ML Interview Q Series: Proving Independence of Complement Events Using Probability Rules
Browse all the Probability Interview Questions here.
Let A and B be independent events. Denote by the events A^c and B^c the complements of the events A and B. Verify that the events A and B^c are independent. Conclude directly from this result that the events A^c and B^c are also independent.
Short Compact solution
Since A can be written as the union of AB and AB^c, and these two events are disjoint, we have P(A) = P(AB) + P(AB^c). Because A and B are independent, it follows that P(AB) = P(A)P(B). Therefore,
P(A) = P(A)P(B) + P(AB^c),
so rearranging shows
P(AB^c) = P(A)P(B^c),
which proves that A and B^c are independent. By symmetry, if we swap the roles of B^c and A in the same argument, we obtain that B^c and A^c are also independent.
Comprehensive Explanation
Independence of two events X and Y means that P(XY) = P(X)P(Y), where XY denotes the intersection of X and Y. In this question, we start by knowing that A and B are independent, so we have:
P(AB) = P(A) P(B).
To show that A and B^c are independent, we look at P(AB^c). Notice that A can be decomposed into two disjoint parts: A intersected with B and A intersected with B^c. Formally, A = (AB) ∪ (AB^c). Since they are disjoint, we have:
A = AB ∪ AB^c implies P(A) = P(AB) + P(AB^c).
Using the independence of A and B, we substitute P(AB) = P(A)P(B) into the above:
P(A) = P(A)P(B) + P(AB^c).
Rearranging,
Hence, by definition, A and B^c are independent because P(AB^c) = P(A)P(B^c).
Next, to argue that A^c and B^c are independent, we can use a symmetry argument. If we let B^c play the role of A and A play the role of B in the same reasoning, we conclude:
P(A^c B^c) = P(A^c) P(B^c),
thus verifying that A^c and B^c must also be independent.
From a deeper perspective, whenever two events are independent, each event is also independent of the complement of the other. This symmetry is rooted in the fact that the probability measure satisfies P(A^c) = 1 - P(A), and independence relationships naturally carry over under such complement transformations, as shown in the manipulations above.
Follow-up Question 1
How does this result extend to more than two events? In other words, if you have multiple events that are pairwise independent, can you say anything about their complements?
The extension of the idea to multiple events requires caution. Pairwise independence among several events A, B, C, etc. does not necessarily imply that all complements will share the same multi-event independence relationships. For instance, while it is straightforward to see that if A and B are independent, then A and B^c are also independent, and similarly B and A^c are also independent, with three or more events, “mutual” or “joint” independence among all subsets can become tricky. In summary, the result that “A and B are independent implies A and B^c are independent” generalizes to pairwise relationships, but one must check each subset carefully if one wants to assert full independence across multiple events and their complements.
Follow-up Question 2
What if one of the events has probability 0 or 1? Does the statement still hold?
If P(A) = 0, then A never occurs, and P(A)P(B^c) = 0 for any B^c. This is consistent with P(AB^c) = 0 as well, so independence trivially holds in such degenerate cases. Likewise, if P(A) = 1, then A^c has probability 0, so again things collapse in a trivial manner, and independence holds as well. The statement still remains valid, though it might be less informative in these edge cases because the events become certain or impossible.
Follow-up Question 3
How does this relate to random variables, and what does independence of events translate to in the language of random variables?
If you have random variables X and Y, saying that events A and B are independent is equivalent to saying that the indicator random variables 1_A and 1_B are independent. The event A might correspond to { X in some subset of values }, and B might correspond to { Y in some subset of values }. The condition that A^c and B^c are independent translates to the complement events { X not in that subset } and { Y not in that subset } also having their product of probabilities match the probability of their intersection. In practice, this conceptual view is crucial in designing algorithms for machine learning, especially when certain variables or their complements should not influence one another under the assumptions of a model.
Follow-up Question 4
Why is this property (that independence of A and B implies independence of A and B^c, and also A^c and B^c) important in ML applications?
Many machine learning algorithms, especially Bayesian classifiers and probabilistic graphical models, rely on assumptions of independence or conditional independence for efficient computation. For instance, when certain features are declared independent of each other’s complements, we can simplify computations in naive Bayes classifiers. In more general settings, independence assumptions about complements might also be useful for bounding probabilities of misclassification, analyzing generalization bounds, and simplifying partition functions in probabilistic models. Ensuring that independence holds even when events are replaced by their complements can preserve model consistency and interpretability in real-world applications.
