Francois 1956

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		3	0.81	3	0.14	2	0.23	4	0.56	4	0.51	2	0.53
Anderszewski 2003		74	0.40	39	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	49	0.04	73	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		69	0.45	45	0.00	52	0.05	50	0.05	53	0.04	75	0.04
Bacha 2000		71	0.42	58	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	48	0.06	68	0.04
Badura 1965		57	0.52	52	0.00	56	0.04	63	0.04	53	0.04	74	0.04
Barbosa 1983		23	0.67	27	0.01	24	0.07	25	0.26	16	0.40	19	0.32
Biret 1990		30	0.63	15	0.01	41	0.04	38	0.13	40	0.15	40	0.14
Blet 2003		29	0.64	61	0.00	40	0.05	34	0.15	38	0.15	39	0.15
Block 1995		62	0.49	69	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	55	0.04	82	0.03
Blumental 1952		80	0.22	64	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	52	0.04	83	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		68	0.46	78	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.03	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		64	0.48	51	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	62	0.04	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		39	0.62	31	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	37	0.20	50	0.10
Bunin 1987b		40	0.62	41	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	37	0.19	45	0.12
Chiu 1999		72	0.41	68	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.05	71	0.04
Cohen 1997		83	0.19	46	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	62	0.04	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		45	0.58	10	0.02	47	0.05	55	0.05	34	0.22	52	0.10
Csalog 1996		59	0.51	28	0.01	54	0.05	48	0.05	37	0.22	49	0.10
Czerny 1949		1	0.83	1	0.24	1	0.23	1	0.68	2	0.68	1	0.68
Czerny 1990		5	0.79	43	0.00	7	0.13	3	0.56	9	0.46	5	0.51
Duchoud 2007		31	0.63	79	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	42	0.12	59	0.08
Ezaki 2006		9	0.75	17	0.01	12	0.15	9	0.48	12	0.43	10	0.45
Falvay 1989		8	0.75	7	0.03	10	0.12	7	0.52	11	0.42	7	0.47
Farrell 1958		49	0.57	19	0.01	61	0.04	69	0.04	35	0.13	60	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		44	0.58	40	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	35	0.24	47	0.11
Fliere 1977		14	0.72	75	0.00	22	0.07	22	0.29	28	0.23	25	0.26
Fou 1978		54	0.53	16	0.01	19	0.07	29	0.19	38	0.20	32	0.19
Francois 1956		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923		87	0.08	89	0.00	69	0.05	57	0.05	38	0.20	53	0.10
Friedman 1923b		86	0.09	72	0.00	68	0.05	49	0.05	37	0.19	51	0.10
Friedman 1930		75	0.38	76	0.00	58	0.03	75	0.03	30	0.30	55	0.09
Garcia 2007		84	0.16	80	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Garcia 2007b		88	-0.01	86	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.03	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		22	0.67	70	0.00	25	0.07	20	0.30	16	0.29	22	0.29
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.77	5	0.05	6	0.13	10	0.46	7	0.46	9	0.46
Groot 1988		2	0.82	9	0.02	5	0.12	6	0.54	6	0.50	3	0.52
Harasiewicz 1955		55	0.53	26	0.01	32	0.05	28	0.20	34	0.17	35	0.18
Hatto 1993		85	0.14	83	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	63	0.03	87	0.03
Hatto 1997		79	0.27	67	0.00	74	0.04	60	0.04	76	0.03	81	0.03
Horowitz 1949		51	0.56	24	0.01	29	0.06	32	0.19	27	0.27	29	0.23
Indjic 1988		82	0.19	71	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.03	80	0.03
Kapell 1951		12	0.73	8	0.02	15	0.08	16	0.33	23	0.40	15	0.36
Kissin 1993		36	0.62	44	0.00	34	0.07	31	0.19	23	0.32	27	0.25
Kushner 1989		20	0.67	63	0.00	27	0.07	24	0.27	26	0.30	23	0.28
Luisada 1991		70	0.45	38	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	54	0.05	69	0.04
Lushtak 2004		52	0.54	56	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.19	35	0.17	34	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		7	0.76	47	0.00	11	0.11	8	0.49	10	0.47	6	0.48
