← Back to article

Equation 14 · How to Actually Compare Frontier AI Models Without Building a Misleading Leaderboard

What does this equation mean?

SE(p^)≈p^(1−p^)n,\mathrm{SE}(\hat p) \approx \sqrt{\frac{\hat p (1-\hat p)}{n}},

Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.

This equation gives an approximation: it relates the quantities while allowing an approximation. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.

Read it piece by piece

p^\hat p

Symbol hat p

hat p occurs above the fraction bar. The numerator is divided by the entire denominator below it.

Understand this part →

nn

Symbol n

n occurs below the fraction bar. The quantity above the bar is divided by this expression; zero is excluded as a denominator.

Understand this part →

fraction

fraction

Divide the expression above the line by the one below it.

Understand this part →

See an illustrated explanation →
√

√

Take a square root.

Understand this part →

≈

≈

Approximately equal to; the equality is not exact.

Understand this part →

p^(1−p^)\hat p (1-\hat p)

Numerator: hat p (1-hat p)

The complete quantity above the fraction bar.

Understand this part →

How to interpret it

With a fixed numerator, increasing a nonzero denominator reduces the fraction. Its accuracy depends on the assumptions and range of use described in the article.

What the article says around this equation

Reported variance, not a bare point estimate. A score computed from n independent trials with an underlying success probability p^\hat p carries a standard error of roughly SE(p^)≈p^(1−p^)n\mathrm{SE}(\hat p) \approx \sqrt{\frac{\hat p (1-\hat p)}{n}}. and two point estimates whose intervals overlap should not be reported as a ranking. Evan Miller’s statistical treatment of language-model evaluation makes this argument in more general form, framing individual evaluation questions as draws from an unseen larger population and deriving the formulas needed to report genuine uncertainty rather than a single noisy number [ 1 ] . Epoch AI’s benchmarking hub applies the same discipline operationally: it runs each model sixteen times on GPQA Diamond and Mock…
Read the full surrounding passage
Reported variance, not a bare point estimate. A score computed from n independent trials with an underlying success probability p^\hat p carries a standard error of roughly SE(p^)≈p^(1−p^)n\mathrm{SE}(\hat p) \approx \sqrt{\frac{\hat p (1-\hat p)}{n}}. and two point estimates whose intervals overlap should not be reported as a ranking. Evan Miller’s statistical treatment of language-model evaluation makes this argument in more general form, framing individual evaluation questions as draws from an unseen larger population and deriving the formulas needed to report genuine uncertainty rather than a single noisy number [ 1 ] . Epoch AI’s benchmarking hub applies the same discipline operationally: it runs each model sixteen times on GPQA Diamond and Mock AIME, eight times on MATH Level 5, and reports a one-standard-error confidence interval alongside every score [ 9 ] [ 10 ] .

Read the equation in its article →

Sources cited in the surrounding passage

These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.

Return to How to Actually Compare Frontier AI Models Without Building a Misleading Leaderboard

See this formula across 1 published context →

Browse the mathematical compendium →