Rossi 2007

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

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).