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

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).