 \ne i)} x_j^4 \over
\left[(N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j \ne i}
x_j^2\right]^2 }$$ The overall jackknife estimate of $f(\mu_ y, \mu_z)$ is then the average over the $N$ jackknife estimates $f_i^J$: $$\boxed{
\overline{f^J} \equiv {1 \over N} \sum_{i=1}^N f_i^J \,.}
\label{fJ}$$ It is straightforward to show that if $f$ is a linear function of $\mu_y$ and $\mu_z$ then $\overline{f^J} = f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$, i.e. the jackknife and standard averages are identical. However, when $f$ is not a linear function, so there is bias, there *is* a difference, and we will now show the resampling carried out in the jackknife method can be used to determine bias and error bars in an automated way.

We proceed as for the derivation of Eq. , which we now write as $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z}) \rangle
- {A \over N} - {B\over N^2} + \cdots,$$ where $A$ is the term in rectangular brackets in Eq. , and we have added the next order correction. The jackknife data sets have $N-1$ points with the same distribution as the $N$ points in the actual distribution, and so the bias in the jackknife average will be of the same form, with the same values of $A$ and $B$, but with $N$ replaced by $N-1$, i.e. $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \langle \overline{f^J} \rangle -
{A \over N-1} - {B \over (N-1)^2} \cdots \,.$$ We can therefore eliminate the leading contribution to the bias by forming an appropriate linear combination of $f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$ and $\overline{f^J}$, namely $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = N \langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z
\ne i) } x_j^4 \over 
 \left[(N-1)^{-1 } \sum_{j \ne i } 
 x_j^2\right]^2 } $ $ The overall jackknife estimate of $ f(\mu _ y, \mu_z)$ is then the average over the $ N$ jackknife estimates $ f_i^J$: $ $ \boxed { 
 \overline{f^J } \equiv { 1 \over N } \sum_{i=1}^N f_i^J \, . } 
 \label{fJ}$$ It is square to picture that if $ f$ is a linear function of $ \mu_y$ and $ \mu_z$ then $ \overline{f^J } = f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$, i.e. the jackknife and standard average are identical. However, when $ f$ is not a linear function, so there be diagonal, there * is * a difference, and we will now show the resampling carried out in the jackknife method acting can be used to determine bias and error prevention in an automated way. 

 We proceed as for the derivation of Eq.  , which we now publish as $ $ f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z }) \rangle 
 - { A \over N } - { B\over N^2 } + \cdots,$$ where $ A$ is the term in rectangular brackets in Eq.  , and we have add the next order correction. The jackknife datum sets consume $ N-1 $ points with the same distribution as the $ N$ points in the actual distribution, and therefore the bias in the jackknife average will be of the same form, with the same values of $ A$ and $ B$, but with $ N$ replaced by $ N-1 $, i.e. $ $ f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \langle \overline{f^J } \rangle - 
 { A \over N-1 } - { B \over (N-1)^2 } \cdots \,.$$ We can therefore eliminate the leading contribution to the bias by forming an appropriate linear combination of $ f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$ and $ \overline{f^J}$, namely $ $ f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = N \langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z
 \ne i)} x_j^4 \over
\left[(N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j \ne l}
x_j^2\right]^2 }$$ The ovgrqll jarkknife estimatd of $f(\mu_ y, \mu_z)$ is then the aterate ovtg the $N$ jackknife estkmates $f_i^U$: $$\boxed{
\ocerlmne{f^J} \equiv {1 \ovec N} \sum_{i=1}^K f_i^J \,.}
\paben{hJ}$$ It is straigmtforward tm show that if $f$ id a linear function of $\mu_y$ and $\mu_z$ ehen $\ovrrpine{f^J} = f(\overlyne{y},\pderljne{z})$, i.e. the jackknife and standard averagts are identical. Hpwever, when $f$ is not a linfar vunction, so there ls bias, thets *if* a differencd, and we wpnl now shos the resampling carried out in the lackknife mgcyod wan be used to dvtermine bias and errmr bars in an automatcd wab.

