## Support3 analysis

This directory reframes the subgroup comparison without using the original weighted composite query score from [real_panel_experiment.py](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\src\evaluation\real_panel_experiment.py:471).

### Why `support3_score`

We define:

`support3_score = mean(key_set_score, row_count_score, column_score)`

This is the cleanest lightweight proxy for subgroup support preservation because it directly asks:

- did the same subgroup keys appear?
- did a similar number of grouped rows survive?
- did the output keep the same column scaffold?

It avoids:

- the original hand-set weights
- `strict_set_score`, which is dominated by exact value matching
- the ambiguous use of `profile_score` in the implementation, which is really a key-column marginal score rather than a subgroup analytical-value score

### What survives after removing the original weights

The core claim still survives:

`subgroup_size_stability` is better preserved than `internal_profile_stability` in a support-preservation sense.

At the query level:

- internal mean: `0.755`
- size mean: `0.818`
- mean gap: `+0.063` in favor of size

At the panel level:

- internal mean: `0.754`
- size mean: `0.810`
- mean gap: `+0.055` in favor of size

### Can we also say size changes less?

Not in every possible sense.

Across the three regimes (`c`, `m`, `n`), the absolute mean range is not smaller for size:

- internal panel means: `0.759 -> 0.818 -> 0.709`, range `0.110`
- size panel means: `0.811 -> 0.881 -> 0.752`, range `0.129`

So the strict statement:

"size has smaller regime-to-regime movement"

is **not** the safest one.

The safer and better-supported statement is:

`size` has a **lighter low-score tail** and **lower relative dispersion** under `support3_score`.

Evidence:

- panel-level CV:
  - internal: `0.265`
  - size: `0.246`
- panel-level median absolute deviation from the median:
  - internal: `0.180`
  - size: `0.102`
- panel share with support3 `<= 0.4`:
  - internal: `5.8%`
  - size: `2.7%`
- panel share with support3 `<= 0.8`:
  - internal: `54.2%`
  - size: `38.3%`

So the stronger reading is:

size is not necessarily flatter across all regimes, but it is more resistant to severe degradation.

### Files

- [build_support3_analysis.py](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\Evaluation\query_fivepart_breakdown\subgroup_breakdown\support3_analysis\build_support3_analysis.py)
- [support3_query_density.png](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\Evaluation\query_fivepart_breakdown\subgroup_breakdown\support3_analysis\support3_query_density.png)
- [support3_panel_density.png](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\Evaluation\query_fivepart_breakdown\subgroup_breakdown\support3_analysis\support3_panel_density.png)
- [support3_panel_ecdf.png](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\Evaluation\query_fivepart_breakdown\subgroup_breakdown\support3_analysis\support3_panel_ecdf.png)
- [support3_panel_thresholds.png](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\Evaluation\query_fivepart_breakdown\subgroup_breakdown\support3_analysis\support3_panel_thresholds.png)
- [summary_metrics.json](D:\dpan\Uni\Project\HKUNAISS\SQLagent\Evaluation\query_fivepart_breakdown\subgroup_breakdown\support3_analysis\summary_metrics.json)