Ezaki 2006

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		3	0.75	2	0.27	2	0.37	3	0.68	1	0.75	1	0.71
Anderszewski 2003		56	0.49	71	0.00	51	0.05	50	0.05	26	0.28	53	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.57	46	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.11	43	0.11	58	0.11
Bacha 2000		59	0.47	53	0.00	68	0.03	76	0.03	21	0.43	55	0.11
Badura 1965		39	0.56	41	0.00	27	0.08	22	0.34	4	0.62	15	0.46
Barbosa 1983		50	0.52	61	0.00	41	0.05	37	0.14	26	0.40	38	0.24
Biret 1990		36	0.57	14	0.01	35	0.06	36	0.15	20	0.46	35	0.26
Blet 2003		45	0.54	88	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	38	0.17	63	0.09
Block 1995		68	0.44	89	0.00	79	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Blumental 1952		74	0.38	81	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	39	0.16	68	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		49	0.52	33	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	42	0.16	69	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		29	0.59	7	0.02	37	0.05	43	0.10	10	0.46	39	0.21
Bunin 1987		19	0.64	16	0.01	14	0.12	18	0.42	10	0.48	17	0.45
Bunin 1987b		17	0.64	31	0.00	13	0.10	17	0.42	10	0.48	16	0.45
Chiu 1999		72	0.42	90	0.00	70	0.03	70	0.03	56	0.05	78	0.04
Cohen 1997		80	0.34	18	0.01	72	0.03	80	0.03	39	0.14	70	0.06
Cortot 1951		48	0.52	48	0.00	54	0.04	68	0.04	20	0.35	54	0.12
Csalog 1996		81	0.33	72	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		9	0.68	23	0.01	9	0.15	7	0.59	5	0.74	3	0.66
Czerny 1990		23	0.62	58	0.00	28	0.07	25	0.30	23	0.30	32	0.30
Duchoud 2007		41	0.55	39	0.00	45	0.04	46	0.08	31	0.37	44	0.17
Ezaki 2006		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Falvay 1989		27	0.61	26	0.00	26	0.08	31	0.27	16	0.35	30	0.31
Farrell 1958		66	0.45	40	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	44	0.10	72	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		26	0.61	29	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.15	3	0.56	33	0.29
Fliere 1977		22	0.62	56	0.00	32	0.06	33	0.22	27	0.26	37	0.24
Fou 1978		32	0.58	3	0.05	15	0.10	21	0.34	28	0.38	25	0.36
Francois 1956		10	0.66	11	0.01	6	0.15	9	0.55	5	0.59	9	0.57
Friedman 1923		85	0.20	91	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	52	0.06	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.20	82	0.00	83	0.03	74	0.03	46	0.07	76	0.05
Friedman 1930		75	0.37	83	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	30	0.30	57	0.11
Garcia 2007		87	0.18	59	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	65	0.04	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.17	78	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		24	0.61	43	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.39	5	0.47	19	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.71	9	0.02	8	0.16	10	0.52	6	0.61	10	0.56
Groot 1988		14	0.64	35	0.00	24	0.09	24	0.31	19	0.38	28	0.34
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.56	75	0.00	20	0.09	28	0.29	20	0.33	31	0.31
Hatto 1993		78	0.35	19	0.01	61	0.05	54	0.05	29	0.25	59	0.11
Hatto 1997		64	0.46	5	0.03	21	0.08	23	0.33	11	0.46	23	0.39
Horowitz 1949		71	0.43	60	0.00	67	0.05	57	0.05	37	0.14	67	0.08
Indjic 1988		77	0.36	30	0.00	62	0.08	45	0.08	27	0.25	47	0.14
Kapell 1951		42	0.55	55	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	36	0.27	51	0.12
Kissin 1993		25	0.61	45	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.24	28	0.31	34	0.27
Kushner 1989		31	0.59	49	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	31	0.24	50	0.12
Luisada 1991		43	0.55	79	0.00	53	0.04	61	0.04	37	0.19	61	0.09
Lushtak 2004		21	0.63	15	0.01	17	0.13	11	0.49	7	0.56	12	0.52
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.73	10	0.01	4	0.16	5	0.65	5	0.57	6	0.61
Magaloff 1978		13	0.64	34	0.00	23	0.08	16	0.42	27	0.25	29	0.32
