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	0.81	2	0.09	2	0.29	3	0.61	4	0.62	5	0.61
Anderszewski 2003		24	0.72	57	0.00	28	0.07	25	0.32	13	0.43	23	0.37
Ashkenazy 1981		14	0.74	21	0.00	14	0.12	13	0.41	21	0.40	19	0.40
Bacha 2000		61	0.60	74	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	21	0.33	60	0.11
Badura 1965		36	0.68	75	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	7	0.48	49	0.15
Barbosa 1983		51	0.65	13	0.01	19	0.07	24	0.32	3	0.61	14	0.44
Biret 1990		20	0.72	18	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.30	10	0.45	24	0.37
Blet 2003		32	0.70	25	0.00	34	0.07	34	0.22	14	0.39	34	0.29
Block 1995		62	0.60	64	0.00	80	0.04	56	0.04	32	0.21	69	0.09
Blumental 1952		72	0.57	27	0.00	55	0.04	66	0.04	28	0.18	73	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		49	0.65	83	0.00	68	0.03	76	0.03	48	0.06	85	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		35	0.68	41	0.00	61	0.03	80	0.03	25	0.34	63	0.10
Bunin 1987		64	0.59	70	0.00	71	0.03	86	0.03	24	0.35	67	0.10
Bunin 1987b		67	0.58	86	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	24	0.37	58	0.12
Chiu 1999		40	0.67	67	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	16	0.46	45	0.17
Cohen 1997		88	0.36	44	0.00	88	0.04	64	0.04	64	0.04	86	0.04
Cortot 1951		50	0.65	33	0.00	67	0.03	88	0.03	30	0.28	70	0.09
Csalog 1996		87	0.40	51	0.00	83	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.05	83	0.04
Czerny 1949		13	0.74	16	0.01	12	0.12	10	0.47	15	0.46	13	0.46
Czerny 1990		2	0.82	12	0.01	3	0.29	2	0.62	4	0.65	3	0.63
Duchoud 2007		54	0.63	53	0.00	38	0.04	44	0.09	31	0.32	46	0.17
Ezaki 2006		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Falvay 1989		44	0.66	17	0.00	50	0.04	55	0.04	23	0.38	57	0.12
Farrell 1958		52	0.65	63	0.00	62	0.04	57	0.04	36	0.18	72	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		46	0.66	9	0.01	56	0.04	71	0.04	10	0.40	55	0.13
Fliere 1977		4	0.80	14	0.01	7	0.12	6	0.52	16	0.43	9	0.47
Fou 1978		31	0.70	6	0.02	16	0.07	31	0.29	26	0.32	30	0.30
Francois 1956		43	0.66	48	0.00	27	0.07	33	0.23	19	0.40	33	0.30
Friedman 1923		79	0.51	88	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	13	0.46	51	0.14
Friedman 1923b		78	0.51	72	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	13	0.47	59	0.12
Friedman 1930		57	0.63	43	0.00	45	0.06	42	0.12	10	0.48	39	0.24
Garcia 2007		77	0.53	91	0.00	84	0.03	72	0.03	51	0.05	84	0.04
Garcia 2007b		86	0.42	90	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.03	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		25	0.71	37	0.00	35	0.06	29	0.30	34	0.24	35	0.27
Gornostaeva 1994		22	0.72	39	0.00	20	0.07	21	0.34	7	0.53	18	0.42
Groot 1988		28	0.71	30	0.00	31	0.07	30	0.29	15	0.49	22	0.38
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.76	47	0.00	5	0.16	7	0.52	9	0.45	8	0.48
Hatto 1993		70	0.58	81	0.00	59	0.04	54	0.04	37	0.15	76	0.08
Hatto 1997		56	0.63	7	0.01	48	0.06	47	0.06	22	0.28	54	0.13
Horowitz 1949		59	0.61	73	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	34	0.32	65	0.10
Indjic 1988		63	0.59	71	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	28	0.20	68	0.09
Kapell 1951		42	0.67	15	0.01	26	0.09	23	0.33	21	0.35	26	0.34
Kissin 1993		9	0.75	19	0.00	21	0.07	16	0.39	12	0.48	15	0.43
Kushner 1989		23	0.72	54	0.00	39	0.04	40	0.15	32	0.26	43	0.20
Luisada 1991		7	0.77	26	0.00	24	0.10	20	0.37	13	0.48	16	0.42
Lushtak 2004		12	0.74	50	0.00	23	0.09	18	0.38	13	0.40	20	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		30	0.70	20	0.00	11	0.10	17	0.39	4	0.58	7	0.48
Magaloff 1978		33	0.69	35	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.14	28	0.30	42	0.20
Magin 1975		38	0.68	55	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.30	14	0.35	28	0.32
