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		70	-0.15	87	0.00	78	0.02	82	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		48	-0.09	73	0.00	68	0.02	72	0.02	90	0.02	68	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		29	-0.04	88	0.00	30	0.05	37	0.15	90	0.01	42	0.04
Bacha 2000		53	-0.09	56	0.00	17	0.06	36	0.16	84	0.02	25	0.06
Badura 1965		5	0.06	2	0.12	3	0.13	2	0.50	85	0.02	12	0.10
Barbosa 1983		42	-0.06	32	0.00	36	0.05	29	0.19	85	0.02	29	0.06
Biret 1990		47	-0.08	57	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	90	0.02	36	0.05
Blet 2003		75	-0.16	25	0.00	53	0.03	53	0.03	90	0.01	69	0.02
Block 1995		61	-0.11	70	0.00	67	0.02	77	0.02	91	0.01	87	0.01
Blumental 1952		20	0.00	12	0.02	11	0.09	23	0.26	73	0.03	18	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		49	-0.09	58	0.00	40	0.05	35	0.16	89	0.01	41	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		72	-0.16	11	0.02	51	0.04	52	0.04	87	0.02	44	0.03
Bunin 1987		66	-0.13	71	0.00	52	0.04	51	0.04	89	0.02	51	0.03
Bunin 1987b		64	-0.13	23	0.01	50	0.04	50	0.04	89	0.02	46	0.03
Chiu 1999		59	-0.11	21	0.01	35	0.05	31	0.18	90	0.01	38	0.04
Cohen 1997		17	0.00	19	0.01	15	0.08	14	0.32	89	0.02	21	0.08
Cortot 1951		31	-0.04	36	0.00	38	0.05	27	0.21	84	0.02	30	0.06
Csalog 1996		13	0.02	61	0.00	13	0.13	18	0.32	76	0.03	10	0.10
Czerny 1949		39	-0.06	28	0.00	58	0.03	65	0.03	89	0.02	72	0.02
Czerny 1990		43	-0.08	68	0.00	57	0.03	62	0.03	90	0.02	77	0.02
Duchoud 2007		22	0.00	14	0.02	18	0.06	20	0.30	90	0.01	34	0.05
Ezaki 2006		77	-0.17	17	0.01	80	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.02	52	0.02
Falvay 1989		82	-0.19	49	0.00	89	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.02	56	0.02
Farrell 1958		65	-0.13	46	0.00	63	0.02	68	0.02	90	0.01	84	0.01
Ferenczy 1958		79	-0.17	33	0.00	65	0.03	60	0.03	90	0.02	71	0.02
Fliere 1977		38	-0.05	54	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.14	89	0.01	37	0.04
Fou 1978		83	-0.20	81	0.00	75	0.03	66	0.03	89	0.02	58	0.02
Francois 1956		45	-0.08	48	0.00	62	0.02	74	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.02
Friedman 1923		21	0.00	20	0.01	20	0.05	15	0.32	47	0.07	2	0.15
Friedman 1923b		16	0.00	45	0.00	21	0.08	13	0.32	47	0.06	4	0.14
Friedman 1930		1	0.11	6	0.04	9	0.10	6	0.47	76	0.04	3	0.14
Garcia 2007		86	-0.20	59	0.00	81	0.02	81	0.02	90	0.01	86	0.01
Garcia 2007b		90	-0.24	40	0.00	76	0.02	69	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.02
Gierzod 1998		36	-0.05	55	0.00	47	0.04	48	0.04	90	0.02	50	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		54	-0.10	64	0.00	72	0.02	73	0.02	90	0.01	88	0.01
Groot 1988		55	-0.10	74	0.00	69	0.02	75	0.02	90	0.01	89	0.01
Harasiewicz 1955		80	-0.18	84	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Hatto 1993		4	0.06	8	0.04	5	0.10	4	0.49	85	0.02	13	0.10
Hatto 1997		11	0.02	24	0.01	7	0.09	5	0.48	82	0.02	11	0.10
Horowitz 1949		28	-0.03	69	0.00	31	0.05	40	0.13	89	0.02	32	0.05
Indjic 1988		8	0.05	13	0.02	6	0.12	3	0.50	88	0.02	9	0.10
Kapell 1951		52	-0.09	15	0.02	54	0.03	55	0.03	86	0.02	60	0.02
Kissin 1993		63	-0.12	85	0.00	55	0.03	56	0.03	88	0.02	67	0.02
Kushner 1989		69	-0.14	72	0.00	73	0.03	63	0.03	91	0.01	59	0.02
Luisada 1991		85	-0.20	31	0.00	77	0.02	80	0.02	90	0.01	80	0.01
Lushtak 2004		88	-0.21	86	0.00	83	0.03	67	0.03	90	0.01	74	0.02
Malcuzynski 1961		51	-0.09	60	0.00	59	0.03	59	0.03	90	0.01	62	0.02
Magaloff 1978		23	0.00	78	0.00	28	0.05	33	0.18	89	0.02	26	0.06