Below are additional follow-up questions
Follow-up Question 1
What if events A and B are not just independent, but one is a subset of the other? Does that change or trivialize their relationship with complements?
Answer If A is a subset of B (meaning A implies B), then A and B are still independent only if either P(A) = 0 or P(B) = 1. Why? Because if A ⊆ B and both events are nontrivial (i.e. neither has probability 0 nor 1), then P(AB) = P(A) rather than P(A)P(B). For genuine independence, we require P(AB) = P(A)P(B). Thus, a nontrivial subset relationship generally breaks independence.
In the trivial scenario where A has probability 0, independence is automatically satisfied for any B because P(A) = 0 implies P(AB) = 0 = P(A)P(B). Similarly, if B has probability 1, then P(B^c) = 0 and it also leads to trivial independence in many ways.
If A ⊆ B but probabilities are non-zero and less than 1, then A, B cannot be truly independent. This also impacts complements: for instance, B^c automatically implies A^c. The independence calculations can degenerate (often P(AB^c) = 0 if A is a subset of B). This indicates that subset relationships typically invalidate standard independence except in these degenerate edge cases.
Follow-up Question 2
In a continuous probability space setting (e.g., probabilities over real-valued random variables), does the statement “A and B are independent implies A^c and B^c are independent” change when dealing with events of measure zero?
Answer Measure zero events often introduce subtleties but do not fundamentally invalidate the statement about independence carrying over to complements. Even in a continuous setting, independence is defined measure-theoretically: for events A and B to be independent, we require P(AB) = P(A)P(B). If an event (or its complement) has measure zero (P(A) = 0 or P(A) = 1), the argument for independence effectively becomes trivial.
Specifically, if P(A) = 0, then P(A B^c) = 0 = 0 * P(B^c), so independence of A and B^c automatically holds. The same logic applies if P(A) = 1.
In continuous domains, you might also deal with events that are “almost sure” or “almost never” events (probability 1 or 0). The independence property, including the independence of complements, still holds but can look trivial from a measure-theoretic perspective. Hence, measure-zero considerations do not break the underlying logic; they merely make certain independence relationships degenerate in real-world terms.
Follow-up Question 3
If A, B are independent, how can this property be used in constructing or verifying the correctness of certain probabilistic graphical models (e.g., Bayesian networks)?
Answer In a Bayesian network (a directed acyclic graph where nodes represent random variables and edges represent conditional dependencies), the assumption of independence between certain random variables simplifies the factorization of the joint distribution. If A and B are independent, then we do not need an edge directly connecting the corresponding nodes (assuming no other conditional paths enforce a dependency). This independence also implies that in the conditional probability tables (CPTs), the value of one variable does not affect the probabilities of the other.
Independence of complements (A^c and B^c) further implies that “not A” does not provide additional information about “not B.” In practice, this can reduce the size of conditional probability tables because you can omit or unify states in a CPT.
A pitfall arises if the model incorrectly encodes certain independence assumptions without verifying them in real data. This can lead to incorrect inferences because the network’s factorization might not match the true dependency structure.
Follow-up Question 4
How does independence of events and their complements relate to correlation in statistical terms? Can zero correlation alone guarantee independence?
Answer Correlation (in the sense of Pearson correlation) being zero only guarantees no linear relationship between two variables. For events specifically viewed as Bernoulli random variables (i.e., indicator variables 1_A, 1_B), zero correlation does happen to imply independence because for Bernoulli variables, the Pearson correlation formula collapses to a function of P(A), P(B), and P(AB). However, for general continuous variables, zero correlation does not imply independence.
When dealing with complements, 1_A^c = 1 - 1_A and 1_B^c = 1 - 1_B. A naive assumption that zero correlation of 1_A and 1_B translates to independence might fail if the random variables can exhibit higher-order dependencies not captured by correlation. In the binary case, the relationship is more straightforward, but in continuous scenarios or more complex distributions, zero correlation is insufficient to conclude independence across all transformations or complements.
Follow-up Question 5
If you suspect events A, B are not independent, is there a straightforward test to check their independence, as well as the independence of A^c and B^c?
