Friedman 1923b

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		8	0.64	31	0.00	11	0.10	9	0.58	32	0.35	11	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.58	14	0.00	29	0.11	37	0.30	46	0.05	38	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		19	0.59	24	0.00	14	0.14	16	0.53	23	0.37	13	0.44
Bacha 2000		53	0.47	65	0.00	57	0.06	54	0.06	69	0.04	54	0.05
Badura 1965		10	0.63	46	0.00	16	0.10	17	0.51	13	0.54	7	0.52
Barbosa 1983		60	0.45	66	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.04	68	0.04
Biret 1990		54	0.47	67	0.00	60	0.05	63	0.05	63	0.04	73	0.04
Blet 2003		63	0.43	6	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	69	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		51	0.47	68	0.00	49	0.06	56	0.06	50	0.06	52	0.06
Blumental 1952		42	0.51	32	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.13	52	0.05	46	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		27	0.56	47	0.00	20	0.08	20	0.48	49	0.07	22	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		52	0.47	33	0.00	65	0.06	49	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.06
Bunin 1987		77	0.35	69	0.00	50	0.05	64	0.05	43	0.19	40	0.10
Bunin 1987b		78	0.33	70	0.00	58	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.12	48	0.07
Chiu 1999		34	0.54	71	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	50	0.06	51	0.06
Cohen 1997		84	0.30	72	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.03	90	0.02
Cortot 1951		69	0.39	73	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		88	0.23	74	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	87	0.03	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		14	0.61	34	0.00	8	0.19	8	0.60	29	0.44	9	0.51
Czerny 1990		15	0.61	75	0.00	18	0.12	15	0.53	57	0.06	23	0.18
Duchoud 2007		73	0.36	48	0.00	72	0.05	65	0.05	69	0.04	70	0.04
Ezaki 2006		24	0.56	49	0.00	38	0.10	38	0.24	48	0.07	34	0.13
Falvay 1989		79	0.33	19	0.00	87	0.04	75	0.04	82	0.03	78	0.03
Farrell 1958		48	0.49	50	0.00	63	0.05	66	0.05	72	0.04	66	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.46	38	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.15	43	0.09
Fliere 1977		13	0.61	35	0.00	22	0.11	29	0.42	76	0.04	35	0.13
Fou 1978		45	0.50	36	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	62	0.05	57	0.05
Francois 1956		62	0.44	76	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	61	0.04	76	0.04
Friedman 1923		1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Friedman 1923b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1930		2	0.84	4	0.00	2	0.77	2	0.87	2	0.89	2	0.88
Garcia 2007		66	0.41	51	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	60	0.05	71	0.04
Garcia 2007b		49	0.48	39	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	80	0.03	62	0.05
Gierzod 1998		22	0.57	8	0.00	21	0.08	23	0.46	46	0.07	21	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.51	77	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.22	72	0.03	47	0.08
Groot 1988		70	0.39	40	0.00	69	0.06	48	0.06	73	0.04	60	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.63	25	0.00	17	0.10	12	0.55	50	0.05	29	0.17
Hatto 1993		6	0.70	78	0.00	4	0.22	5	0.71	11	0.50	5	0.60
Hatto 1997		5	0.70	52	0.00	6	0.26	6	0.70	10	0.52	4	0.60
Horowitz 1949		44	0.51	79	0.00	37	0.08	33	0.36	24	0.46	15	0.41
Indjic 1988		4	0.71	80	0.00	5	0.31	4	0.71	10	0.52	3	0.61
Kapell 1951		67	0.41	53	0.00	61	0.06	53	0.06	76	0.04	58	0.05
Kissin 1993		37	0.54	81	0.00	31	0.11	19	0.48	49	0.06	26	0.17
Kushner 1989		46	0.50	82	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	88	0.02	80	0.03
Luisada 1991		11	0.61	13	0.00	15	0.17	18	0.49	20	0.37	14	0.43
Lushtak 2004		40	0.52	54	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	72	0.04	72	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		57	0.46	20	0.00	40	0.08	42	0.17	57	0.04	45	0.08
Magaloff 1978		59	0.45	55	0.00	59	0.05	68	0.05	56	0.05	56	0.05
Magin 1975		29	0.55	17	0.00	26	0.08	30	0.40	59	0.04	36	0.13
Michalowski 1933		55	0.47	83	0.00	48	0.05	57	0.05	44	0.18	41	0.09
Milkina 1970		39	0.52	84	0.00	34	0.09	32	0.37	66	0.05	32	0.14
Mohovich 1999		58	0.45	56	0.00	62	0.07	46	0.07	66	0.04	59	0.05
Moravec 1969		76	0.35	9	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	60	0.05	63	0.04
Morozova 2008		26	0.56	15	0.00	32	0.09	35	0.34	46	0.06	33	0.14
Neighaus 1950		7	0.65	10	0.00	3	0.19	7	0.62	13	0.55	6	0.58
Niedzielski 1931		17	0.60	11	0.00	13	0.12	14	0.53	7	0.50	8	0.51
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.56	26	0.00	27	0.09	36	0.33	65	0.04	39	0.11
Osinska 1989		30	0.55	41	0.00	35	0.09	31	0.39	62	0.05	31	0.14
Pachmann 1927		71	0.38	5	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	62	0.04	82	0.03
Paderewski 1930		72	0.37	85	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	59	0.04	67	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.43	27	0.00	68	0.06	52	0.06	59	0.04	55	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.28	86	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		50	0.48	42	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	84	0.03	50	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.40	21	0.00	70	0.06	51	0.06	87	0.03	65	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.59	87	0.00	23	0.09	24	0.46	35	0.23	18	0.33
Rangell 2001		86	0.27	57	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	86	0.03
Richter 1976		47	0.49	2	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.17	36	0.33	19	0.24
Rosen 1989		32	0.55	58	0.00	30	0.09	27	0.42	47	0.07	28	0.17
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.36	3	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.32	22	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	64	0.04	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.31	59	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	63	0.05	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.32	23	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.31	60	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	74	0.04	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		61	0.44	18	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	63	0.04	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.51	28	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	49	0.05	44	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		75	0.36	61	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.55	16	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.17	66	0.05	42	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.56	43	0.00	28	0.10	22	0.47	51	0.06	27	0.17
Shebanova 2002		31	0.55	44	0.00	19	0.07	25	0.44	59	0.05	30	0.15
Smith 1975		36	0.54	12	0.00	36	0.10	34	0.35	67	0.04	37	0.12
Sokolov 2002		65	0.42	29	0.00	51	0.06	55	0.06	76	0.03	64	0.04
Sztompka 1959		20	0.59	37	0.00	25	0.08	21	0.47	54	0.06	25	0.17
Tomsic 1995		87	0.24	88	0.00	88	0.04	74	0.04	84	0.03	81	0.03
Uninsky 1932		38	0.54	89	0.00	24	0.09	26	0.42	36	0.33	17	0.37
Uninsky 1971		35	0.54	90	0.00	9	0.15	10	0.57	29	0.40	10	0.48
Wasowski 1980		28	0.55	62	0.00	33	0.12	28	0.42	52	0.07	24	0.17
Zak 1937		12	0.61	63	0.00	10	0.17	11	0.56	28	0.35	12	0.44
Zak 1951		16	0.61	45	0.00	12	0.14	13	0.55	33	0.29	16	0.40
Average		3	0.71	7	0.00	7	0.42	3	0.77	53	0.07	20	0.23
Random 1		90	-0.13	64	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	33	0.17	53	0.06
Random 2		89	-0.08	30	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	79	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.15	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	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).