# Graph Rewriting¶

In this document we will explain how graph rewriting works and how graph rewrites can be constructed in Aesara.

Todo

The old “optimization” nomenclature is still in use throughout some of these documents and the codebase; however, this is being changed to more accurately distinguish between general graph rewriting for any purpose and the kind that is explicitly intended to “optimize” a graph in some way.

## Graph and Node Rewriters¶

There are two types of basic rewriters: graph rewriters and node rewriters.

A graph rewriter takes a FunctionGraph object (see its documentation for more details) and navigates through it in a suitable way, replacing some Variables by others in the process. A node rewriter, on the other hand, is defined as a function on a single Apply node and must return either False (to mean that nothing is to be done) or a list of new Variables that we would like to substitute for the node’s current outputs.

Some graph rewriters navigate the computation graph in a particular fashion (e.g. in topological order, reverse-topological order, random order, etc.) and apply one or more node rewriters at each step. WalkingGraphRewriter is one such example.

Rewriters that are holistic, meaning that they must take into account dependencies that might be all over the graph, should usually be graph rewriters. Rewrites that only need a narrow view of sub-graphs are better defined as node rewrites.

### Graph Rewriting¶

class GraphRewriter
apply(fgraph)

This method takes a FunctionGraph object which contains the computation graph and does modifications in line with what the rewriter is meant to do. This is one of the main methods of the rewriter.

add_requirements(fgraph)

This method takes a FunctionGraph object and adds features to it. These features are “plugins” that are needed for the GraphRewriter.apply() method to do its job properly.

rewrite(fgraph)

This is the interface function called by Aesara. It calls GraphRewriter.apply() by default.

### Node Rewriting¶

A node rewriter is an object which defines the following methods:

class NodeRewriter
transform(fgraph, node)

This method takes a FunctionGraph and an Apply node and returns either False to signify that no changes are to be done or a list of Variables which matches the length of the node’s outputs list. When the NodeRewriter is applied by a NodeProcessingGraphRewriter, the outputs of the node passed as argument to the NodeRewriter will be replaced by the list returned.

## A Simplification Rule¶

For starters, let’s define the following simplification:

We will implement it in three ways: using a graph rewriter, a node rewriter with a NodeProcessingGraphRewriter, and then using the PatternNodeRewriter.

### Graph Rewriter Implementation¶

Here is the code for a graph rewriter implementing the simplification described above:

import aesara
from aesara.graph.rewriting.basic import GraphRewriter
from aesara.graph.features import ReplaceValidate

class Simplify(GraphRewriter):
fgraph.attach_feature(ReplaceValidate())

def apply(self, fgraph):
for node in fgraph.toposort():
if node.op == true_div:
x, y = node.inputs
z = node.outputs[0]
if x.owner and x.owner.op == mul:
a, b = x.owner.inputs
if y == a:
fgraph.replace_validate(z, b)
elif y == b:
fgraph.replace_validate(z, a)

simplify = Simplify()


Here’s how it works: first, in add_requirements(), we add the ReplaceValidate Feature located in features – [doc TODO]. This feature adds the replace_validate() method to fgraph, which is an enhanced version of FunctionGraph.replace() that does additional checks to ensure that we are not messing up the computation graph.

In a nutshell, ReplaceValidate grants access to fgraph.replace_validate(), and fgraph.replace_validate() allows us to replace a Variable with another while respecting certain validation constraints. As an exercise, try to rewrite Simplify using NodeFinder. (Hint: you want to use the method it publishes instead of the call to toposort)

Then, in GraphRewriter.apply() we do the actual job of simplification. We start by iterating through the graph in topological order. For each node encountered, we check if it’s a div node. If not, we have nothing to do here. If so, we put in x, y and z the numerator, denominator and quotient (output) of the division. The simplification only occurs when the numerator is a multiplication, so we check for that. If the numerator is a multiplication we put the two operands in a and b, so we can now say that z == (a*b)/y. If y==a then z==b and if y==b then z==a. When either case happens then we can replace z by either a or b using FunctionGraph.replace_validate(); otherwise, we do nothing.

