← Back to article

Equation 16 · Ten Ways an Agent Evaluation Can Mislead You Even When It's Working Correctly

What does this equation mean?

mm

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 mathematical expression combines the displayed quantities; its precise role follows from the surrounding article text. 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

mm

Symbol m

m is a part of this expression. Its role is fixed by the surrounding article and by the operations shown in the formula.

Understand this part →

How to interpret it

Read this expression with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.

What the article says around this equation

5. Non-independence between repeated trials. The confidence-interval formula above assumes each trial is independent of the others, and that assumption is often false in ways that specifically inflate confidence. Miller’s paper measures this directly: several widely used evaluation sets draw multiple questions from a shared context — several questions about the same passage, several sub-tasks from the same underlying scenario — and properly accounting for that clustering, rather than treating every question as its own independent draw, produced clustered standard errors “over 3x larger than naive standard errors” on the affected evals [ 8 ] . The general relationship is the one long used in…
Read the full surrounding passage
5. Non-independence between repeated trials. The confidence-interval formula above assumes each trial is independent of the others, and that assumption is often false in ways that specifically inflate confidence. Miller’s paper measures this directly: several widely used evaluation sets draw multiple questions from a shared context — several questions about the same passage, several sub-tasks from the same underlying scenario — and properly accounting for that clustering, rather than treating every question as its own independent draw, produced clustered standard errors “over 3x larger than naive standard errors” on the affected evals [ 8 ] . The general relationship is the one long used in survey statistics: if a naive standard error assumes independence, and trials instead arrive in clusters of average size m with intraclass correlation ρ\rho within a cluster, the correctly inflated standard error is

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 Ten Ways an Agent Evaluation Can Mislead You Even When It's Working Correctly

Browse the mathematical compendium →