We proceed as for the decivation of Eq. , which we now wsice as $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \langlw d(\overnine{f},\ovefoind{z}) \daigls
- {A \ovfr I} - {B\over N^2} + \cdots,$$ wherw $A$ is the term in tesnsngular braciets ig Qq. , and we have added the next order corgectjon. The jackknife data wets have $N-1$ points wijh the samq distribution as the $N$ points in the actual distsibutmov, aue so gye bias in the jackknife average will be of the aake form, with the same valuex lf $W$ and $B$, but wkth $N$ xspmaced by $N-1$, i.e. $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \lwngle \overline{s^J} \rsngle -
{A \over N-1} - {B \over (N-1)^2} \cdits \,.$$ We can nherwfore eliminate thz leading coutribujion tp the bias by forming au apprkpriate linfar combihxtion of $f(\overlive{y},\pvarline{z})$ and $\overline{f^J}$, namqly $$f(\mu_y, \nu_z) = N \langue f(\pverlige{y},\overlinf{z
\ne i)} x_j^4 \over \left[(N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j \ne }$$ overall jackknife of $f(\mu_ y, over $N$ jackknife estimates $$\boxed{ \overline{f^J} \equiv \over N} \sum_{i=1}^N f_i^J \,.} \label{fJ}$$ is straightforward to show that if $f$ is a linear function of $\mu_y$ $\mu_z$ then $\overline{f^J} = f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$, i.e. the jackknife and standard averages are identical. when is a function, so there is bias, there *is* a difference, and we will now show the resampling out in the jackknife method can be used determine bias and error in an automated way. We as the derivation Eq. which now write as \mu_z) = \langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z}) \rangle - {A \over N} - {B\over N^2} + \cdots,$$ where $A$ is term in in Eq. and have the next order jackknife data sets have $N-1$ points distribution as the $N$ points in the actual and so bias in the jackknife average will of the same form, with the same values $A$ and $B$, but with $N$ replaced by $N-1$, i.e. $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = \langle \overline{f^J} {A \over N-1} - \over (N-1)^2} \cdots We therefore the contribution to bias by forming an appropriate linear combination of $f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$ and $\overline{f^J}$, $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) = N \langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z
 \ne i)} x_j^4 \over
\left[(N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j \ne i}
x_j^2\riGht]^2 }$$ The overAll jaCkkNifE eStimAte oF $f(\mu_ y, \mu_z)$ is then THe avErage over the $N$ jackknife EstimAtES $f_i^J$: $$\BOxEd{
\oveRline{f^J} \EQuIV {1 \OveR N} \SuM_{i=1}^N F_i^j \,.}
\LaBel{fJ}$$ it iS straigHtforward tO shOw That if $f$ is a liNEaR function oF $\mu_Y$ and $\mu_z$ then $\oVerLine{f^J} = F(\oVerLIne{y},\oVerLine{z})$, I.e. the jACkknifE and standArD AveragES are ideNTIcAl. HoWever, when $f$ is not a lINeAR function, so theRe is biAs, THeRE *Is* a DifFerence, and We Will nOW show thE ReSAMPliNG carried out in The jackknifE MetHod can Be UseD To deteRmine BiAS anD error bars iN an aUtomated wAy.

We prOCeed as fOR the derIvatioN of eq. , wHich WE nOw WriTe AS $$f(\mU_Y, \mU_z) = \lANglE f(\overliNe{Y},\oVerliNe{z}) \rANGLE
- {A \ovEr N} - {b\oveR N^2} + \cdoTs,$$ where $A$ is the TerM in rECtaNgulaR bracKets In eq. , and We have Added ThE next order correCtioN. The jackkNifE dAta SeTs havE $n-1$ pointS wiTh tHe same dIstribuTIon As THE $n$ pOints in the actual diStRIBuTion, and sO the biAS iN tHE jackkniFe AveRage WILl be oF the SAmE form, witH the saME vAlUes of $A$ aNd $b$, but wiTh $n$ rePlaCed by $n-1$, I.e. $$f(\mU_y, \mu_z) = \lAngle \oveRline{F^j} \rangle -
{A \over N-1} - {B \OVer (N-1)^2} \cdots \,.$$ We caN ThEREfORe elImiNate the leadIng cONtriButiON tO thE Bias bY formInG An APpropriate linear comBiNation Of $f(\ovErline{y},\overliNe{z})$ and $\overLINE{f^J}$, namelY $$f(\mu_Y, \Mu_Z) = n \langle f(\overliNe{y},\ovErline{z
 \ne i)} x_j^4 \over
\left [(N-1)^{-1 } \su m_{ j \ ne  i}x_j^ 2\right]^2 }$$ Theoverall jackknife esti mateof $f(\ m u_  y, \ mu_z)$i st h enth eave ra g eoverthe  $N$ ja ckknife es tim at es $f_i^J$:$ $\ boxed{
\ov erl ine{f^J} \eq uiv  {1 \o ve r N }  \sum _{i =1}^N  f_i^J \,.}
\ label{fJ} $$ It iss traight f o rw ardto show that if $ f $i s a linear fun ctionof $\ m u _y$  an d $\mu_z$th en $\ o verline { f^ J } = f ( \overline{y}, \overline{z } )$,  i.e.th e j a ckknif e and  s t and ard average s ar e identic al. Ho w ever, w h en $f$is not  alin earf un ct ion ,s o t h er e i s  bi as, ther e*i s* adiff e r e n ce,and  wewillnow show theres ampl i ngcarri ed ou t in  t he ja ckknif e met ho d can be used t o de termine b ias  a nder ror b a rs inanaut omatedway.