Magin 1975		58	0.48	68	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	37	0.17	66	0.08
Michalowski 1933		82	0.33	84	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.05	80	0.04
Milkina 1970		47	0.53	66	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	47	0.07	73	0.05
Mohovich 1999		7	0.70	38	0.00	10	0.23	8	0.56	5	0.63	8	0.59
Moravec 1969		61	0.47	57	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.05
Morozova 2008		16	0.64	28	0.00	12	0.13	15	0.44	8	0.44	18	0.44
Neighaus 1950		8	0.69	6	0.02	7	0.13	4	0.66	14	0.55	7	0.60
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.27	67	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.66	37	0.00	16	0.13	12	0.48	9	0.49	14	0.48
Osinska 1989		33	0.58	22	0.01	49	0.07	47	0.07	16	0.39	43	0.17
Pachmann 1927		73	0.39	51	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.05	79	0.04
Paderewski 1930		62	0.47	85	0.00	77	0.02	82	0.02	76	0.03	89	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		44	0.55	54	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	30	0.27	49	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		65	0.46	63	0.00	71	0.04	60	0.04	36	0.19	62	0.09
Poblocka 1999		20	0.63	42	0.00	25	0.08	27	0.29	14	0.39	26	0.34
Rabcewiczowa 1932		28	0.60	17	0.01	34	0.07	34	0.20	12	0.58	27	0.34
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.50	69	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.11	26	0.28	42	0.18
Rangell 2001		30	0.59	12	0.01	29	0.06	26	0.30	8	0.52	24	0.39
Richter 1976		70	0.43	86	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	73	0.03	88	0.02
Rosen 1989		18	0.64	8	0.02	11	0.18	13	0.48	7	0.59	11	0.53
Rosenthal 1930		37	0.57	24	0.00	31	0.09	29	0.29	7	0.64	20	0.43
Rosenthal 1931		60	0.47	21	0.01	40	0.05	42	0.10	6	0.63	36	0.25
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.44	36	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	8	0.54	46	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		35	0.57	50	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.27	7	0.66	22	0.42
Rosenthal 1931d		67	0.45	27	0.00	66	0.06	48	0.06	14	0.40	45	0.15
Rossi 2007		79	0.35	87	0.00	81	0.03	71	0.03	30	0.21	65	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.21	64	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	64	0.04	82	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.47	62	0.00	74	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.05	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		46	0.54	32	0.00	39	0.05	41	0.11	27	0.32	41	0.19
Schilhawsky 1960		52	0.51	70	0.00	56	0.04	67	0.04	28	0.28	56	0.11
Shebanova 2002		54	0.50	47	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	46	0.08	74	0.05
Smith 1975		2	0.75	4	0.03	3	0.26	2	0.72	2	0.68	2	0.70
Sokolov 2002		12	0.66	20	0.01	19	0.09	20	0.38	12	0.46	21	0.42
Sztompka 1959		34	0.57	65	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	30	0.31	52	0.12
Tomsic 1995		5	0.72	13	0.01	5	0.15	6	0.64	2	0.64	4	0.64
Uninsky 1932		53	0.51	44	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	30	0.22	48	0.13
Uninsky 1971		15	0.64	25	0.00	18	0.09	14	0.45	8	0.53	13	0.49
Wasowski 1980		76	0.36	73	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	52	0.05	77	0.04
Zak 1937		57	0.48	80	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	39	0.19	60	0.10
Zak 1951		51	0.52	76	0.00	43	0.05	38	0.12	31	0.30	40	0.19
Average		1	0.80	1	0.35	1	0.35	1	0.76	10	0.51	5	0.62
Random 1		91	-0.04	52	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	57	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.01	74	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	38	0.14	75	0.05
Random 3		89	0.04	77	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	12	0.40	64	0.09

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).