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		85	-0.11	11	0.01	76	0.03	65	0.03	91	0.01	65	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		27	0.00	64	0.00	24	0.08	19	0.35	86	0.02	20	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		43	-0.03	38	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	91	0.01	86	0.01
Bacha 2000		51	-0.04	54	0.00	34	0.06	29	0.19	90	0.01	33	0.04
Badura 1965		75	-0.08	61	0.00	32	0.05	37	0.15	91	0.01	38	0.04
Barbosa 1983		80	-0.09	46	0.00	58	0.04	48	0.04	91	0.01	59	0.02
Biret 1990		38	-0.02	79	0.00	37	0.04	36	0.15	89	0.02	32	0.05
Blet 2003		15	0.02	50	0.00	29	0.08	26	0.28	91	0.01	30	0.05
Block 1995		29	0.00	34	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.14	91	0.01	39	0.04
Blumental 1952		78	-0.09	72	0.00	46	0.04	50	0.04	90	0.01	67	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		68	-0.07	73	0.00	57	0.03	54	0.03	91	0.01	68	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		60	-0.05	51	0.00	18	0.09	23	0.33	87	0.03	12	0.10
Bunin 1987		82	-0.10	35	0.00	49	0.04	51	0.04	91	0.01	69	0.02
Bunin 1987b		83	-0.10	28	0.00	48	0.04	49	0.04	91	0.01	52	0.02
Chiu 1999		59	-0.05	81	0.00	82	0.02	80	0.02	91	0.01	77	0.01
Cohen 1997		8	0.06	9	0.02	8	0.17	4	0.64	59	0.05	5	0.18
Cortot 1951		13	0.03	12	0.01	10	0.11	11	0.47	85	0.02	14	0.10
Csalog 1996		71	-0.07	15	0.01	50	0.05	46	0.05	91	0.01	60	0.02
Czerny 1949		2	0.13	2	0.19	2	0.22	1	0.74	44	0.17	3	0.35
Czerny 1990		22	0.01	18	0.01	60	0.03	59	0.03	90	0.01	70	0.02
Duchoud 2007		46	-0.03	41	0.00	68	0.03	66	0.03	91	0.01	66	0.02
Ezaki 2006		24	0.00	33	0.00	15	0.13	9	0.51	78	0.03	9	0.12
Falvay 1989		66	-0.06	26	0.00	63	0.03	62	0.03	91	0.01	47	0.02
Farrell 1958		74	-0.07	62	0.00	75	0.03	60	0.03	91	0.01	48	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		73	-0.07	52	0.00	27	0.07	27	0.28	70	0.04	11	0.11
Fliere 1977		41	-0.02	66	0.00	70	0.03	68	0.03	89	0.01	46	0.02
Fou 1978		33	-0.01	30	0.00	51	0.03	58	0.03	91	0.01	49	0.02
Francois 1956		16	0.01	24	0.00	14	0.13	14	0.44	90	0.01	23	0.07
Friedman 1923		86	-0.11	82	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		81	-0.10	63	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	87	0.01
Friedman 1930		49	-0.04	58	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	90	0.01	61	0.02
Garcia 2007		91	-0.15	87	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	91	0.01	85	0.01
Garcia 2007b		55	-0.05	47	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Gierzod 1998		23	0.00	57	0.00	17	0.09	18	0.39	81	0.02	17	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		34	-0.01	31	0.00	25	0.07	20	0.35	90	0.01	29	0.06
Groot 1988		72	-0.07	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01
Harasiewicz 1955		61	-0.05	65	0.00	55	0.03	55	0.03	91	0.01	74	0.02
Hatto 1993		64	-0.06	45	0.00	79	0.02	78	0.02	91	0.01	89	0.01
Hatto 1997		65	-0.06	83	0.00	59	0.04	53	0.04	90	0.01	62	0.02
Horowitz 1949		56	-0.05	25	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	91	0.01	54	0.02
Indjic 1988		57	-0.05	53	0.00	66	0.03	71	0.03	90	0.01	58	0.02
Kapell 1951		54	-0.05	23	0.00	65	0.03	69	0.03	91	0.01	50	0.02
Kissin 1993		30	0.00	56	0.00	53	0.04	52	0.04	91	0.01	56	0.02
Kushner 1989		20	0.01	84	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.13	90	0.01	34	0.04
Luisada 1991		39	-0.02	88	0.00	45	0.03	45	0.07	91	0.01	42	0.03
Lushtak 2004		35	-0.01	16	0.01	20	0.10	16	0.41	91	0.01	28	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		44	-0.03	68	0.00	30	0.06	33	0.16	91	0.01	35	0.04
