Convolution is not the easiest operation to understand: it involves functions, sums, and two moving parts.
However, there is an illuminating explanation — with probability theory!
There is a whole new aspect of convolution that you (probably) haven't seen before.
🧵 👇🏽
In machine learning, convolutions are most often applied for images, but to make our job easier, we shall take a step back and go to one dimension.
There, convolution is defined as below.
Now, let's forget about these formulas for a while, and talk about a simple probability distribution: we toss two 6-sided dices and study the resulting values.
To formalize the problem, let 𝑋 and 𝑌 be two random variables, describing the outcome of the first and second toss.
Just for fun, let's also assume that the dices are not fair, and they don't follow a uniform distribution.
The distributions might be completely different.
We only have a single condition: 𝑋 and 𝑌 are independent.
What is the distribution of the sum 𝑋 + 𝑌?
Let's see a simple example. What is the probability that the sum is 4?
That can happen in three ways:
𝑋 = 1 and 𝑌 = 3,
𝑋 = 2 and 𝑌 = 2,
𝑋 = 3 and 𝑌 = 1.
Since 𝑋 and 𝑌 are independent, the joint probability can be calculated by multiplying the individual probabilities together.
Moreover, the three possible ways are disjoint, so the probabilities can be summed up.
In the general case, the formula is the following.
(Don't worry about the index going from minus infinity to infinity. Except for a few terms, all others are zero, so they are eliminated.)
Is it getting familiar?
This is convolution.
We can immediately see this by denoting the individual distributions with 𝑓 and 𝑔.
The same explanation works when the random variables are continuous, or even multidimensional.
Only thing that is required is independence.
Even though images are not probability distributions, this viewpoint helps us make sense of the moving parts and the everyone-with-everyone sum.
If you would like to see an even simpler visualization, just think about this:
No matter the field, you can (almost always) find a small set of mind-numbingly simple ideas making the entire thing work.
In machine learning, the maximum likelihood estimation is one of those.
I'll start with a simple example to illustrate a simple idea.
Pick up a coin and toss it a few times, recording each outcome. The question is, once more, simple: what's the probability of heads?
We can't just immediately assume p = 1/2, that is, a fair coin.
For instance, one side of our coin can be coated with lead, resulting in a bias. To find out, let's perform some statistics! (Rolling up my sleeves, throwing down my gloves.)
The Law of Large Numbers is one of the most frequently misunderstood concepts of probability and statistics.
Just because you lost ten blackjack games in a row, it doesn’t mean that you’ll be more likely to be lucky next time.
What is the law of large numbers, then?
The strength of probability theory lies in its ability to translate complex random phenomena into coin tosses, dice rolls, and other simple experiments.
So, let’s stick with coin tossing. What will the average number of heads be if we toss a coin, say, a thousand times?
To mathematically formalize this question, we’ll need random variables.
Tossing a fair coin is described by the Bernoulli distribution, so let X₁, X₂, … be such independent and identically distributed random variables.
The expected value is one of the most important concepts in probability and statistics.
For instance, all the popular loss functions in machine learning, like cross-entropy, are expected values. However, its definition is far from intuitive.
Here is what's behind the scenes.
It's better to start with an example.
So, let's play a simple game! The rules: I’ll toss a coin, and if it comes up heads, you win $1. However, if it is tails, you lose $2.
Should you even play this game with me? We’ll find out.
After n rounds, your earnings can be calculated by the number of heads times $1 minus the number of tails times $2.
If we divide total earnings by n, we obtain your average earnings per round.
The single biggest argument about statistics: is probability frequentist or Bayesian?
It's neither, and I'll explain why.
Buckle up. Deep-dive explanation incoming.
First, let's look at what is probability.
Probability quantitatively measures the likelihood of events, like rolling six with a dice. It's a number between zero and one. This is independent of interpretation; it’s a rule set in stone.
In the language of probability theory, the events are formalized by sets within an event space.
The event space is also a set, usually denoted by Ω.)
If the sidewalk is wet, is it raining? Not necessarily. Yet, we are inclined to think so. This is a preposterously common logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent".
However, it is not totally wrong. Why? Enter the Bayes theorem.
Propositions of the form "if A, then B" are called implications.
They are written as "A → B", and they form the bulk of our scientific knowledge.
Say, "if X is a closed system, then the entropy of X cannot decrease" is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In the implication A → B, the proposition A is called "premise", while B is called the "conclusion".
The premise implies the conclusion, but not the other way around.
If you observe a wet sidewalk, it is not necessarily raining. Someone might have spilled a barrel of water.