W e  pr oc e e d  a s for the derivati on o fEq. , wh ich we no ww rite as$$ f(\ mu_y , \mu_z ) =\ la ngle f(\ overli n e{ y} ,\overl in e{z})\r ang le- {A\ over  N} -{B\overN^2}+  \cdots,$$ whe r e $A$ is thet er m in rect ang ular bracke ts i n  Eq.  , a n dweh ave a ddedth e  n e xt order correction .The ja ckkni fe data setshave $N-1$ p o ints wit h th e  s a me distributio n asthe $N$ po i nts in t he ac tual dis tribution , and so t hebia s i n t h e  j ackknife aver a g e wi ll  be ofthe  same f orm , w ith  th esame valu es of $A $an d$B $,but w i th $N$ r ep lac ed  by  $N-1 $ , i.e.  $$f( \mu_ y,  \ m u_z ) = \la n gl e \ove rl in e{f^ J}\r angle  -
{ A  \o ver N-1 } - {B \o ver (N-1 )^ 2}  \cdots  \,.$$ We can  t herefore e li min ate th e leadingcontribution to the bia s  by for min g anappr opriate l ine ar com bin a tion o f $f(\ overl in e{y } , \over l i ne {z} )$  and $\ove r l ine {f^J} $,  nam ely $$f (\mu_y, \mu_z) = N \la ngle f(\overl ine {y}, \ o ve rli n e{ z 
 \ne_i)} x_j^4_\over
\left[(N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j \ne i}
x_j^2\right]^2_}$$ The_overall_jackknife estimate_of_$f(\mu_ y, \mu_z)$_is then the_average over the $N$_jackknife estimates $f_i^J$:_$$\boxed{
\overline{f^J}_\equiv {1 \over N} \sum_{i=1}^N f_i^J \,.}
\label{fJ}$$ It is straightforward to show that if_$f$_is a_linear_function_of $\mu_y$ and $\mu_z$ then_$\overline{f^J} = f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$, i.e. the_jackknife and_standard averages are identical. However, when $f$ is_not_a linear function,_so there is bias, there *is* a difference, and_we will now show the resampling_carried out in_the_jackknife_method can be used_to determine bias and error bars_in an automated way.

We proceed as_for the derivation of Eq. , which we_now write as $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z) =_\langle f(\overline{y},\overline{z}) \rangle
- {A \over_N} -_{B\over N^2} + \cdots,$$ where_$A$ is the_term in_rectangular brackets in_Eq. , and we have added the_next order correction._The jackknife data sets have $N-1$_points_with the same_distribution_as_the $N$_points in the_actual_distribution, and_so_the bias in the jackknife average_will_be of the same form, with the_same values of $A$_and_$B$, but with $N$_replaced by $N-1$, i.e. $$f(\mu_y,_\mu_z) = \langle \overline{f^J} \rangle -
{A_\over N-1}_- {B_\over (N-1)^2} \cdots \,.$$ We can therefore eliminate the leading contribution_to the bias by forming an_appropriate linear combination of_$f(\overline{y},\overline{z})$ and_$\overline{f^J}$,_namely $$f(\mu_y, \mu_z)_=_N \langle_f(\overline{y},\overline{z