First some notation. Each example is drawn from some unknown distribution $Y$ with $E[Y] = \mu$ and $\textrm{Var}[Y] = \sigma^2$. Suppose the weighted mean consists of $n$ independent draws $X_i\sim Y$, and $\{w_i\}_1^n$ is in the standard simplex. Finally define the r.v. $X = \sum_i w_i X_i$. Note that $E[X] = \sum_i w_i E[X_i] = \mu$ and $\textrm{Var}[X] = \sum_i w_i w_i^2 \textrm{Var}[X_i] = \sigma^2$.sigma^2\sum_i w_i^2$.
Passing in the expectation, the first term (when $x_i\neq x_j$, which would yield 0) is whereas the second (when $x_i \neq x_j$ and $x_i \neq x_k$, which would yield 0) isTherefore $E[\hat \sigma_b^2] - \sigma^2 = -\sigma^22\sum_j w_j^2$, i.e. this is a biased estimator. To fix make this , an unbiased estimator of $Y$, divide by the excess term derived above:This matches the definition you gave (and a sanity check $w_i = 1/N$, recovering the normal unbiased estimate).Now, if one instead were to seek an unbiased estimator of $X=\sum_i X_i$, the formula would instead be $\hat \sigma_b^2(\{x_i\}_1^n)(\sum_j w_j^2) / ( 1 - \sum_j w_j^2)$.
It is very odd for me that the documents you refer to are making estimators of $Y$ and not $X$; I don't see the justification of such an estimator. Also it is not clearly how to extend it to samples that don't have length $n$, whereas for the estimator of $X$, you simply have some number $m$ of $n$-samples, and averaging everything above makes things work out. Also, I didn't realize check, but it's my suspicion that the weighted estimator for $Y$ has higher variance than the usual one; as such, why use this weighted estimator at all? Building an estimator for $X$ would involve so much busywork when I started.. perhaps there's a shorter way.seem to have been the intent..

