Random 2

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		10	0.10	23	0.01	12	0.07	9	0.48	79	0.03	15	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.03	42	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	81	0.03	45	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		42	0.03	86	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	89	0.02	61	0.03
Bacha 2000		15	0.09	34	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.28	77	0.03	23	0.09
Badura 1965		62	-0.01	31	0.00	51	0.07	45	0.07	87	0.02	46	0.04
Barbosa 1983		8	0.10	13	0.01	17	0.05	24	0.31	87	0.02	29	0.08
Biret 1990		35	0.04	64	0.00	20	0.06	14	0.44	62	0.04	13	0.13
Blet 2003		47	0.02	24	0.01	36	0.05	42	0.13	84	0.02	44	0.05
Block 1995		72	-0.05	37	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	89	0.01	77	0.02
Blumental 1952		51	0.01	50	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.14	77	0.03	40	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		80	-0.08	75	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Brailowsky 1960		43	0.03	27	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.17	81	0.03	32	0.07
Bunin 1987		27	0.05	51	0.00	45	0.06	50	0.06	83	0.03	47	0.04
Bunin 1987b		25	0.05	36	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	79	0.03	38	0.06
Chiu 1999		53	0.00	77	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.02	49	0.03
Cohen 1997		12	0.09	8	0.02	19	0.08	22	0.34	65	0.03	21	0.10
Cortot 1951		46	0.02	28	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	75	0.03	48	0.04
Csalog 1996		73	-0.05	40	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	84	0.02	74	0.02
Czerny 1949		4	0.12	1	0.39	1	0.39	3	0.54	34	0.48	2	0.51
Czerny 1990		6	0.11	20	0.01	21	0.06	21	0.35	81	0.03	22	0.10
Duchoud 2007		82	-0.08	9	0.02	52	0.05	52	0.05	85	0.02	58	0.03
Ezaki 2006		9	0.10	30	0.00	9	0.10	6	0.50	63	0.04	10	0.14
Falvay 1989		45	0.02	61	0.00	27	0.06	30	0.26	84	0.02	34	0.07
Farrell 1958		2	0.12	4	0.07	2	0.16	1	0.61	57	0.05	6	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		29	0.04	18	0.01	7	0.08	7	0.49	40	0.29	3	0.38
Fliere 1977		85	-0.09	87	0.00	89	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01	82	0.01
Fou 1978		57	0.00	76	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	87	0.02	71	0.02
Francois 1956		33	0.04	67	0.00	22	0.06	16	0.42	74	0.03	19	0.11
Friedman 1923		83	-0.08	83	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.02	81	0.02
Friedman 1923b		81	-0.08	44	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	88	0.02	79	0.02
Friedman 1930		63	-0.01	25	0.01	64	0.04	64	0.04	86	0.02	57	0.03
Garcia 2007		67	-0.02	62	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	89	0.02	59	0.03
Garcia 2007b		24	0.06	48	0.00	29	0.07	31	0.22	70	0.04	27	0.09
Gierzod 1998		3	0.12	7	0.02	6	0.08	10	0.48	70	0.04	12	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		20	0.06	17	0.01	10	0.08	11	0.47	68	0.03	16	0.12
Groot 1988		59	0.00	45	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.02	63	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		65	-0.01	72	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	88	0.02	66	0.03
Hatto 1993		31	0.04	88	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	86	0.02	65	0.03
Hatto 1997		7	0.11	73	0.00	18	0.06	12	0.45	84	0.03	14	0.12
Horowitz 1949		52	0.01	21	0.01	65	0.04	65	0.04	88	0.02	53	0.03
Indjic 1988		22	0.06	49	0.00	43	0.07	38	0.14	85	0.03	39	0.06
Kapell 1951		36	0.04	5	0.03	33	0.06	39	0.14	87	0.02	42	0.05
Kissin 1993		37	0.04	47	0.00	60	0.04	61	0.04	86	0.02	55	0.03
Kushner 1989		60	0.00	74	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	90	0.01	72	0.02
Luisada 1991		38	0.04	41	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.30	82	0.03	25	0.09
Lushtak 2004		26	0.05	22	0.01	28	0.06	26	0.30	86	0.02	31	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		34	0.04	6	0.03	47	0.06	46	0.06	87	0.02	52	0.03
