Talk:Iterative deepening depth-first search

message: I just reverted the space complexity of IDDFS back to O(bd) after it was changed to O(bd) by .  I do believe this is correct (and, in fact, it seems to me only O(d) space is needed if the children of each node are traversed in a predetermined order), but I'd welcome any comments.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In it's simplest form surely space complexity is just O(d), where d is the maximum depth? You don't have to generate a child of a node, except when you evaluate it, and you can destroy it immediately after. It's the same as fixed depth-first search.WolfKeeper 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  The O(bd) applies if you are choosing the descent path heuristically (or randomly), in which case you have to keep track of all the branches you've already taken at each level to know when you're done.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space complexity 

message: "In general, iterative deepening is the preferred search method when there is a large search space and the depth of the solution is not known."
Is a citation really enough?  This appears to be an __exact__ quote from the Norvig book.  Shouldn't there be quotes or something around it, or shouldn't it be rewritten?  Seems to be borderline plagiarism still otherwise.  (FYI, I originally quoted it, but it was later changed to a regular Wikipedia style citation.)  -- Solberg (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  actual quotes 

message: Why is IDA* (iteratively deepening A*) a redirect here? It seems to have next to nothing to do with IDDFS. --SLi (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDA* 

message: Check out the copy here: http://www.onlinemca.com/mca_course/kurukshetra_university/semester4/artificialintelligence/iterative_depthfirst_search.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.67 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page looks to have been copied without attribution 

message: The code simply won't end if the node doesn't exist. It should be a condition for the DLS to inform the iddfs that it have reached the deepest. Timothychen1019 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code won't end 

message: Agreed, but in order to keep code simple as it is now I would maintain the current example with a big "if depth or goal membership is known" notice (changing ∞ for known depth), but add another example returning a sentinel element to denote some elements remain (a mismatch), different from "null" which would mean the current level has 0 children. --2bam (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second example for unknown depth, proposal 

message: I have managed to write (possibly) correct pseudocode implementation of the bidirectional IDDFS (see Richard E. Korf's 1985 paper, pages 102 - 103). The code is backed up by a Java implementation that seems to work correctly as compared to a couple of other algorithms. Now, is it O.K. to add that pseudocode to its own subsection, or should I create a separate Wikipedia article for it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion.Efremov (talk • contribs) 10:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudocode for bidirectional IDDFS: yes or no?