Friedman 1923

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		40	0.18	10	0.00	21	0.06	21	0.36	57	0.04	25	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		27	0.23	27	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.16	77	0.03	39	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.26	28	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.20	88	0.02	45	0.06
Bacha 2000		73	0.00	29	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	90	0.01	76	0.02
Badura 1965		35	0.20	30	0.00	22	0.07	22	0.34	66	0.04	26	0.12
Barbosa 1983		53	0.09	31	0.00	58	0.06	56	0.06	81	0.02	72	0.03
Biret 1990		45	0.16	32	0.00	50	0.04	76	0.04	87	0.02	73	0.03
Blet 2003		19	0.27	11	0.00	18	0.07	16	0.42	59	0.04	19	0.13
Block 1995		71	0.00	33	0.00	25	0.05	41	0.16	69	0.03	42	0.07
Blumental 1952		10	0.30	34	0.00	8	0.13	9	0.45	15	0.31	6	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		59	0.06	35	0.00	55	0.05	66	0.05	77	0.03	52	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		86	-0.18	16	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	90	0.01	77	0.02
Bunin 1987		13	0.29	12	0.00	14	0.08	12	0.43	61	0.04	21	0.13
Bunin 1987b		14	0.29	36	0.00	15	0.09	14	0.43	62	0.04	18	0.13
Chiu 1999		55	0.08	37	0.00	66	0.05	69	0.05	87	0.02	62	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	-0.23	17	0.00	87	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Cortot 1951		9	0.30	38	0.00	10	0.10	11	0.44	37	0.19	11	0.29
Csalog 1996		89	-0.24	39	0.00	89	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01
Czerny 1949		29	0.22	40	0.00	9	0.09	8	0.46	36	0.19	9	0.30
Czerny 1990		38	0.19	41	0.00	12	0.09	13	0.43	53	0.04	22	0.13
Duchoud 2007		6	0.33	42	0.00	13	0.08	18	0.41	57	0.04	20	0.13
Ezaki 2006		30	0.22	43	0.00	30	0.06	24	0.34	70	0.03	33	0.10
Falvay 1989		85	-0.15	44	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	90	0.01	78	0.02
Farrell 1958		28	0.22	45	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.13	70	0.03	44	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		58	0.07	46	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.11	52	0.04	40	0.07
Fliere 1977		51	0.11	2	0.00	61	0.06	53	0.06	87	0.02	59	0.03
Fou 1978		79	-0.05	14	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	90	0.01	79	0.02
Francois 1956		56	0.08	47	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.20	56	0.05	35	0.10
Friedman 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923b		1	1.00	1	1.00	1	0.98	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Friedman 1930		2	0.64	9	0.00	2	0.60	2	0.76	1	0.69	2	0.72
Garcia 2007		36	0.20	48	0.00	47	0.05	70	0.05	59	0.04	51	0.04
Garcia 2007b		20	0.26	18	0.00	24	0.06	33	0.23	16	0.24	14	0.23
Gierzod 1998		33	0.21	19	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.18	79	0.03	41	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		44	0.16	6	0.00	26	0.06	25	0.33	82	0.02	38	0.08
Groot 1988		67	0.01	49	0.00	54	0.05	67	0.05	87	0.02	74	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		50	0.12	3	0.00	53	0.07	48	0.07	70	0.03	49	0.05
Hatto 1993		18	0.27	50	0.00	51	0.05	75	0.05	78	0.02	75	0.03
Hatto 1997		12	0.29	51	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	47	0.04	47	0.05
Horowitz 1949		66	0.01	5	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	87	0.02	70	0.03
Indjic 1988		21	0.26	52	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	62	0.03	50	0.04
Kapell 1951		43	0.17	53	0.00	39	0.08	29	0.25	50	0.05	29	0.11
Kissin 1993		81	-0.11	54	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	90	0.01	82	0.02
Kushner 1989		42	0.17	55	0.00	45	0.06	52	0.06	85	0.02	66	0.03
Luisada 1991		57	0.08	56	0.00	64	0.05	71	0.05	87	0.02	57	0.03
