Random 2

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		45	-0.08	50	0.00	18	0.05	21	0.22	88	0.02	19	0.07
Anderszewski 2003		67	-0.12	46	0.00	75	0.02	80	0.02	90	0.02	69	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		15	-0.02	66	0.00	25	0.05	26	0.20	90	0.02	28	0.06
Bacha 2000		37	-0.07	32	0.00	49	0.04	60	0.04	90	0.02	44	0.03
Badura 1965		3	0.03	3	0.18	2	0.21	3	0.56	86	0.02	8	0.11
Barbosa 1983		32	-0.06	20	0.01	41	0.05	38	0.11	89	0.01	53	0.03
Biret 1990		16	-0.03	40	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	90	0.02	56	0.03
Blet 2003		78	-0.15	67	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	89	0.02	54	0.03
Block 1995		86	-0.20	83	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	91	0.01	73	0.02
Blumental 1952		13	-0.02	42	0.00	15	0.05	30	0.18	90	0.02	27	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		72	-0.12	59	0.00	32	0.04	36	0.15	89	0.01	42	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		79	-0.16	22	0.01	73	0.03	77	0.03	89	0.02	61	0.02
Bunin 1987		44	-0.08	61	0.00	21	0.05	27	0.20	90	0.01	43	0.04
Bunin 1987b		39	-0.08	10	0.02	20	0.06	24	0.21	90	0.01	35	0.05
Chiu 1999		30	-0.06	33	0.00	23	0.06	19	0.23	89	0.02	17	0.07
Cohen 1997		7	0.00	17	0.01	14	0.08	15	0.27	85	0.03	12	0.09
Cortot 1951		51	-0.10	36	0.00	48	0.04	62	0.04	91	0.01	78	0.02
Csalog 1996		48	-0.10	89	0.00	57	0.03	65	0.03	89	0.01	68	0.02
Czerny 1949		49	-0.10	65	0.00	64	0.04	51	0.04	89	0.02	55	0.03
Czerny 1990		62	-0.11	58	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	90	0.02	75	0.02
Duchoud 2007		11	-0.01	9	0.02	10	0.10	9	0.41	90	0.02	11	0.09
Ezaki 2006		75	-0.14	54	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	90	0.02	59	0.02
Falvay 1989		87	-0.20	53	0.00	87	0.02	82	0.02	90	0.01	83	0.01
Farrell 1958		46	-0.09	45	0.00	67	0.03	68	0.03	89	0.02	62	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		89	-0.21	39	0.00	82	0.02	81	0.02	90	0.01	87	0.01
Fliere 1977		43	-0.08	57	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.11	89	0.02	31	0.05
Fou 1978		65	-0.12	73	0.00	54	0.03	64	0.03	89	0.01	63	0.02
Francois 1956		55	-0.11	35	0.00	60	0.04	55	0.04	89	0.02	58	0.03
Friedman 1923		19	-0.04	55	0.00	38	0.05	18	0.23	85	0.02	21	0.07
Friedman 1923b		18	-0.04	38	0.00	39	0.08	20	0.22	87	0.01	37	0.05
Friedman 1930		10	0.00	11	0.02	17	0.06	13	0.35	90	0.02	15	0.08
Garcia 2007		77	-0.15	51	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	89	0.01	71	0.02
Garcia 2007b		82	-0.18	26	0.01	80	0.02	83	0.02	91	0.01	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		35	-0.07	84	0.00	44	0.04	41	0.10	89	0.02	41	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		85	-0.20	75	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.01	89	0.01
Groot 1988		64	-0.12	72	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Harasiewicz 1955		81	-0.17	47	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	90	0.01	79	0.02
Hatto 1993		2	0.04	4	0.05	5	0.14	4	0.52	86	0.03	7	0.12
Hatto 1997		5	0.01	79	0.00	7	0.24	6	0.48	89	0.03	5	0.12
Horowitz 1949		26	-0.05	28	0.00	46	0.05	46	0.05	88	0.02	52	0.03
Indjic 1988		4	0.02	85	0.00	6	0.26	5	0.50	87	0.03	3	0.12
Kapell 1951		69	-0.12	14	0.01	62	0.03	66	0.03	90	0.02	64	0.02
Kissin 1993		60	-0.11	82	0.00	36	0.05	28	0.18	89	0.02	25	0.06
Kushner 1989		68	-0.12	80	0.00	59	0.04	50	0.04	90	0.02	49	0.03
Luisada 1991		71	-0.12	41	0.00	69	0.04	63	0.04	89	0.02	45	0.03
Lushtak 2004		74	-0.13	69	0.00	65	0.03	70	0.03	90	0.02	72	0.02
Malcuzynski 1961		84	-0.19	63	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.01	85	0.01
Magaloff 1978		20	-0.04	21	0.01	26	0.05	29	0.18	89	0.02	23	0.06