Magaloff 1978		26	0.00	69	0.00	28	0.08	24	0.29	89	0.02	19	0.08
Magin 1975		10	0.05	21	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.40	84	0.02	16	0.09
Michalowski 1933		67	-0.07	36	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	90	0.01	55	0.02
Milkina 1970		84	-0.10	27	0.00	71	0.02	81	0.02	91	0.01	80	0.01
Mohovich 1999		47	-0.03	37	0.00	36	0.04	39	0.14	90	0.01	40	0.04
Moravec 1969		40	-0.02	40	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.11	91	0.01	41	0.03
Morozova 2008		52	-0.05	29	0.00	22	0.07	28	0.22	91	0.01	31	0.05
Neighaus 1950		53	-0.05	85	0.00	56	0.03	63	0.03	91	0.01	73	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		32	-0.01	59	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	90	0.01	43	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		9	0.06	10	0.02	9	0.12	10	0.50	87	0.03	10	0.12
Osinska 1989		36	-0.01	19	0.01	12	0.17	15	0.41	91	0.01	25	0.06
Pachmann 1927		28	0.00	67	0.00	40	0.04	41	0.12	88	0.01	44	0.03
Paderewski 1930		25	0.00	60	0.00	38	0.04	35	0.16	90	0.01	36	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		7	0.07	3	0.09	7	0.18	8	0.55	83	0.03	8	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		5	0.09	13	0.01	11	0.12	13	0.44	90	0.02	15	0.09
Poblocka 1999		76	-0.08	75	0.00	80	0.02	79	0.02	90	0.01	76	0.01
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.01	22	0.00	21	0.08	25	0.28	86	0.02	22	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	-0.09	76	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01	78	0.01
Rangell 2001		77	-0.08	49	0.00	69	0.02	77	0.02	90	0.02	71	0.02
Richter 1976		19	0.01	48	0.00	26	0.07	31	0.17	88	0.02	27	0.06
Rosen 1989		70	-0.07	86	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.09	91	0.01	45	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		31	-0.01	6	0.05	16	0.10	22	0.33	81	0.03	13	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		89	-0.13	70	0.00	72	0.02	83	0.02	91	0.01	82	0.01
Rosenthal 1931b		88	-0.12	89	0.00	73	0.03	67	0.03	91	0.01	75	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		18	0.01	8	0.04	13	0.12	12	0.47	65	0.04	7	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		90	-0.13	77	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	91	0.01	72	0.02
Rossi 2007		11	0.03	5	0.05	5	0.18	7	0.56	60	0.05	6	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		69	-0.07	32	0.00	62	0.02	75	0.02	91	0.01	79	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		14	0.02	90	0.00	23	0.06	21	0.34	89	0.02	21	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		87	-0.12	91	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.01	83	0.01
Schilhawsky 1960		58	-0.05	17	0.01	33	0.07	34	0.16	90	0.01	37	0.04
Shebanova 2002		17	0.01	44	0.00	52	0.03	57	0.03	89	0.02	64	0.02
Smith 1975		6	0.09	4	0.08	3	0.23	2	0.65	65	0.05	4	0.18
Sokolov 2002		3	0.11	14	0.01	6	0.16	5	0.63	86	0.01	18	0.08
Sztompka 1959		42	-0.02	42	0.00	81	0.02	76	0.02	91	0.01	81	0.01
Tomsic 1995		50	-0.04	80	0.00	54	0.03	56	0.03	91	0.01	53	0.02
Uninsky 1932		45	-0.03	43	0.00	64	0.03	64	0.03	91	0.01	63	0.02
Uninsky 1971		62	-0.06	78	0.00	61	0.03	61	0.03	91	0.01	57	0.02
Wasowski 1980		12	0.03	39	0.00	31	0.06	30	0.18	89	0.02	24	0.06
Zak 1937		48	-0.04	55	0.00	47	0.04	47	0.04	90	0.01	51	0.02
Zak 1951		37	-0.02	20	0.01	35	0.05	32	0.17	88	0.02	26	0.06
Average		63	-0.06	71	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.01	84	0.01
Random 1		4	0.09	7	0.04	4	0.17	3	0.64	7	0.48	2	0.55
Random 2		1	0.14	1	0.25	1	0.25	6	0.60	4	0.52	1	0.56
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).