Random 3

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		61	0.01	13	0.02	21	0.07	24	0.24	87	0.02	31	0.07
Anderszewski 2003		12	0.22	5	0.06	7	0.11	12	0.43	64	0.03	14	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		1	0.34	3	0.08	3	0.18	2	0.56	84	0.02	15	0.11
Bacha 2000		3	0.30	30	0.00	9	0.11	10	0.45	68	0.04	8	0.13
Badura 1965		69	-0.01	8	0.04	38	0.05	35	0.15	88	0.02	42	0.05
Barbosa 1983		84	-0.10	79	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	91	0.01	70	0.02
Biret 1990		23	0.13	87	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.11	89	0.02	44	0.05
Blet 2003		52	0.02	80	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	89	0.02	56	0.03
Block 1995		33	0.08	60	0.00	49	0.05	49	0.05	83	0.02	61	0.03
Blumental 1952		24	0.13	17	0.01	16	0.12	13	0.43	64	0.04	11	0.13
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.01	84	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	91	0.01	75	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.04	86	0.00	60	0.04	55	0.04	86	0.02	48	0.03
Bunin 1987		81	-0.06	82	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Bunin 1987b		79	-0.06	49	0.00	88	0.02	77	0.02	91	0.01	85	0.01
Chiu 1999		55	0.02	88	0.00	55	0.05	52	0.05	89	0.01	65	0.02
Cohen 1997		5	0.28	4	0.08	6	0.12	15	0.39	45	0.11	3	0.21
Cortot 1951		35	0.08	85	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.22	82	0.03	24	0.08
Csalog 1996		49	0.04	21	0.01	66	0.04	58	0.04	82	0.03	55	0.03
Czerny 1949		75	-0.04	18	0.01	22	0.08	30	0.20	85	0.02	35	0.06
Czerny 1990		63	0.00	66	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.14	88	0.02	43	0.05
Duchoud 2007		17	0.19	23	0.01	14	0.11	9	0.46	75	0.03	12	0.12
Ezaki 2006		39	0.07	24	0.01	33	0.06	27	0.22	86	0.02	25	0.07
Falvay 1989		71	-0.02	77	0.00	77	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.03	51	0.03
Farrell 1958		30	0.09	35	0.00	67	0.02	76	0.02	89	0.01	83	0.01
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.08	43	0.00	35	0.05	40	0.12	79	0.02	41	0.05
Fliere 1977		74	-0.04	90	0.00	79	0.02	83	0.02	91	0.01	81	0.01
Fou 1978		48	0.04	81	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	88	0.02	52	0.03
Francois 1956		82	-0.06	9	0.03	23	0.06	31	0.20	87	0.02	36	0.06
Friedman 1923		8	0.27	6	0.06	4	0.14	4	0.50	28	0.27	1	0.37
Friedman 1923b		9	0.26	29	0.00	5	0.12	7	0.47	35	0.20	2	0.31
Friedman 1930		18	0.18	11	0.03	12	0.11	8	0.46	70	0.04	7	0.14
Garcia 2007		56	0.01	67	0.00	51	0.05	48	0.05	91	0.01	74	0.02
Garcia 2007b		14	0.20	16	0.01	8	0.12	18	0.33	43	0.09	4	0.17
Gierzod 1998		11	0.24	15	0.02	10	0.11	5	0.49	87	0.02	17	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.09	46	0.00	31	0.05	23	0.24	84	0.02	32	0.07
Groot 1988		78	-0.06	36	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.01	91	0.01
Harasiewicz 1955		87	-0.12	69	0.00	72	0.03	69	0.03	89	0.01	78	0.02
Hatto 1993		4	0.29	51	0.00	18	0.10	19	0.31	81	0.02	23	0.08
Hatto 1997		7	0.28	41	0.00	25	0.08	20	0.29	89	0.02	21	0.08
Horowitz 1949		76	-0.05	39	0.00	83	0.02	81	0.02	90	0.01	88	0.01
Indjic 1988		6	0.28	63	0.00	24	0.06	22	0.27	80	0.02	28	0.07
Kapell 1951		36	0.08	42	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.15	78	0.03	26	0.07
Kissin 1993		57	0.01	65	0.00	37	0.04	39	0.14	84	0.02	40	0.05
Kushner 1989		20	0.16	26	0.01	17	0.12	14	0.40	89	0.02	18	0.09
Luisada 1991		15	0.20	19	0.01	15	0.10	16	0.36	84	0.02	19	0.08
Lushtak 2004		26	0.09	44	0.00	54	0.04	56	0.04	87	0.02	60	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		27	0.09	73	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	88	0.02	46	0.04
Magaloff 1978		40	0.07	52	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	90	0.01	66	0.02
Magin 1975		13	0.21	10	0.03	13	0.09	11	0.44	70	0.03	13	0.11
