Talk:Fringe search

TeX
I changed $$f(head)\,$$ to &fnof;(head) for my usual reasons ("inline", as opposed to "displayed" TeX often fails to fit, being far bigger than the surrounding text and to high or too low and having other formatting problems). But if someone feels this must be set in TeX, then the proper way is
 * $$ f(\text{head}),\text{ not }f(head).\,$$

Michael Hardy (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Fringe Search complete? If there is no path to the target, would it necessarily notice, or just churn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.4.8 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

pseudo-code change
I've changed the pseudo-code:
 * 1) I've unified and changed tabulation to 4, to make it clearly visible what's happening
 * 2) The second for loop, should be inside the "first" for loop, so I've shifted whole code appropriately, I've made this change basing on:
 * 3) this pdf http://www.informatika.org/~rinaldi/Stmik/2007-2008/Makalah2008/MakalahIF2251-2008-016.pdf
 * 4) this implementation: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/pathfind/libpathfind/0.1.0/doc/fringesearch_8h-source.html which seems to be "official" implementation, made by the authors of this algorithm

GiM (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevance and neutrality
I have reasons to believe that this article was created by one of the authors of the original paper. This paper has no follow-up and no reproducibility studies. Moreover, it seems to be based on the assumption that a well-optimized A*'s open set needs to be fully sorted. This is false, and thus the 10-40% speed-up claims should be adjusted. This article is misleading, at best. I'll get back to this... --ASHerAtom (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)