Lushtak 2004		37	0.20	57	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.12	82	0.02	48	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.23	58	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.34	58	0.04	24	0.12
Magaloff 1978		62	0.05	59	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	87	0.02	63	0.03
Magin 1975		41	0.18	60	0.00	29	0.07	39	0.17	80	0.02	43	0.06
Michalowski 1933		7	0.33	61	0.00	7	0.17	7	0.48	31	0.29	5	0.37
Milkina 1970		83	-0.12	62	0.00	85	0.03	80	0.03	90	0.01	80	0.02
Mohovich 1999		60	0.05	63	0.00	49	0.05	72	0.05	82	0.03	53	0.04
Moravec 1969		65	0.02	64	0.00	59	0.06	55	0.06	86	0.02	56	0.03
Morozova 2008		31	0.22	65	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.22	76	0.03	37	0.08
Neighaus 1950		11	0.30	66	0.00	16	0.08	19	0.40	74	0.03	32	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.00	20	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	88	0.02	65	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.18	67	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	84	0.02	71	0.03
Osinska 1989		61	0.05	21	0.00	56	0.05	74	0.05	88	0.02	60	0.03
Pachmann 1927		82	-0.12	22	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.02
Paderewski 1930		49	0.12	13	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.22	37	0.12	15	0.16
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.13	68	0.00	28	0.08	31	0.24	74	0.03	36	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		78	-0.04	8	0.00	74	0.05	73	0.05	87	0.02	64	0.03
Poblocka 1999		52	0.10	7	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	87	0.02	61	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.21	69	0.00	17	0.09	10	0.45	39	0.15	12	0.26
Rachmaninoff 1923		5	0.35	70	0.00	5	0.12	6	0.51	33	0.16	10	0.29
Rangell 2001		63	0.04	23	0.00	71	0.05	59	0.05	89	0.01	85	0.02
Richter 1976		84	-0.15	24	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	87	0.01
Rosen 1989		16	0.28	71	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.42	77	0.03	31	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		23	0.26	72	0.00	20	0.07	20	0.39	39	0.16	13	0.25
Rosenthal 1931		48	0.13	73	0.00	63	0.07	45	0.07	59	0.04	46	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		46	0.14	74	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.03	55	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		26	0.23	75	0.00	35	0.07	30	0.25	55	0.04	34	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		64	0.03	25	0.00	70	0.07	47	0.07	76	0.02	54	0.04
Rossi 2007		68	0.01	76	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.24	45	0.06	23	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		87	-0.20	77	0.00	88	0.01	87	0.01	90	0.01	86	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		90	-0.38	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		77	-0.03	79	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	89	0.01	83	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.28	4	0.00	33	0.05	26	0.29	61	0.04	30	0.11
Shebanova 2002		80	-0.10	80	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	90	0.01	84	0.02
Smith 1975		32	0.22	15	0.00	11	0.07	15	0.43	78	0.03	28	0.11
Sokolov 2002		24	0.24	81	0.00	34	0.06	27	0.29	57	0.04	27	0.11
Sztompka 1959		3	0.40	82	0.00	4	0.32	4	0.53	23	0.36	4	0.44
Tomsic 1995		70	0.00	83	0.00	69	0.06	51	0.06	86	0.02	69	0.03
Uninsky 1932		4	0.40	84	0.00	3	0.29	3	0.58	12	0.44	3	0.51
Uninsky 1971		8	0.32	85	0.00	6	0.16	5	0.53	38	0.19	8	0.32
Wasowski 1980		74	-0.01	26	0.00	73	0.06	50	0.06	87	0.02	58	0.03
Zak 1937		75	-0.01	86	0.00	76	0.05	68	0.05	87	0.02	67	0.03
Zak 1951		76	-0.01	87	0.00	75	0.05	64	0.05	87	0.02	68	0.03
Random 1		54	0.09	88	0.00	67	0.05	65	0.05	10	0.42	17	0.14
Random 2		72	0.00	89	0.00	68	0.07	46	0.07	15	0.32	16	0.15
Random 3		17	0.27	90	0.00	23	0.06	28	0.27	4	0.50	7	0.37

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).