The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Process complexity and effective random tests
Open accessAbstract
We propose a variant of the Kolmogorov concept of complexity which yields a common theory of finite and infinite random sequences. Processes are sequential coding schemes such as prefix coding schemes. The process complexity is the minimal length of the description of a sequence in a sequential coding scheme. The process complexity does not oscillate. We establish some concepts of effective tests which are proved to be equivalent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A formal theory of inductive inference. Part II
Solomonoff, R. J. (1964) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(64)90131-7 · Cited by 1,758
A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I
Solomonoff, R. J. (1964) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(64)90223-2 · Cited by 1,192
Cited by
Dieguez, S., Wagner-Egger, P., & Gauvrit, N. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615598740 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Schnorr, C. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer and System Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1973-08
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 376-388
- ISSN
- 0022-0000 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2045709959
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Process complexity and effective random tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-0000(73)80030-3
- The paper
- Schnorr, C. P. (1973). Process complexity and effective random tests. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-0000(73)80030-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
