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