Magin 1975		50	-0.09	22	0.01	27	0.05	34	0.17	91	0.01	39	0.04
Michalowski 1933		9	0.04	9	0.03	26	0.04	32	0.18	88	0.02	28	0.06
Milkina 1970		32	-0.04	37	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	86	0.02	40	0.04
Mohovich 1999		89	-0.22	66	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	90	0.02	76	0.02
Moravec 1969		7	0.05	16	0.01	12	0.10	8	0.39	86	0.02	15	0.09
Morozova 2008		74	-0.16	18	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.10	90	0.01	49	0.03
Neighaus 1950		71	-0.15	82	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Niedzielski 1931		6	0.06	3	0.11	2	0.16	22	0.26	84	0.02	22	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		44	-0.08	89	0.00	64	0.03	54	0.03	90	0.01	66	0.02
Osinska 1989		15	0.00	47	0.00	23	0.06	17	0.32	87	0.02	19	0.08
Pachmann 1927		67	-0.13	43	0.00	46	0.04	47	0.04	84	0.03	47	0.03
Paderewski 1930		3	0.09	4	0.08	4	0.09	7	0.45	89	0.02	16	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		91	-0.29	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.01
Pierdomenico 2008		68	-0.13	83	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.01	83	0.01
Poblocka 1999		41	-0.06	29	0.00	48	0.05	46	0.05	90	0.02	45	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		14	0.00	7	0.04	25	0.04	28	0.20	87	0.02	27	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		62	-0.11	50	0.00	60	0.03	61	0.03	88	0.01	55	0.02
Rangell 2001		12	0.02	26	0.00	14	0.10	10	0.39	74	0.03	7	0.11
Richter 1976		78	-0.17	65	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.02
Rosen 1989		56	-0.10	90	0.00	56	0.03	64	0.03	90	0.02	75	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		10	0.02	62	0.00	22	0.06	19	0.30	87	0.01	35	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		46	-0.08	63	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.12	89	0.01	48	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		27	-0.02	44	0.00	19	0.06	16	0.32	88	0.01	31	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		24	0.00	53	0.00	29	0.05	30	0.18	90	0.01	43	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		26	-0.01	52	0.00	16	0.06	12	0.37	73	0.03	8	0.11
Rossi 2007		76	-0.16	27	0.00	82	0.02	79	0.02	90	0.01	82	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		30	-0.04	38	0.00	32	0.05	26	0.23	49	0.05	5	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		37	-0.05	80	0.00	39	0.05	25	0.25	66	0.04	14	0.10
Rubinstein 1966		33	-0.04	10	0.02	10	0.10	11	0.38	83	0.02	17	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		34	-0.04	42	0.00	37	0.04	42	0.11	88	0.02	33	0.05
Shebanova 2002		35	-0.05	51	0.00	34	0.04	24	0.25	86	0.02	23	0.07
Smith 1975		73	-0.16	34	0.00	66	0.02	76	0.02	90	0.02	57	0.02
Sokolov 2002		60	-0.11	41	0.00	74	0.03	58	0.03	91	0.01	54	0.02
Sztompka 1959		58	-0.11	75	0.00	71	0.02	78	0.02	89	0.02	65	0.02
Tomsic 1995		87	-0.20	39	0.00	49	0.04	49	0.04	91	0.01	63	0.02
Uninsky 1932		19	0.00	5	0.05	8	0.10	9	0.39	80	0.03	6	0.11
Uninsky 1971		18	0.00	35	0.00	24	0.07	21	0.29	88	0.02	20	0.08
Wasowski 1980		40	-0.06	67	0.00	61	0.03	57	0.03	90	0.02	53	0.02
Zak 1937		81	-0.18	76	0.00	79	0.02	70	0.02	89	0.02	61	0.02
Zak 1951		84	-0.20	77	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.01	85	0.01
Average		57	-0.10	91	0.00	70	0.02	71	0.02	90	0.02	70	0.02
Random 1		2	0.10	1	0.20	1	0.20	1	0.56	1	0.62	1	0.59
Random 2		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 3		25	-0.01	30	0.00	33	0.05	38	0.14	57	0.04	24	0.07

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).