Michalowski 1933		16	0.20	2	0.11	2	0.12	6	0.48	73	0.04	6	0.14
Milkina 1970		25	0.11	33	0.00	64	0.05	53	0.05	89	0.02	53	0.03
Mohovich 1999		70	-0.01	70	0.00	76	0.02	82	0.02	89	0.02	76	0.02
Moravec 1969		45	0.05	76	0.00	36	0.05	34	0.15	84	0.02	37	0.05
Morozova 2008		58	0.01	28	0.01	56	0.04	54	0.04	89	0.02	57	0.03
Neighaus 1950		29	0.09	83	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	89	0.02	63	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		80	-0.06	38	0.00	80	0.02	80	0.02	91	0.01	82	0.01
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.26	31	0.00	11	0.13	3	0.53	78	0.03	9	0.13
Osinska 1989		47	0.04	47	0.00	41	0.05	36	0.14	90	0.02	38	0.05
Pachmann 1927		88	-0.14	58	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01
Paderewski 1930		31	0.09	57	0.00	28	0.06	25	0.23	88	0.02	27	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		85	-0.10	71	0.00	74	0.02	78	0.02	89	0.02	64	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.00	7	0.04	30	0.06	42	0.11	76	0.03	34	0.06
Poblocka 1999		21	0.14	91	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	89	0.02	49	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		43	0.06	12	0.02	19	0.07	17	0.35	77	0.03	16	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		86	-0.11	50	0.00	78	0.03	71	0.03	89	0.01	67	0.02
Rangell 2001		22	0.13	78	0.00	47	0.04	64	0.04	86	0.02	62	0.03
Richter 1976		83	-0.07	53	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.02	69	0.02
Rosen 1989		2	0.32	1	0.20	1	0.20	1	0.60	69	0.03	10	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.06	20	0.01	40	0.05	41	0.12	88	0.01	59	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		65	0.00	40	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	91	0.01	71	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		51	0.02	37	0.00	70	0.03	68	0.03	91	0.01	79	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		32	0.09	14	0.02	39	0.07	37	0.14	89	0.02	45	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		59	0.01	74	0.00	71	0.04	65	0.04	91	0.01	77	0.02
Rossi 2007		89	-0.14	27	0.01	20	0.07	28	0.22	75	0.03	20	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		73	-0.04	54	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.03	68	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		77	-0.06	72	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02	80	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		64	0.00	48	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.02	72	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		72	-0.03	55	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	90	0.01	73	0.02
Shebanova 2002		19	0.18	45	0.00	26	0.07	21	0.28	88	0.02	29	0.07
Smith 1975		46	0.05	75	0.00	27	0.07	32	0.16	89	0.02	33	0.06
Sokolov 2002		42	0.06	56	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.02	50	0.03
Sztompka 1959		37	0.08	64	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	80	0.03	39	0.05
Tomsic 1995		60	0.01	32	0.00	81	0.02	79	0.02	89	0.01	87	0.01
Uninsky 1932		66	0.00	68	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.21	79	0.03	22	0.08
Uninsky 1971		54	0.02	61	0.00	50	0.05	47	0.05	87	0.02	54	0.03
Wasowski 1980		41	0.07	25	0.01	62	0.04	67	0.04	81	0.03	47	0.03
Zak 1937		90	-0.19	62	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.01
Zak 1951		91	-0.21	59	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	91	0.01	86	0.01
Average		38	0.08	89	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	89	0.02	58	0.03
Random 1		53	0.02	22	0.01	53	0.06	46	0.06	11	0.41	5	0.16
Random 2		68	-0.01	34	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	38	0.14	30	0.07
Random 3		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target

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).