In computer science, in particular in automata theory, a twoway finite automaton is a finite automaton that is allowed to reread its input.
A twoway 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 readonly Turing machines with no work tape, only a readonly input tape.
2DFAs were introduced in a seminal 1959 paper by Rabin and Scott,^{[1]} who proved them to have equivalent power to oneway 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 readonly 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).
Formally, a twoway deterministic finite automaton can be described by the following 8tuple: where
In addition, the following two conditions must also be satisfied:
It says that there must be some transition possible when pointer on the alphabet reaches the end.
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.^{[2]}
A twoway nondeterministic finite automaton (2NFA) may have multiple transitions defined in the same configuration. Its transition function is
Like a standard oneway 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.
A twoway alternating finite automaton (2AFA) is a twoway extension of an alternating finite automaton (AFA). Its state set is
States in and 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.
Twoway and oneway 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 blowup in the number of states. Kapoutsis^{[3]} determined that transforming an state 2DFA to an equivalent DFA requires states in the worst case. If an state 2DFA or a 2NFA is transformed to an NFA, the worstcase number of states required is . Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer.^{[4]} proved that an state 2AFA can be converted to a DFA with states. The 2AFA to NFA conversion requires states in the worst case, see Geffert and Okhotin.^{[5]}
Unsolved problem in computer science: Does every state 2NFA have an equivalent state 2DFA? (more unsolved problems in computer science)

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,^{[6]} who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas^{[7]} discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem, see Kapoutsis^{[8]} for a precise relation.
Sweeping automata are 2DFAs of a special kind that process the input string by making alternating lefttoright and righttoleft sweeps, turning only at the endmarkers. Sipser^{[9]} constructed a sequence of languages, each accepted by an nstate NFA, yet which is not accepted by any sweeping automata with fewer than states.
The concept of 2DFAs was in 1997 generalized to quantum computing by John Watrous's "On the Power of 2Way Quantum Finite State Automata", in which he demonstrates that these machines can recognize nonregular languages and so are more powerful than DFAs. ^{[10]}
A pushdown automaton that is allowed to move either way on its input tape is called twoway pushdown automaton (2PDA);^{[11]} it has been studied by Hartmanis, Lewis, and Stearns (1965).^{[12]} Aho, Hopcroft, Ullman (1968)^{[13]} and Cook (1971)^{[14]} characterized the class of languages recognizable by deterministic (2DPDA) and nondeterministic (2NPDA) twoway pushdown automata; Gray, Harrison, and Ibarra (1967) investigated the closure properties of these languages. ^{[15]}