Answer For two events A and B in a probability space, the direct test is to compute P(AB) and compare it with P(A)P(B). They are independent if and only if P(AB) = P(A)P(B). Once that is done, you can verify P(AB^c) and check against P(A)P(B^c) to see if that also holds.
Practically, if you have empirical data, you count the relative frequency of A, B, and AB occurrences. Then estimate P(A) = freq(A)/N, P(B) = freq(B)/N, and P(AB) = freq(AB)/N. Compare P(A)P(B) with P(AB). If they differ outside some small sampling error bounds, A and B are not independent.
A potential pitfall is small sample sizes: sampling noise can mask or fabricate apparent independence. You might need confidence intervals around your empirical estimates to determine if any deviation from P(A)P(B) is statistically significant.
Follow-up Question 6
Do statements like “A is independent of B” carry over when conditioning on a third event C? And do these results regarding complements hold in conditional independence scenarios?
Answer Conditional independence of A and B given C means P(AB | C) = P(A | C) P(B | C). Unconditional independence (P(AB) = P(A) P(B)) does not automatically imply conditional independence once we restrict to C. Similarly, independence of complements A^c and B^c in the unconditional sense may not persist under conditioning.
For instance, it is possible that A and B have no direct dependence overall, but within the subset C, knowledge of A might strongly influence B. This is typical in confounding scenarios where an unobserved variable is introduced.
Independence of complements also breaks down when conditioning if the conditioning event shares some overlap with the complements in a way that introduces or removes dependencies. Real-world ML models must be carefully designed to account for conditional (in)dependencies, especially in hierarchical or multi-level structures.
Follow-up Question 7
Are there any pitfalls in assuming “independence of A and B” in real-world data science applications, especially regarding data collection or domain shift?
Answer Yes, multiple pitfalls arise in practice:
Sampling Bias: If your dataset is collected in a biased manner, events that appear independent under the sampled distribution might not be independent in the true population.
Domain Shift: The environment in which data was gathered might differ from the deployment environment. Even if A and B are independent in the training set, a shift in external conditions might make them dependent in real use.
Latent Variables: There could be unobserved factors that create a hidden correlation. A and B might look independent until you consider some latent variable that ties them together. Once discovered, you realize the independence assumption fails.
Overfitting: If you use a small dataset or have high-dimensional data, random fluctuations might misleadingly suggest independence, when in fact there’s an underlying relationship that larger data or different features would reveal.
Follow-up Question 8
How is the independence of events A and B extended or limited in the setting of repeated trials, such as in Bernoulli processes or Markov chains?
Answer
Bernoulli Process: If you have a Bernoulli process with repeated independent trials, each trial event A_i is independent of all others A_j, j ≠ i. For complements, (A_i)^c is also independent of (A_j)^c for i ≠ j. However, you must verify that the process truly satisfies the memoryless property (in terms of the events themselves) and that no external factor ties the trials together.
Markov Chain: In a Markov chain, the event “state at time t is s” typically depends on the state at time t-1, making consecutive events not independent. Even if you see a single pair of states that might appear uncorrelated, knowledge of the previous states can break that independence. In such a process, events are usually only conditionally independent given the immediate past state. So unconditional independence rarely holds for consecutive events in a Markov chain, except under special stationarity or transition structures. Pitfalls include mislabeling a Markov chain as a Bernoulli process, which can lead to incorrect assumptions about independence and can invalidate subsequent inferences about complements.
Follow-up Question 9
What are some practical examples in machine learning where independence assumptions about events and their complements are explicitly used?
Answer
Naive Bayes Classifier: This classifier assumes feature independence given the class label. It also implicitly assumes that the presence (or absence) of certain feature values is independent of the presence (or absence) of others, which ties directly to complement-based independence.
Dropout in Neural Networks: While not exactly “independence of events” in the probability sense, dropout samples neurons with a certain probability p. The success/failure of each neuron (to be dropped or not) is often assumed independent across the network. The complement event “not dropped” is also treated as independent across neurons.
Sparse Coding / Feature Selection: Sometimes models assume that the occurrence of certain basis functions or features is independent or that the distribution of active vs. inactive features is factorized. The complement event “feature not active” is often equally assumed to be independent.
Probabilistic Feature Attribution: In some interpretability frameworks, the contribution of a feature is computed assuming that the event “feature is included” is independent from “other features not included.” This helps simplify the attribution calculation but can be an oversimplification if hidden correlations exist.