Magin 1975		47	-0.09	13	0.02	34	0.04	31	0.17	90	0.01	39	0.04
Michalowski 1933		9	0.00	15	0.01	16	0.07	14	0.30	90	0.02	14	0.08
Milkina 1970		50	-0.10	44	0.00	68	0.04	57	0.04	91	0.01	65	0.02
Mohovich 1999		83	-0.19	62	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01
Moravec 1969		41	-0.08	27	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.16	90	0.02	22	0.06
Morozova 2008		23	-0.04	68	0.00	9	0.09	10	0.38	86	0.02	10	0.09
Neighaus 1950		70	-0.12	90	0.00	77	0.03	69	0.03	89	0.01	77	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		52	-0.10	8	0.02	31	0.04	43	0.09	89	0.02	38	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		14	-0.02	60	0.00	13	0.08	11	0.36	90	0.02	13	0.08
Osinska 1989		61	-0.11	6	0.03	53	0.04	61	0.04	90	0.02	46	0.03
Pachmann 1927		33	-0.06	2	0.19	3	0.31	2	0.57	83	0.03	2	0.13
Paderewski 1930		6	0.01	5	0.03	8	0.13	7	0.47	86	0.02	9	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		80	-0.16	34	0.00	84	0.03	67	0.03	90	0.01	60	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		54	-0.10	29	0.00	33	0.04	35	0.15	90	0.02	34	0.05
Poblocka 1999		58	-0.11	56	0.00	19	0.05	37	0.13	89	0.02	32	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.00	30	0.00	24	0.05	22	0.22	89	0.02	18	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	-0.06	19	0.01	40	0.05	39	0.11	88	0.02	33	0.05
Rangell 2001		31	-0.06	24	0.01	52	0.04	54	0.04	90	0.01	76	0.02
Richter 1976		76	-0.14	12	0.02	12	0.07	33	0.17	89	0.02	24	0.06
Rosen 1989		66	-0.12	86	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	90	0.02	74	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		21	-0.04	25	0.01	28	0.05	16	0.25	89	0.02	20	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		59	-0.11	70	0.00	58	0.04	53	0.04	89	0.01	67	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		38	-0.07	88	0.00	35	0.04	32	0.17	89	0.02	30	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		34	-0.06	77	0.00	50	0.04	58	0.04	89	0.01	80	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		36	-0.07	31	0.00	27	0.06	23	0.21	88	0.02	29	0.06
Rossi 2007		88	-0.20	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		40	-0.08	23	0.01	63	0.05	48	0.05	89	0.02	48	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		22	-0.04	52	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	87	0.02	57	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		25	-0.05	74	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	89	0.02	40	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		17	-0.03	7	0.03	4	0.14	8	0.46	88	0.03	4	0.12
Shebanova 2002		27	-0.06	76	0.00	30	0.05	25	0.21	89	0.02	26	0.06
Smith 1975		90	-0.23	64	0.00	90	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.02	84	0.01
Sokolov 2002		12	-0.01	49	0.00	43	0.03	44	0.08	90	0.01	47	0.03
Sztompka 1959		53	-0.10	71	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	90	0.02	66	0.02
Tomsic 1995		91	-0.25	37	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.01
Uninsky 1932		29	-0.06	18	0.01	11	0.10	12	0.35	89	0.02	16	0.08
Uninsky 1971		42	-0.08	48	0.00	22	0.05	17	0.25	90	0.01	36	0.05
Wasowski 1980		73	-0.13	43	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.01	81	0.01
Zak 1937		57	-0.11	91	0.00	56	0.04	52	0.04	89	0.02	50	0.03
Zak 1951		56	-0.11	87	0.00	61	0.04	49	0.04	89	0.02	51	0.03
Average		63	-0.11	81	0.00	66	0.03	75	0.03	89	0.02	70	0.02
Random 1		1	0.05	1	0.20	1	0.20	1	0.59	1	0.71	1	0.65
Random 2		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 3		24	-0.05	16	0.01	29	0.05	42	0.09	35	0.16	6	0.12

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).