For BFS, we can consider Facebook example. We receive suggestion to add friends from the FB profile from other other friends profile. Suppose A->B, while B->E and B->F, so A will get suggestion for E And F. They must be using BFS to read till second level. DFS is more based on scenarios where we want to forecast something based on data we have from source to destination. As mentioned already about chess or sudoku. Once thing I have different here is, I believe DFS should be used for shortest path because DFS will cover the whole path first then we can decide the best. But as BFS will use greedy's approach so might be it looks like its the shortest path, but the final result might differ. Let me know whether my understanding is wrong.

以下是对你的问题的全面回答。

简单来说:

Breadth First Search (BFS) algorithm, from its name "Breadth", discovers all the neighbours of a node through the out edges of the node then it discovers the unvisited neighbours of the previously mentioned neighbours through their out edges and so forth, till all the nodes reachable from the origional source are visited (we can continue and take another origional source if there are remaining unvisited nodes and so forth). That's why it can be used to find the shortest path (if there is any) from a node (origional source) to another node if the weights of the edges are uniform.

Depth First Search (DFS) algorithm, from its name "Depth", discovers the unvisited neighbours of the most recently discovered node x through its out edges. If there is no unvisited neighbour from the node x, the algorithm backtracks to discover the unvisited neighbours of the node (through its out edges) from which node x was discovered, and so forth, till all the nodes reachable from the origional source are visited (we can continue and take another origional source if there are remaining unvisited nodes and so forth).

Both BFS and DFS can be incomplete. For example if the branching factor of a node is infinite, or very big for the resources (memory) to support (e.g. when storing the nodes to be discovered next), then BFS is not complete even though the searched key can be at a distance of few edges from the origional source. This infinite branching factor can be because of infinite choices (neighbouring nodes) from a given node to discover. If the depth is infinite, or very big for the resources (memory) to support (e.g. when storing the nodes to be discovered next), then DFS is not complete even though the searched key can be the third neighbor of the origional source. This infinite depth can be because of a situation where there is, for every node the algorithm discovers, at least a new choice (neighbouring node) that is unvisited before.

因此，我们可以得出什么时候使用BFS和DFS。假设我们正在处理一个可管理的有限分支因子和一个可管理的有限深度。如果搜索的节点很浅，即在原始源的一些边之后可以到达，那么最好使用BFS。另一方面，如果搜索的节点较深，即从原始源处经过大量边后可以到达，那么最好使用DFS。

For example, in a social network if we want to search for people who have similar interests of a specific person, we can apply BFS from this person as an origional source, because mostly these people will be his direct friends or friends of friends i.e. one or two edges far. On the other hand, if we want to search for people who have completely different interests of a specific person, we can apply DFS from this person as an origional source, because mostly these people will be very far from him i.e. friend of friend of friend.... i.e. too many edges far.

Applications of BFS and DFS can vary also because of the mechanism of searching in each one. For example, we can use either BFS (assuming the branching factor is manageable) or DFS (assuming the depth is manageable) when we just want to check the reachability from one node to another having no information where that node can be. Also both of them can solve same tasks like topological sorting of a graph (if it has). BFS can be used to find the shortest path, with unit weight edges, from a node (origional source) to another. Whereas, DFS can be used to exhaust all the choices because of its nature of going in depth, like discovering the longest path between two nodes in an acyclic graph. Also DFS, can be used for cycle detection in a graph.

最后，如果我们有无限的深度和无限的分支因子，我们可以使用迭代深化搜索(IDS)。

当树的深度可以变化时，宽度优先搜索通常是最好的方法，并且您只需要搜索树的一部分来寻找解决方案。例如，寻找从起始值到最终值的最短路径是使用BFS的好地方。

深度优先搜索通常用于需要搜索整个树的情况。它比BFS更容易实现(使用递归)，并且需要更少的状态:BFS需要存储整个“边界”，DFS只需要存储当前元素的父节点列表。

我认为这取决于你所面临的问题。

简单图上的最短路径-> BFS 所有可能的结果-> DFS 在图上搜索(将树，martix也视为图)-> DFS ．...

一些算法依赖于DFS(或BFS)的特定属性来工作。例如，用于查找2连接组件的Hopcroft和Tarjan算法利用了这样一个事实，即DFS遇到的每个已经访问过的节点都位于从根节点到当前探索的节点的路径上。

这是一个很好的例子，说明BFS在某些情况下优于DFS。https://leetcode.com/problems/01-matrix/

当正确实现时，两个解决方案都应该访问比当前单元格+1距离更远的单元格。 但DFS效率低，重复访问同一单元，导致复杂度为O(n*n)。

例如,

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,