Magaloff 1978		28	0.64	18	0.01	36	0.05	33	0.17	40	0.15	37	0.16
Magin 1975		76	0.35	23	0.01	30	0.05	45	0.09	62	0.03	67	0.05
Michalowski 1933		78	0.31	87	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	57	0.05	72	0.04
Milkina 1970		33	0.63	29	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	44	0.14	44	0.12
Mohovich 1999		10	0.74	33	0.00	14	0.09	12	0.38	22	0.36	14	0.37
Moravec 1969		11	0.74	49	0.00	20	0.06	27	0.23	15	0.43	20	0.31
Morozova 2008		60	0.51	77	0.00	33	0.05	37	0.13	35	0.14	42	0.13
Neighaus 1950		15	0.72	4	0.07	4	0.13	5	0.55	14	0.49	4	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.61	42	0.00	53	0.04	58	0.04	27	0.22	54	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.61	35	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	42	0.13	56	0.08
Osinska 1989		13	0.73	22	0.01	21	0.06	19	0.31	10	0.39	17	0.35
Pachmann 1927		67	0.47	84	0.00	59	0.03	79	0.03	42	0.13	62	0.06
Paderewski 1930		48	0.57	21	0.01	65	0.04	61	0.04	43	0.09	61	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.63	81	0.00	37	0.04	39	0.13	31	0.20	36	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		43	0.59	57	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	29	0.22	46	0.11
Poblocka 1999		38	0.62	36	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.12	40	0.15	41	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		18	0.70	14	0.01	16	0.08	11	0.38	10	0.47	11	0.42
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.65	30	0.00	28	0.07	21	0.29	21	0.29	21	0.29
Rangell 2001		65	0.47	90	0.00	84	0.03	70	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.03
Richter 1976		61	0.51	50	0.00	67	0.04	59	0.04	82	0.03	79	0.03
Rosen 1989		37	0.62	6	0.03	17	0.10	18	0.31	20	0.42	16	0.36
Rosenthal 1930		26	0.65	88	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.10	25	0.36	33	0.19
Rosenthal 1931		66	0.47	65	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	43	0.11	63	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.40	73	0.00	80	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.09	65	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		35	0.62	48	0.00	38	0.04	41	0.11	18	0.36	31	0.20
Rosenthal 1931d		63	0.49	32	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.05	76	0.04
Rossi 2007		77	0.34	54	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	15	0.25	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.22	59	0.00	87	0.02	90	0.02	68	0.04	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		46	0.58	11	0.02	60	0.04	65	0.04	44	0.10	66	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.57	53	0.00	57	0.03	71	0.03	32	0.21	57	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.66	66	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.25	30	0.24	28	0.24
Shebanova 2002		53	0.53	37	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	34	0.18	58	0.08
Smith 1975		16	0.70	34	0.00	13	0.11	15	0.33	30	0.22	24	0.27
Sokolov 2002		24	0.66	60	0.00	23	0.07	23	0.27	34	0.26	26	0.26
Sztompka 1959		34	0.62	85	0.00	43	0.06	35	0.14	28	0.34	30	0.22
Tomsic 1995		19	0.69	25	0.01	18	0.09	17	0.32	17	0.37	18	0.34
Uninsky 1932		56	0.52	82	0.00	39	0.04	43	0.10	37	0.18	43	0.13
Uninsky 1971		47	0.57	12	0.01	31	0.05	36	0.13	40	0.19	38	0.16
Wasowski 1980		58	0.51	55	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	74	0.03	70	0.04
Zak 1937		21	0.67	20	0.01	8	0.12	14	0.34	13	0.41	13	0.37
Zak 1951		17	0.70	13	0.01	9	0.15	13	0.37	13	0.44	12	0.40
Average		4	0.79	2	0.15	3	0.17	2	0.61	17	0.34	8	0.46
Random 1		91	-0.17	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.08	74	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.02	88	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.06	62	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	31	0.20	64	0.06

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).