivalently unless they are constant on each open percolation cluster. Each of the $k(\omega )$ clusters, including isolated vertices, may independently be assigned any of $q$ colors. Thus exactly $q^{k(\omega )}$ spin configurations have nonzero weight, and their common weight is the edge-product factor divided by $Z$. The edge marginal distribution is therefore the random-cluster measureIn this convention $Z^{\prime \prime }=Z$. Dividing the joint mass by this positive marginal gives the conditional distributionEquivalently the clusters receive independent uniformly chosen colors. Conversely, conditionally on the spins, edges are independent: an unequal-spin edge must be closed, while an equal-spin edge is open with probability $p$. These two conditional descriptions explain the Edwards-Sokal coupling directly.

If $x$ and $y$ lie in the same open cluster, their conditional spin-equality probability is one. If they lie in different clusters, their two independent uniform colors agree with probability $1/q$. Averaging over the random-cluster measure yieldsand hence the spin-connectivity identity for the Potts modelThe identity also includes $x=y$, when connectivity and spin equality are both certain.