Friedman 1930

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	0.21	76	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		80	0.15	83	0.00	83	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.53	8	0.01	10	0.21	6	0.77	20	0.67	8	0.72
Bacha 2000		71	0.21	84	0.00	63	0.04	76	0.04	63	0.05	69	0.04
Badura 1965		42	0.37	24	0.00	49	0.07	52	0.07	24	0.46	46	0.18
Barbosa 1983		51	0.32	77	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	41	0.13	50	0.09
Biret 1990		63	0.24	64	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	49	0.08	59	0.06
Blet 2003		12	0.50	38	0.00	13	0.19	24	0.56	6	0.68	18	0.62
Block 1995		15	0.48	71	0.00	29	0.10	26	0.55	25	0.47	28	0.51
Blumental 1952		60	0.26	10	0.01	54	0.06	58	0.06	38	0.19	49	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.44	45	0.00	27	0.09	21	0.60	18	0.53	24	0.56
Brailowsky 1960		76	0.17	46	0.00	70	0.05	65	0.05	47	0.10	53	0.07
Bunin 1987		35	0.40	27	0.00	18	0.14	20	0.60	7	0.65	19	0.62
Bunin 1987b		34	0.41	39	0.00	17	0.13	19	0.60	7	0.65	16	0.62
Chiu 1999		8	0.54	53	0.00	11	0.15	8	0.74	14	0.66	9	0.70
Cohen 1997		68	0.22	62	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	78	0.02	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		64	0.24	72	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.05	73	0.04
Csalog 1996		43	0.37	54	0.00	53	0.11	46	0.11	32	0.32	44	0.19
Czerny 1949		84	0.05	89	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	61	0.05	80	0.03
Czerny 1990		37	0.39	26	0.00	35	0.09	37	0.39	30	0.51	35	0.45
Duchoud 2007		38	0.39	30	0.00	33	0.10	35	0.42	21	0.47	36	0.44
Ezaki 2006		66	0.23	65	0.00	68	0.06	61	0.06	59	0.05	60	0.05
Falvay 1989		77	0.16	85	0.00	81	0.04	78	0.04	84	0.02	76	0.03
Farrell 1958		72	0.20	66	0.00	67	0.05	66	0.05	44	0.10	54	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		91	-0.13	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Fliere 1977		4	0.61	35	0.00	5	0.24	5	0.83	10	0.79	4	0.81
Fou 1978		53	0.30	50	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	63	0.04	62	0.05
Francois 1956		75	0.17	33	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	67	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1923		1	0.73	2	0.35	2	0.70	1	0.93	2	0.90	2	0.91
Friedman 1923b		2	0.73	1	0.37	1	0.37	2	0.93	2	0.91	1	0.92
Friedman 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007		44	0.37	44	0.00	39	0.11	36	0.40	35	0.36	40	0.38
Garcia 2007b		50	0.32	34	0.00	47	0.10	47	0.10	31	0.35	45	0.19
Gierzod 1998		78	0.15	40	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	61	0.05	72	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		67	0.22	17	0.00	62	0.06	59	0.06	62	0.04	66	0.05
Groot 1988		18	0.46	43	0.00	30	0.15	18	0.61	24	0.39	30	0.49
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.42	11	0.01	43	0.07	43	0.18	74	0.04	52	0.08
Hatto 1993		20	0.46	22	0.00	25	0.11	22	0.59	24	0.47	27	0.53
Hatto 1997		49	0.35	55	0.00	52	0.09	48	0.09	42	0.14	48	0.11
Horowitz 1949		13	0.49	37	0.00	12	0.16	10	0.71	5	0.75	5	0.73
Indjic 1988		19	0.46	51	0.00	24	0.13	16	0.62	23	0.55	21	0.58
Kapell 1951		16	0.48	28	0.00	14	0.12	12	0.66	8	0.63	14	0.64
Kissin 1993		47	0.36	57	0.00	36	0.09	40	0.36	31	0.47	37	0.41
Kushner 1989		46	0.36	73	0.00	51	0.09	49	0.09	51	0.07	51	0.08
Luisada 1991		36	0.39	74	0.00	42	0.12	42	0.28	47	0.10	47	0.17
Lushtak 2004		57	0.28	67	0.00	57	0.08	50	0.08	58	0.05	57	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.45	23	0.00	31	0.13	28	0.54	17	0.55	25	0.54
Magaloff 1978		22	0.45	14	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.65	13	0.61	15	0.63
Magin 1975		23	0.44	19	0.00	23	0.11	25	0.55	18	0.66	20	0.60