Michalowski 1933		80	0.51	68	0.00	79	0.03	74	0.03	53	0.07	79	0.05
Milkina 1970		27	0.71	40	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.28	22	0.34	29	0.31
Mohovich 1999		5	0.80	23	0.00	4	0.17	4	0.61	3	0.72	2	0.66
Moravec 1969		71	0.57	31	0.00	60	0.04	58	0.04	20	0.39	56	0.12
Morozova 2008		11	0.75	62	0.00	13	0.09	22	0.33	16	0.33	27	0.33
Neighaus 1950		15	0.73	80	0.00	22	0.07	15	0.39	24	0.32	25	0.35
Niedzielski 1931		74	0.55	46	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	45	0.08	78	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		26	0.71	45	0.00	32	0.08	26	0.31	25	0.29	31	0.30
Osinska 1989		10	0.75	8	0.01	18	0.07	14	0.41	18	0.43	17	0.42
Pachmann 1927		76	0.53	82	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	54	0.05	82	0.04
Paderewski 1930		60	0.60	87	0.00	82	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.03	88	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.71	84	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.17	26	0.26	40	0.21
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.59	85	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	29	0.36	64	0.10
Poblocka 1999		37	0.68	32	0.00	44	0.06	38	0.16	28	0.24	41	0.20
Rabcewiczowa 1932		53	0.65	28	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	27	0.27	53	0.13
Rachmaninoff 1923		21	0.72	22	0.00	9	0.09	9	0.48	6	0.52	6	0.50
Rangell 2001		75	0.54	24	0.00	63	0.03	73	0.03	11	0.44	62	0.11
Richter 1976		68	0.58	78	0.00	81	0.04	65	0.04	33	0.23	66	0.10
Rosen 1989		17	0.72	11	0.01	17	0.08	12	0.44	12	0.51	12	0.47
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.58	59	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	16	0.45	48	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.51	60	0.00	65	0.04	59	0.04	16	0.46	50	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.48	38	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	28	0.26	71	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.55	56	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	12	0.50	47	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.50	52	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	29	0.24	75	0.08
Rossi 2007		65	0.59	66	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	4	0.58	52	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		85	0.43	42	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.50	10	0.01	51	0.05	49	0.05	48	0.09	77	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		45	0.66	4	0.03	8	0.09	36	0.17	15	0.52	32	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		39	0.68	61	0.00	41	0.04	39	0.16	28	0.36	38	0.24
Shebanova 2002		47	0.66	49	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.06	80	0.05
Smith 1975		6	0.79	5	0.02	6	0.16	5	0.58	2	0.64	4	0.61
Sokolov 2002		34	0.69	3	0.04	15	0.07	11	0.45	4	0.50	10	0.47
Sztompka 1959		18	0.72	79	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.20	32	0.28	37	0.24
Tomsic 1995		41	0.67	29	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	10	0.56	36	0.25
Uninsky 1932		48	0.66	34	0.00	40	0.04	45	0.08	26	0.40	44	0.18
Uninsky 1971		55	0.63	36	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	34	0.25	61	0.11
Wasowski 1980		58	0.62	69	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.05	81	0.04
Zak 1937		19	0.72	76	0.00	25	0.11	19	0.37	19	0.40	21	0.38
Zak 1951		16	0.73	65	0.00	10	0.11	8	0.48	12	0.46	11	0.47
Average		1	0.89	1	0.65	1	0.65	1	0.83	3	0.63	1	0.72
Random 1		91	-0.17	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.14	77	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	74	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.04	58	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.33	74	0.08

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).