In computer science, in particular in automata theory, a two-way finite automaton is a finite automaton that is allowed to re-read its input. == Two-way deterministic finite automaton == A two-way deterministic finite automaton (2DFA) is an abstract machine, a generalized version of the deterministic finite automaton (DFA) which can revisit characters already processed. As in a DFA, there are a finite number of states with transitions between them based on the current character, but each transition is also labelled with a value indicating whether the machine will move its position in the input to the left, right, or stay at the same position. Equivalently, 2DFAs can be seen as read-only Turing machines with no work tape, only a read-only input tape. 2DFAs were introduced in a seminal 1959 paper by Rabin and Scott, who proved them to have equivalent power to one-way DFAs. That is, any formal language which can be recognized by a 2DFA can be recognized by a DFA which only examines and consumes each character in order. Since DFAs are obviously a special case of 2DFAs, this implies that both kinds of machines recognize precisely the class of regular languages. However, the equivalent DFA for a 2DFA may require exponentially many states, making 2DFAs a much more practical representation for algorithms for some common problems. 2DFAs are also equivalent to read-only Turing machines that use only a constant amount of space on their work tape, since any constant amount of information can be incorporated into the finite control state via a product construction (a state for each combination of work tape state and control state). == Formal description == Formally, a two-way deterministic finite automaton can be described by the following 8-tuple: M = ( Q , Σ , L , R , δ , s , t , r ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,L,R,\delta ,s,t,r)} where Q {\displaystyle Q} is the finite, non-empty set of states Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the finite, non-empty set of input symbols L {\displaystyle L} is the left endmarker R {\displaystyle R} is the right endmarker δ : Q × ( Σ ∪ { L , R } ) → Q × { l e f t , r i g h t } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{L,R\})\rightarrow Q\times \{\mathrm {left,right} \}} s {\displaystyle s} is the start state t {\displaystyle t} is the end state r {\displaystyle r} is the reject state In addition, the following two conditions must also be satisfied: For all q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} δ ( q , L ) = ( q ′ , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,L)=(q^{\prime },\mathrm {right} )} for some q ′ ∈ Q {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in Q} δ ( q , R ) = ( q ′ , l e f t ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,R)=(q^{\prime },\mathrm {left} )} for some q ′ ∈ Q {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in Q} It says that there must be some transition possible when the pointer reaches either end of the input word. For all symbols σ ∈ Σ ∪ { L } {\displaystyle \sigma \in \Sigma \cup \{L\}} δ ( t , σ ) = ( t , R ) {\displaystyle \delta (t,\sigma )=(t,R)} δ ( r , σ ) = ( r , R ) {\displaystyle \delta (r,\sigma )=(r,R)} δ ( t , R ) = ( t , L ) {\displaystyle \delta (t,R)=(t,L)} δ ( r , R ) = ( r , L ) {\displaystyle \delta (r,R)=(r,L)} It says that once the automaton reaches the accept or reject state, it stays in there forever and the pointer goes to the right most symbol and cycles there infinitely. == Two-way nondeterministic finite automaton == A two-way nondeterministic finite automaton (2NFA) may have multiple transitions defined in the same configuration. Its transition function is δ : Q × ( Σ ∪ { L , R } ) → 2 Q × { l e f t , r i g h t } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{L,R\})\rightarrow 2^{Q\times \{\mathrm {left,right} \}}} . Like a standard one-way NFA, a 2NFA accepts a string if at least one of the possible computations is accepting. Like the 2DFAs, the 2NFAs also accept only regular languages. == Two-way alternating finite automaton == A two-way alternating finite automaton (2AFA) is a two-way extension of an alternating finite automaton (AFA). Its state set is Q = Q ∃ ∪ Q ∀ {\displaystyle Q=Q_{\exists }\cup Q_{\forall }} where Q ∃ ∩ Q ∀ = ∅ {\displaystyle Q_{\exists }\cap Q_{\forall }=\emptyset } . States in Q ∃ {\displaystyle Q_{\exists }} and Q ∀ {\displaystyle Q_{\forall }} are called existential resp. universal. In an existential state a 2AFA nondeterministically chooses the next state like an NFA, and accepts if at least one of the resulting computations accepts. In a universal state 2AFA moves to all next states, and accepts if all the resulting computations accept. == State complexity tradeoffs == Two-way and one-way finite automata, deterministic and nondeterministic and alternating, accept the same class of regular languages. However, transforming an automaton of one type to an equivalent automaton of another type incurs a blow-up in the number of states. Christos Kapoutsis determined that transforming an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2DFA to an equivalent DFA requires n ( n n − ( n − 1 ) n ) {\displaystyle n(n^{n}-(n-1)^{n})} states in the worst case. If an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2DFA or a 2NFA is transformed to an NFA, the worst-case number of states required is ( 2 n n + 1 ) = O ( 4 n n ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}=O\left({\frac {4^{n}}{\sqrt {n}}}\right)} . Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer. proved that an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2AFA can be converted to a DFA with 2 n 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n2^{n}}} states. The 2AFA to NFA conversion requires 2 Θ ( n log n ) {\displaystyle 2^{\Theta (n\log n)}} states in the worst case, see Geffert and Okhotin. It is an open problem whether every 2NFA can be converted to a 2DFA with only a polynomial increase in the number of states. The problem was raised by Sakoda and Sipser, who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem, see Kapoutsis for a precise relation. == Sweeping automata == Sweeping automata are 2DFAs of a special kind that process the input string by making alternating left-to-right and right-to-left sweeps, turning only at the endmarkers. Sipser constructed a sequence of languages, each accepted by an n-state NFA, yet which is not accepted by any sweeping automata with fewer than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states. == Two-way quantum finite automaton == The concept of 2DFAs was in 1997 generalized to quantum computing by John Watrous's "On the Power of 2-Way Quantum Finite State Automata", in which he demonstrates that these machines can recognize nonregular languages and so are more powerful than DFAs. == Two-way pushdown automaton == A pushdown automaton that is allowed to move either way on its input tape is called two-way pushdown automaton (2PDA); it has been studied by Hartmanis, Lewis, and Stearns (1965). Aho, Hopcroft, Ullman (1968) and Cook (1971) characterized the class of languages recognizable by deterministic (2DPDA) and non-deterministic (2NPDA) two-way pushdown automata; Gray, Harrison, and Ibarra (1967) investigated the closure properties of these languages.
Read more →