Now, we test the rewriter:

>>> from aesara.scalar import float64, add, mul, true_div
>>> x = float64('x')
>>> y = float64('y')
>>> z = float64('z')
>>> a = add(z, mul(true_div(mul(y, x), y), true_div(z, x)))
>>> e = aesara.graph.fg.FunctionGraph([x, y, z], [a])
>>> e
FunctionGraph(add(z, mul(true_div(mul(y, x), y), true_div(z, x))))
>>> simplify.rewrite(e)
>>> e


You can check what happens if you put many instances of in the graph. Note that it sometimes won’t work for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the rewrite you wrote. For example, consider the following:

>>> x = float64('x')
>>> y = float64('y')
>>> z = float64('z')
>>> e = aesara.graph.fg.FunctionGraph([x, y, z], [a])
>>> e
>>> simplify.rewrite(e)
>>> e


Nothing happened here. The reason is: add(y, z) != add(y, z). That is the case for efficiency reasons. To fix this problem we first need to merge the parts of the graph that represent the same computation, using the MergeOptimizer defined in aesara.graph.rewriting.basic.

>>> from aesara.graph.rewriting.basic import MergeOptimizer
>>> MergeOptimizer().rewrite(e)
(0, ..., None, None, {}, 1, 0)
>>> e
FunctionGraph(true_div(mul(*1 -> add(y, z), x), *1))
>>> simplify.rewrite(e)
>>> e
FunctionGraph(x)


Once the merge is done, both occurrences of add(y, z) are collapsed into a single one and is used as an input in two places. Note that add(x, y) and add(y, x) are still considered to be different because Aesara has no clue that add is commutative. You may write your own graph rewrite to identify computations that are identical with full knowledge of the rules of arithmetic that your Ops implement. Aesara might provide facilities for this somewhere in the future.

Note

FunctionGraph is an Aesara structure intended for the rewrite phase. It is used internally by aesara.function() and is rarely exposed to the end user.

### Node Rewriter Implementation¶

The local version of the above code would be the following:

from aesara.graph.rewriting.basic import NodeRewriter

class LocalSimplify(NodeRewriter):
def transform(self, fgraph, node):
if node.op == true_div:
x, y = node.inputs
if x.owner and x.owner.op == mul:
a, b = x.owner.inputs
if y == a:
return [b]
elif y == b:
return [a]
return False

def tracks(self):
# This tells certain navigators to only apply this NodeRewriter
# on these kinds of Ops
return [true_div]

local_simplify = LocalSimplify()


In this case, the transformation is defined in the NodeRewriter.transform() method, which is given an explicit Apply node on which to work. The entire graph–as a fgraph–is also provided, in case global information is needed.

If no changes are to be made, False must be returned; otherwise, a list of replacements for the node’s outputs are returned. This list must have the same length as node.outputs. If one of node.outputs doesn’t have clients (e.g. available via fgraph.clients), then it is not used elsewhere in the graph and you can put None in the returned list to remove it.

In order to apply the node rewriter throughout a graph, we use it in conjunction with a NodeProcessingGraphRewriter. A NodeProcessingGraphRewriter is a graph rewriter that loops through all nodes in the graph (or a well-defined subset of them) and applies one or several node rewriters.

>>> x = float64('x')
>>> y = float64('y')
>>> z = float64('z')
>>> a = add(z, mul(true_div(mul(y, x), y), true_div(z, x)))
>>> e = aesara.graph.fg.FunctionGraph([x, y, z], [a])
>>> e
FunctionGraph(add(z, mul(true_div(mul(y, x), y), true_div(z, x))))
>>> simplify = aesara.graph.rewriting.basic.WalkingGraphRewriter(local_simplify)
>>> simplify.rewrite(e)
(<aesara.graph.rewriting.basic.WalkingGraphRewriter object at 0x...>, 1, 5, 3, ..., ..., ...)
>>> e


#### SubstitutionNodeRewriter, RemovalNodeRewriter, PatternNodeRewriter¶

Aesara defines some shortcuts to make NodeRewriters:

SubstitutionNodeRewriter(op1, op2)

Replaces all uses of op1 by op2. In other words, the outputs of all Apply nodes using op1 by the outputs of Apply nodes involving op2, where their inputs are the same.

RemovalNodeRewriter(op)

Removes all uses of op in the following way: if y = op(x) then y is replaced by x. op must have as many outputs as it has inputs. The first output becomes the first input, the second output becomes the second input, and so on.

