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		78	-0.03	43	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Anderszewski 2003		77	-0.03	82	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	90	0.01	80	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		75	-0.01	83	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Bacha 2000		76	-0.01	54	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	91	0.01	72	0.02
Badura 1965		89	-0.08	77	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	90	0.02	83	0.02
Barbosa 1983		87	-0.07	78	0.00	84	0.04	68	0.04	90	0.01	79	0.02
Biret 1990		11	0.24	31	0.00	41	0.05	35	0.16	65	0.04	37	0.08
Blet 2003		61	0.03	29	0.00	65	0.04	62	0.04	86	0.02	68	0.03
Block 1995		9	0.25	33	0.00	6	0.12	8	0.58	62	0.05	12	0.17
Blumental 1952		90	-0.11	84	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.17	55	0.00	16	0.10	24	0.29	85	0.03	32	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		67	0.00	38	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	89	0.02	75	0.02
Bunin 1987		52	0.05	32	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	82	0.03	58	0.04
Bunin 1987b		54	0.05	26	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	85	0.03	52	0.04
Chiu 1999		38	0.11	85	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	88	0.02	63	0.03
Cohen 1997		24	0.18	15	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.12	75	0.03	43	0.06
Cortot 1951		7	0.28	5	0.02	3	0.19	6	0.59	33	0.35	3	0.45
Csalog 1996		4	0.33	36	0.00	7	0.13	3	0.69	57	0.06	9	0.20
Czerny 1949		23	0.18	23	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.11	63	0.05	39	0.07
Czerny 1990		80	-0.05	63	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Duchoud 2007		44	0.09	21	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.12	82	0.03	42	0.06
Ezaki 2006		47	0.07	49	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	88	0.02	62	0.03
Falvay 1989		56	0.04	37	0.00	49	0.04	63	0.04	89	0.02	65	0.03
Farrell 1958		50	0.06	6	0.02	31	0.06	34	0.19	59	0.05	27	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		62	0.02	70	0.00	76	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.03
Fliere 1977		14	0.22	56	0.00	10	0.18	17	0.43	66	0.05	16	0.15
Fou 1978		72	0.00	86	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	89	0.01	76	0.02
Francois 1956		27	0.15	25	0.00	54	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.03	61	0.04
Friedman 1923		18	0.20	41	0.00	14	0.11	10	0.55	65	0.06	10	0.18
Friedman 1923b		21	0.18	46	0.00	15	0.12	11	0.51	63	0.06	14	0.17
Friedman 1930		33	0.14	24	0.00	36	0.06	36	0.14	81	0.03	41	0.06
Garcia 2007		68	0.00	64	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	86	0.03	57	0.04
Garcia 2007b		69	0.00	65	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.02	86	0.02
Gierzod 1998		66	0.00	44	0.00	61	0.05	53	0.05	77	0.03	56	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		3	0.37	4	0.03	5	0.15	5	0.62	41	0.21	5	0.36
Groot 1988		39	0.11	58	0.00	63	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.02	71	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		37	0.12	57	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	85	0.03	60	0.04
Hatto 1993		88	-0.07	87	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Hatto 1997		81	-0.05	88	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01
Horowitz 1949		65	0.01	89	0.00	58	0.05	48	0.05	85	0.02	67	0.03
Indjic 1988		91	-0.12	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.01
Kapell 1951		84	-0.06	72	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.02
Kissin 1993		48	0.07	11	0.01	19	0.11	14	0.45	65	0.06	15	0.16
Kushner 1989		40	0.11	67	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	84	0.03	50	0.04
Luisada 1991		64	0.01	90	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	89	0.02	74	0.02
Lushtak 2004		12	0.23	3	0.06	4	0.17	4	0.64	35	0.18	6	0.34
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.08	91	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.22	80	0.03	36	0.08
Magaloff 1978		2	0.42	2	0.34	2	0.57	2	0.81	20	0.48	2	0.62
Magin 1975		32	0.14	14	0.01	21	0.08	21	0.33	63	0.05	19	0.13
Michalowski 1933		25	0.17	27	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.25	67	0.06	23	0.12
Milkina 1970		82	-0.05	51	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	79	0.03	51	0.04
Mohovich 1999		42	0.09	52	0.00	29	0.07	38	0.12	89	0.02	47	0.05
Moravec 1969		79	-0.04	68	0.00	72	0.04	69	0.04	90	0.01	73	0.02
Morozova 2008		73	0.00	60	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	90	0.01	81	0.02
Neighaus 1950		16	0.21	48	0.00	13	0.11	13	0.45	88	0.02	33	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.04	20	0.00	39	0.05	41	0.12	76	0.04	38	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.19	28	0.00	25	0.07	29	0.25	76	0.04	29	0.10
Osinska 1989		1	0.47	1	0.37	1	0.36	1	0.87	12	0.67	1	0.76
Pachmann 1927		6	0.28	34	0.00	9	0.12	12	0.50	64	0.06	11	0.17
Paderewski 1930		34	0.13	59	0.00	27	0.08	22	0.32	82	0.03	28	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		13	0.22	35	0.00	11	0.10	9	0.55	72	0.04	17	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		28	0.15	47	0.00	28	0.06	32	0.24	82	0.03	35	0.08
Poblocka 1999		36	0.12	61	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	49	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.27	30	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.26	49	0.08	18	0.14
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.04	73	0.00	47	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.03	64	0.03
Rangell 2001		83	-0.06	74	0.00	70	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.02	70	0.03
Richter 1976		15	0.21	75	0.00	17	0.10	19	0.39	71	0.04	22	0.12
Rosen 1989		10	0.25	9	0.01	8	0.13	15	0.45	80	0.03	24	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		85	-0.06	79	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	91	0.01	82	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.00	76	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.09	48	0.09	30	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.00	66	0.00	48	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.06	48	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.10	62	0.00	33	0.05	26	0.26	49	0.06	25	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		70	0.00	50	0.00	64	0.05	52	0.05	71	0.03	59	0.04
Rossi 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.02	39	0.00	46	0.04	71	0.04	79	0.03	66	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.18	10	0.01	18	0.10	16	0.44	44	0.10	8	0.21
Rubinstein 1966		51	0.05	22	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	85	0.03	53	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		43	0.09	69	0.00	69	0.06	46	0.06	82	0.03	54	0.04
Shebanova 2002		31	0.14	40	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	79	0.04	55	0.04
Smith 1975		5	0.29	16	0.00	12	0.10	7	0.58	45	0.10	7	0.24
Sokolov 2002		17	0.20	17	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.24	64	0.03	34	0.08
Sztompka 1959		29	0.14	7	0.02	22	0.10	20	0.38	77	0.03	26	0.11
Tomsic 1995		59	0.04	80	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	90	0.01	78	0.02
Uninsky 1932		49	0.07	19	0.00	20	0.14	18	0.42	77	0.04	20	0.13
Uninsky 1971		30	0.14	45	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.14	88	0.02	46	0.05
Wasowski 1980		35	0.13	12	0.01	23	0.08	23	0.31	71	0.05	21	0.12
Zak 1937		58	0.04	42	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	85	0.03	44	0.05
Zak 1951		53	0.05	8	0.01	44	0.04	43	0.09	79	0.03	45	0.05
Average		20	0.19	81	0.00	34	0.06	30	0.25	83	0.03	31	0.09
Random 1		45	0.09	18	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.25	1	0.58	4	0.38
Random 2		86	-0.07	53	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	43	0.13	40	0.07
Random 3		60	0.03	13	0.01	56	0.05	60	0.05	7	0.56	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).