Michalowski 1933		33	0.42	16	0.00	34	0.09	33	0.44	22	0.46	34	0.45
Milkina 1970		87	0.00	86	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02	88	0.02
Mohovich 1999		73	0.18	78	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	89	0.02
Moravec 1969		56	0.28	91	0.00	58	0.06	60	0.06	61	0.04	61	0.05
Morozova 2008		30	0.42	18	0.00	21	0.14	29	0.53	21	0.41	31	0.47
Neighaus 1950		28	0.42	68	0.00	38	0.11	34	0.44	40	0.17	42	0.27
Niedzielski 1931		39	0.39	63	0.00	26	0.10	31	0.52	21	0.46	29	0.49
Ohlsson 1999		9	0.54	12	0.00	9	0.23	13	0.66	7	0.64	12	0.65
Osinska 1989		59	0.28	79	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	47	0.08	55	0.06
Pachmann 1927		14	0.49	69	0.00	15	0.12	15	0.63	13	0.70	11	0.66
Paderewski 1930		17	0.47	9	0.01	22	0.11	17	0.62	15	0.63	17	0.62
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.42	60	0.00	40	0.15	39	0.39	28	0.52	33	0.45
Pierdomenico 2008		41	0.38	31	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	35	0.23	43	0.19
Poblocka 1999		40	0.38	80	0.00	37	0.11	38	0.39	25	0.38	39	0.38
Rabcewiczowa 1932		82	0.12	75	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.03	87	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.43	15	0.00	20	0.11	27	0.55	18	0.60	22	0.57
Rangell 2001		61	0.26	61	0.00	61	0.07	53	0.07	60	0.05	58	0.06
Richter 1976		5	0.61	6	0.03	4	0.23	4	0.83	8	0.81	3	0.82
Rosen 1989		26	0.44	32	0.00	28	0.11	23	0.59	26	0.49	26	0.54
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.25	36	0.00	65	0.04	77	0.04	50	0.06	65	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.03	25	0.00	84	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.04	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.08	81	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	52	0.06	67	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.18	47	0.00	71	0.05	63	0.05	57	0.04	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.05	52	0.00	76	0.03	84	0.03	61	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.14	20	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	36	0.14	56	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.15	56	0.00	82	0.04	75	0.04	75	0.03	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		52	0.31	48	0.00	50	0.06	55	0.06	71	0.04	68	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		69	0.21	41	0.00	79	0.05	64	0.05	89	0.02	79	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.42	21	0.00	19	0.13	32	0.49	7	0.63	23	0.56
Shebanova 2002		6	0.58	5	0.03	6	0.26	11	0.71	17	0.66	10	0.68
Smith 1975		65	0.23	13	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.04	77	0.03
Sokolov 2002		55	0.29	58	0.00	59	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.03	75	0.03
Sztompka 1959		25	0.44	29	0.00	32	0.15	30	0.52	29	0.40	32	0.46
Tomsic 1995		58	0.28	82	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	57	0.05	63	0.05
Uninsky 1932		11	0.53	4	0.04	8	0.37	7	0.76	10	0.69	7	0.72
Uninsky 1971		54	0.30	49	0.00	46	0.07	51	0.07	68	0.04	64	0.05
Wasowski 1980		7	0.57	7	0.01	7	0.30	9	0.72	6	0.72	6	0.72
Zak 1937		45	0.36	70	0.00	41	0.11	41	0.33	21	0.47	38	0.39
Zak 1951		48	0.35	59	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	22	0.44	41	0.27
Average		3	0.65	3	0.07	3	0.40	3	0.87	15	0.49	13	0.65
Random 1		89	-0.01	87	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	55	0.04	83	0.03
Random 2		88	-0.01	42	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.04	81	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.04	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	90	0.02

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).