Magaloff 1978		79	-0.08	80	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	90	0.01	70	0.02
Magin 1975		66	-0.02	52	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.02	51	0.03
Michalowski 1933		89	-0.12	78	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Milkina 1970		5	0.12	29	0.00	8	0.08	5	0.51	66	0.04	11	0.14
Mohovich 1999		49	0.01	55	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	87	0.02	60	0.03
Moravec 1969		18	0.08	53	0.00	23	0.07	13	0.44	84	0.02	24	0.09
Morozova 2008		14	0.09	10	0.02	15	0.07	28	0.27	86	0.02	35	0.07
Neighaus 1950		68	-0.02	81	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	89	0.02	64	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		50	0.01	33	0.00	61	0.05	55	0.05	85	0.02	50	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		90	-0.12	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01
Osinska 1989		58	0.00	16	0.01	37	0.06	36	0.16	85	0.02	36	0.06
Pachmann 1927		86	-0.10	58	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.01	87	0.01
Paderewski 1930		32	0.04	11	0.02	35	0.06	34	0.20	83	0.03	28	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		78	-0.08	89	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	90	0.01	83	0.01
Pierdomenico 2008		84	-0.08	65	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	84	0.01
Poblocka 1999		77	-0.07	79	0.00	70	0.03	70	0.03	87	0.02	69	0.02
Rabcewiczowa 1932		23	0.06	12	0.01	14	0.08	17	0.41	56	0.06	8	0.16
Rachmaninoff 1923		30	0.04	19	0.01	42	0.06	41	0.14	82	0.03	37	0.06
Rangell 2001		54	0.00	56	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	86	0.02	62	0.03
Richter 1976		71	-0.04	82	0.00	81	0.02	81	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.02
Rosen 1989		75	-0.06	90	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	89	0.01	78	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		13	0.09	35	0.00	24	0.08	18	0.40	75	0.03	18	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		11	0.10	2	0.12	3	0.18	2	0.57	46	0.10	4	0.24
Rosenthal 1931b		16	0.08	63	0.00	13	0.08	15	0.43	55	0.05	9	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		56	0.00	66	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	88	0.01	80	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		19	0.08	59	0.00	16	0.07	19	0.39	57	0.04	17	0.12
Rossi 2007		76	-0.07	26	0.00	38	0.06	43	0.12	72	0.04	33	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.08	46	0.00	25	0.05	23	0.34	83	0.03	20	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		61	0.00	60	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	89	0.02	67	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		39	0.03	69	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.21	86	0.03	30	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		74	-0.05	14	0.01	63	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.02	56	0.03
Shebanova 2002		70	-0.04	70	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	90	0.01	76	0.02
Smith 1975		21	0.06	43	0.00	5	0.16	8	0.49	56	0.05	7	0.16
Sokolov 2002		48	0.02	39	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.26	90	0.01	41	0.05
Sztompka 1959		55	0.00	38	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	88	0.02	54	0.03
Tomsic 1995		28	0.05	15	0.01	11	0.07	20	0.38	87	0.02	26	0.09
Uninsky 1932		69	-0.03	57	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	89	0.01	75	0.02
Uninsky 1971		41	0.03	54	0.00	40	0.07	37	0.15	86	0.02	43	0.05
Wasowski 1980		64	-0.01	71	0.00	73	0.03	71	0.03	87	0.02	68	0.02
Zak 1937		88	-0.11	84	0.00	84	0.01	87	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.01
Zak 1951		87	-0.10	85	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	90	0.01	86	0.01
Random 1		40	0.03	32	0.00	26	0.05	33	0.21	24	0.28	5	0.24
Random 2		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 3		1	0.14	3	0.09	4	0.15	4	0.52	6	0.60	1	0.56

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).