Convolution and Sums of Random Variables
How to find the distribution of a total — a portfolio's combined P&L, or a week's combined returns — from the distributions of its independent parts, by sliding one density across the other.
Prerequisites: Independence and Product Measures
You know the distribution of Monday's return and the distribution of Tuesday's return, independently. What is the distribution of the two-day return, their sum? You cannot just add the two densities together — that would answer a different question ("what's the density of a return that's either Monday's or Tuesday's"). Adding two independent random variables mixes their randomness in a specific way, and the operation that computes the resulting density is called convolution.
The analogy: rolling two dice, slid past each other
Think about rolling two ordinary dice and asking for the distribution of the total. To get a total of 7, you can have (1,6), (2,5), (3,4), (4,3), (5,2), or (6,1) — six different ways the first die's value and the second die's "gap to 7" line up. To find , you check, for every possible value of the first die, whether is a possible value of the second die, and add up the matching probabilities. That sliding-and-matching process — hold the total fixed, slide one distribution against the other, and sum wherever they overlap — is exactly what convolution does, generalized from dice to any distribution, discrete or continuous.
Writing it down
If and are independent with , the distribution of is the convolution of the distributions of and . For discrete variables,
In words: to land on total , must land on some value and must land on exactly — sum that joint probability over every possible split . For continuous variables the sum becomes an integral,
which says the same thing with densities: slide 's density backwards by for every possible , weight by how likely is, and integrate. This is why convolution is sometimes described as "slide, multiply, and sum" — one density is dragged across the other and, at each position, the overlap gets weighted and accumulated.
Worked example 1: sum of two dice, computed by convolution
Let and each be a fair die, for . Find . List the splits where both and : (needs ), (), (), () — four valid splits, and give impossible values of . Sum: . Compare directly by listing outcomes: (1,4),(2,3),(3,2),(4,1) — four out of 36 equally likely pairs, confirming .
Worked example 2: two days of normal returns
Day 1 return , day 2 return , independent. Find the distribution of the two-day return . For normals, convolution has a clean shortcut: means add, and variances add (never standard deviations directly). Mean: . Variance: (in %² units), so the two-day standard deviation is . So . Check the "obvious but wrong" shortcut: adding the standard deviations directly would give — noticeably larger than the correct , because convolution combines spread through variances, not through standard deviations, and the difference between the two grows the more terms you combine.
What this means in practice
Multi-day return distributions, portfolio P&L from summing independent position P&Ls, and aggregate claims in insurance modelling are all convolutions of the individual pieces. The reason the central limit theorem produces a bell curve regardless of the starting distribution is that repeated convolution of any well-behaved distribution with itself smooths toward a normal shape — convolution is the mechanical engine underneath that result. Moment generating functions turn convolution into simple multiplication, which is why they're the standard shortcut for combining many independent variables at once.
The distribution of a sum of independent random variables is the convolution of their individual distributions — computed by sliding one distribution across the other, multiplying the overlap at each offset, and summing (or integrating). For sums of normals specifically, means add and variances add, never standard deviations directly.
The classic mistake is adding standard deviations (or volatilities) directly when combining independent risks, instead of adding variances and then taking a square root. Worked example 2 shows the gap is not small: adding volatilities gives 2.5%, while the correct convolution-based answer is 1.803% — a difference that compounds badly across many periods, which is exactly why "volatility scales with the square root of time," , and not linearly with .
Related concepts
Practice in interviews
Further reading
- Ross, A First Course in Probability (ch. 6)
- Grimmett & Stirzaker, Probability and Random Processes (ch. 4)