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		43	0.31	14	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	40	0.15	29	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		35	0.33	23	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.13	76	0.03	44	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		24	0.36	60	0.00	15	0.14	16	0.51	13	0.45	5	0.48
Bacha 2000		65	0.25	61	0.00	66	0.05	66	0.05	74	0.03	57	0.04
Badura 1965		8	0.41	15	0.00	7	0.11	12	0.53	15	0.45	4	0.49
Barbosa 1983		38	0.33	43	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.19	71	0.04	39	0.09
Biret 1990		32	0.34	24	0.00	32	0.06	26	0.36	87	0.02	42	0.08
Blet 2003		53	0.28	6	0.00	59	0.06	48	0.06	78	0.03	69	0.04
Block 1995		39	0.32	62	0.00	27	0.07	31	0.30	52	0.05	30	0.12
Blumental 1952		23	0.36	30	0.00	26	0.06	27	0.33	46	0.08	17	0.16
Boshniakovich 1969		33	0.34	63	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.51	64	0.04	25	0.14
Brailowsky 1960		17	0.37	11	0.00	23	0.11	24	0.40	65	0.05	24	0.14
Bunin 1987		74	0.21	64	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	74	0.03	72	0.04
Bunin 1987b		86	0.14	65	0.00	74	0.04	78	0.04	81	0.03	78	0.03
Chiu 1999		69	0.24	66	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.03	76	0.03
Cohen 1997		75	0.21	9	0.00	60	0.06	49	0.06	69	0.04	54	0.05
Cortot 1951		87	0.12	67	0.00	87	0.04	82	0.04	84	0.02	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		73	0.21	68	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.04	80	0.03
Czerny 1949		46	0.30	12	0.00	47	0.05	64	0.05	70	0.04	70	0.04
Czerny 1990		11	0.40	69	0.00	16	0.15	8	0.56	66	0.04	21	0.15
Duchoud 2007		76	0.20	21	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	52	0.06	52	0.05
Ezaki 2006		66	0.25	70	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04	56	0.04
Falvay 1989		27	0.35	71	0.00	30	0.07	35	0.23	72	0.04	35	0.10
Farrell 1958		71	0.23	72	0.00	70	0.05	55	0.05	81	0.03	63	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.30	16	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.15	61	0.05	40	0.09
Fliere 1977		34	0.34	73	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	87	0.03	48	0.05
Fou 1978		16	0.37	44	0.00	17	0.13	19	0.49	60	0.05	16	0.16
Francois 1956		30	0.35	7	0.00	6	0.21	15	0.51	12	0.46	6	0.48
Friedman 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923b		1	0.95	1	0.98	1	0.97	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Friedman 1930		2	0.62	2	0.01	2	0.63	2	0.84	1	0.85	2	0.84
Garcia 2007		81	0.17	17	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		57	0.27	5	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.03	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		40	0.32	74	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	83	0.03	71	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.37	75	0.00	14	0.14	13	0.52	54	0.05	18	0.16
Groot 1988		62	0.26	13	0.00	56	0.05	59	0.05	78	0.04	73	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.37	76	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.31	81	0.03	37	0.10
Hatto 1993		14	0.39	77	0.00	10	0.13	5	0.57	69	0.04	22	0.15
Hatto 1997		10	0.40	78	0.00	11	0.19	7	0.57	53	0.05	14	0.17
Horowitz 1949		52	0.29	36	0.00	54	0.04	76	0.04	28	0.31	32	0.11
Indjic 1988		12	0.39	45	0.00	12	0.12	10	0.55	58	0.04	20	0.15
Kapell 1951		79	0.19	46	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	83	0.02	86	0.02
Kissin 1993		55	0.28	25	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	71	0.04	66	0.04
Kushner 1989		31	0.34	47	0.00	39	0.08	37	0.19	76	0.04	38	0.09
Luisada 1991		29	0.35	48	0.00	24	0.11	23	0.41	47	0.06	15	0.16
Lushtak 2004		20	0.36	49	0.00	28	0.07	28	0.32	80	0.04	33	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		50	0.29	79	0.00	61	0.07	46	0.07	78	0.03	49	0.05
Magaloff 1978		44	0.31	22	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Magin 1975		45	0.31	26	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	75	0.04	62	0.04
Michalowski 1933		88	0.10	80	0.00	88	0.04	81	0.04	48	0.04	65	0.04
Milkina 1970		21	0.36	81	0.00	21	0.15	20	0.47	82	0.03	28	0.12
Mohovich 1999		22	0.36	10	0.00	25	0.08	25	0.37	68	0.04	31	0.12
Moravec 1969		70	0.24	82	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	82	0.03	74	0.03
Morozova 2008		77	0.20	31	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.03	82	0.03
Neighaus 1950		4	0.46	83	0.00	3	0.38	14	0.52	9	0.55	3	0.53
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.26	32	0.00	36	0.06	42	0.12	53	0.06	41	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.35	50	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.32	60	0.05	26	0.13
Osinska 1989		37	0.33	8	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.21	67	0.05	34	0.10
Pachmann 1927		80	0.19	51	0.00	81	0.04	80	0.04	78	0.03	79	0.03
Paderewski 1930		78	0.20	37	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	47	0.06	51	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.24	38	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.04	58	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.16	84	0.00	86	0.04	79	0.04	71	0.03	77	0.03
Poblocka 1999		54	0.28	52	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.26	85	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.13	80	0.03	43	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		25	0.35	39	0.00	22	0.12	22	0.45	34	0.25	8	0.34
Rangell 2001		64	0.26	33	0.00	71	0.06	50	0.06	56	0.06	45	0.06
Richter 1976		67	0.24	3	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.09	71	0.03	50	0.05
Rosen 1989		26	0.35	53	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.28	46	0.06	27	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.29	40	0.00	68	0.06	51	0.06	57	0.05	53	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		59	0.27	54	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.04	68	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		60	0.27	55	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	46	0.06	55	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.29	86	0.00	53	0.04	67	0.04	47	0.10	47	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		58	0.27	56	0.00	63	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.08	46	0.06
Rossi 2007		82	0.17	41	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		15	0.38	42	0.00	20	0.12	21	0.46	54	0.05	19	0.15
Rubinstein 1952		6	0.43	4	0.00	5	0.32	4	0.66	44	0.14	9	0.30
Rubinstein 1966		5	0.44	27	0.00	8	0.14	6	0.57	56	0.06	13	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.22	57	0.00	79	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.03	81	0.03
Shebanova 2002		42	0.32	18	0.00	34	0.08	34	0.27	69	0.04	36	0.10
Smith 1975		7	0.42	28	0.00	13	0.18	11	0.54	37	0.27	7	0.38
Sokolov 2002		56	0.27	87	0.00	58	0.06	47	0.06	76	0.03	60	0.04
Sztompka 1959		41	0.32	88	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	69	0.04	64	0.04
Tomsic 1995		84	0.16	34	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	80	0.03	87	0.02
Uninsky 1932		85	0.15	89	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Uninsky 1971		47	0.30	58	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	79	0.04	67	0.04
Wasowski 1980		36	0.33	19	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.28	50	0.07	23	0.14
Zak 1937		9	0.41	20	0.00	9	0.13	9	0.55	41	0.14	10	0.28
Zak 1951		13	0.39	29	0.00	18	0.16	18	0.51	39	0.10	11	0.23
Average		3	0.50	35	0.00	4	0.48	3	0.79	60	0.05	12	0.20
Random 1		90	-0.09	90	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	65	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.08	59	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		91	-0.14	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01

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).