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		77	-0.03	43	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.01
Anderszewski 2003		76	-0.03	81	0.00	79	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.01	79	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		74	-0.01	82	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.02	83	0.02
Bacha 2000		75	-0.01	54	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	90	0.01	72	0.02
Badura 1965		88	-0.08	77	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.02	82	0.02
Barbosa 1983		86	-0.07	78	0.00	83	0.04	67	0.04	89	0.02	67	0.03
Biret 1990		11	0.24	31	0.00	40	0.05	34	0.16	64	0.04	36	0.08
Blet 2003		60	0.03	29	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	85	0.02	68	0.03
Block 1995		9	0.25	33	0.00	6	0.12	8	0.58	61	0.05	12	0.17
Blumental 1952		89	-0.11	83	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Boshniakovich 1969		25	0.17	55	0.00	16	0.10	24	0.29	84	0.03	31	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		66	0.00	38	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.02	75	0.02
Bunin 1987		51	0.05	32	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	81	0.03	57	0.04
Bunin 1987b		53	0.05	26	0.00	58	0.05	49	0.05	84	0.03	51	0.04
Chiu 1999		37	0.11	84	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	87	0.02	62	0.03
Cohen 1997		23	0.18	15	0.00	37	0.05	39	0.12	74	0.03	42	0.06
Cortot 1951		7	0.28	5	0.02	3	0.19	6	0.59	32	0.35	3	0.45
Csalog 1996		4	0.33	36	0.00	7	0.13	3	0.69	56	0.06	9	0.20
Czerny 1949		22	0.18	23	0.00	39	0.05	41	0.11	62	0.05	38	0.07
Czerny 1990		79	-0.05	63	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	84	0.02
Duchoud 2007		43	0.09	21	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.12	81	0.03	41	0.06
Ezaki 2006		46	0.07	49	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	87	0.02	61	0.03
Falvay 1989		55	0.04	37	0.00	48	0.04	62	0.04	88	0.02	64	0.03
Farrell 1958		49	0.06	6	0.02	31	0.06	33	0.19	58	0.05	27	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.02	70	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.03
Fliere 1977		14	0.22	56	0.00	10	0.18	17	0.43	65	0.05	16	0.15
Fou 1978		71	0.00	85	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.01	76	0.02
Francois 1956		26	0.15	25	0.00	53	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.03	60	0.04
Friedman 1923		18	0.20	41	0.00	14	0.11	10	0.55	64	0.06	10	0.18
Friedman 1923b		20	0.18	46	0.00	15	0.12	11	0.51	62	0.06	14	0.17
Friedman 1930		32	0.14	24	0.00	35	0.07	35	0.14	80	0.03	40	0.06
Garcia 2007		67	0.00	64	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	85	0.03	56	0.04
Garcia 2007b		68	0.00	65	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.02	85	0.02
Gierzod 1998		65	0.00	44	0.00	60	0.05	52	0.05	76	0.03	55	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		3	0.37	4	0.03	5	0.15	5	0.62	40	0.21	5	0.36
Groot 1988		38	0.11	58	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.03	71	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.12	57	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	84	0.03	59	0.04
Hatto 1993		87	-0.07	86	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Hatto 1997		80	-0.05	87	0.00	87	0.01	87	0.01	90	0.01	87	0.01
Horowitz 1949		64	0.01	88	0.00	57	0.06	47	0.06	84	0.02	66	0.03
Indjic 1988		90	-0.12	71	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	86	0.01
Kapell 1951		83	-0.06	72	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.02
Kissin 1993		47	0.07	11	0.01	19	0.11	14	0.45	64	0.06	15	0.16
Kushner 1989		39	0.11	67	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	83	0.03	49	0.04
Luisada 1991		63	0.01	89	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.02	74	0.02
Lushtak 2004		12	0.23	3	0.06	4	0.17	4	0.64	34	0.18	6	0.34
Malcuzynski 1961		45	0.08	90	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.22	79	0.03	35	0.08
Magaloff 1978		2	0.42	2	0.34	2	0.57	2	0.81	19	0.48	2	0.62
Magin 1975		31	0.14	14	0.01	21	0.08	21	0.33	62	0.05	19	0.13
Michalowski 1933		24	0.17	27	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.25	66	0.06	23	0.12
Milkina 1970		81	-0.05	51	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	78	0.03	50	0.04
Mohovich 1999		41	0.09	52	0.00	29	0.07	37	0.12	88	0.02	46	0.05
Moravec 1969		78	-0.04	68	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	89	0.01	73	0.02
Morozova 2008		72	0.00	60	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	89	0.01	80	0.02
Neighaus 1950		16	0.21	48	0.00	13	0.11	13	0.45	87	0.02	32	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.04	20	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.12	75	0.04	37	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.19	28	0.00	25	0.07	29	0.25	75	0.04	29	0.10
Osinska 1989		1	0.47	1	0.37	1	0.36	1	0.87	11	0.67	1	0.76
Pachmann 1927		6	0.28	34	0.00	9	0.12	12	0.50	63	0.06	11	0.17
Paderewski 1930		33	0.13	59	0.00	27	0.08	22	0.32	81	0.03	28	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		13	0.22	35	0.00	11	0.10	9	0.55	71	0.04	17	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.15	47	0.00	28	0.06	31	0.24	81	0.03	34	0.08
Poblocka 1999		35	0.12	61	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.03	48	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.27	30	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.26	48	0.08	18	0.14
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.04	73	0.00	46	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.03	63	0.03
Rangell 2001		82	-0.06	74	0.00	69	0.05	55	0.05	87	0.02	70	0.03
Richter 1976		15	0.21	75	0.00	17	0.10	19	0.39	70	0.04	22	0.12
Rosen 1989		10	0.25	9	0.01	8	0.13	15	0.45	79	0.03	24	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		84	-0.06	79	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	90	0.01	81	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.00	76	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.09	47	0.09	30	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.00	66	0.00	47	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.06	47	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		40	0.10	62	0.00	33	0.06	26	0.26	48	0.06	25	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.00	50	0.00	63	0.05	51	0.05	70	0.03	58	0.04
Rossi 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.02	39	0.00	45	0.04	70	0.04	78	0.03	65	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.18	10	0.01	18	0.10	16	0.44	43	0.10	8	0.21
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.05	22	0.00	50	0.05	48	0.05	84	0.03	52	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		42	0.09	69	0.00	68	0.06	45	0.06	81	0.03	53	0.04
Shebanova 2002		30	0.14	40	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	78	0.04	54	0.04
Smith 1975		5	0.29	16	0.00	12	0.10	7	0.58	44	0.10	7	0.24
Sokolov 2002		17	0.20	17	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.24	63	0.03	33	0.08
Sztompka 1959		28	0.14	7	0.02	22	0.10	20	0.38	76	0.03	26	0.11
Tomsic 1995		58	0.04	80	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	89	0.01	78	0.02
Uninsky 1932		48	0.07	19	0.00	20	0.14	18	0.42	76	0.04	20	0.13
Uninsky 1971		29	0.14	45	0.00	36	0.06	36	0.14	87	0.02	45	0.05
Wasowski 1980		34	0.13	12	0.01	23	0.08	23	0.31	70	0.05	21	0.12
Zak 1937		57	0.04	42	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	84	0.03	43	0.05
Zak 1951		52	0.05	8	0.01	43	0.04	42	0.09	78	0.03	44	0.05
Random 1		44	0.09	18	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.25	1	0.58	4	0.38
Random 2		85	-0.07	53	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	43	0.12	39	0.07
Random 3		59	0.03	13	0.01	55	0.05	59	0.05	7	0.55	13	0.17

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).