PatternNodeRewriter(pattern1, pattern2)

Replaces all occurrences of the first pattern by the second pattern. See PatternNodeRewriter.

from aesara.scalar import identity
from aesara.graph.rewriting.basic import SubstitutionNodeRewriter, RemovalNodeRewriter, PatternNodeRewriter

# Replacing add by mul (this is not recommended for primarily
# mathematical reasons):

# Removing identity
remove_identity = RemovalNodeRewriter(identity)

# The "simplify" operation we've been defining in the past few
# sections. Note that we need two patterns to account for the
# permutations of the arguments to mul.
local_simplify_1 = PatternNodeRewriter((true_div, (mul, 'x', 'y'), 'y'), 'x')
local_simplify_2 = PatternNodeRewriter((true_div, (mul, 'x', 'y'), 'x'), 'y')


Note

SubstitutionNodeRewriter, RemovalNodeRewriter and PatternNodeRewriter produce node rewriters, which means that everything we said previously about node rewriters apply (e.g. they need to be wrapped in a NodeProcessingGraphRewriter, etc.)

When a rewriter can be naturally expressed using SubstitutionNodeRewriter, RemovalNodeRewriter or PatternNodeRewriter, it is highly recommended to use them.

## Unification and reification¶

The PatternNodeRewriter class uses unification and reification to implement a more succinct and reusable form of “pattern matching and replacement”. In general, use of the unification and reification tools is preferable when a rewrite’s matching and replacement are non-trivial, so we will briefly explain them in the following.

Aesara’s unification and reification tools are provided by the logical-unification package. The basic tools are unify(), reify(), and var. The class var construct logic variables, which represent the elements to be unified/matched, unify() performs the “matching”, and reify() performs the “replacements”.

See unification’s documentation for an introduction to unification and reification.

In order to use unify() and reify() with Aesara graphs, we need an intermediate structure that will allow us to represent Aesara graphs that contain vars, because Aesara Ops and Apply nodes will not accept these foreign objects as inputs.

PatternNodeRewriter uses Python tuples to effectively represent Apply nodes and strs to represent logic variables (i.e. vars in the unification library). Behind the scenes, these tuples are converted to a tuple subclass called ExpressionTuples, which behave just like normal tuples except for some special caching features that allow for easy evaluation and caching. These ExpressionTuples are provided by the etuples library.

Here is an illustration of all the above components used together:

>>> from unification import unify, reify, var
>>> from etuples import etuple
>>> y_lv = var()  # Create a logic variable
>>> y_lv
~_1
>>> s
{~_1: y}


In this example, unify() matched the Aesara graph in the first argument with the “pattern” given by the etuple() in the second. The result is a dict mapping logic variables to the objects to which they were successfully unified. When a unify() doesn’t succeed, it will return False.

reify() uses dicts like the kind produced by unify() to replace logic variables within structures:

>>> res = reify(etuple(add, y_lv, y_lv), s)
>>> res


Since ExpressionTuples can be evaluated, we can produce a complete Aesara graph from these results as follows:

>>> res.evaled_obj
>>> aesara.dprint(res.evaled_obj)
|y [id B]
|y [id B]


Because ExpressionTuples effectively model S-expressions, they can be used with the cons package to unify and reify graphs structurally.

Let’s say we want to match graphs that use the addOp but could have a varying number of arguments:

>>> from cons import cons
>>> op_lv = var()
>>> args_lv = var()
>>> s = unify(cons(op_lv, args_lv), add(x, y))
>>> s
{~_2: <aesara.scalar.basic.Add at 0x7f54dfa5a350>, ~_3: e(x, y)}
>>> s = unify(cons(op_lv, args_lv), add(x, y, z))
>>> s
{~_2: <aesara.scalar.basic.Add at 0x7f54dfa5a350>, ~_3: e(x, y, z)}


From here, we can check s[op_lv] == add to confirm that we have the correct Op and proceed with our rewrite.

>>> res = reify(cons(mul, args_lv), s)
>>> res
e(<aesara.scalar.basic.Mul at 0x7f54dfa5ae10>, x, y, z)
>>> aesara.dprint(res.evaled_obj)
mul [id A] ''
|x [id B]
|y [id C]
|z [id D]


## miniKanren¶

Given that unification and reification are fully implemented for Aesara objects via the unificiation package, the kanren package can be used with Aesara graphs, as well. kanren implements the miniKanren domain-specific language for relational programming.

Refer to the links above for a proper introduction to miniKanren, but suffice it to say that miniKanren orchestrates the unification and reification operations described in Unification and reification, and it does so in the context of relational operators (e.g. equations like ). This means that a relation that–say–represents can be utilized in both directions.

Currently, the node rewriter KanrenRelationSub provides a means of turning kanren relations into NodeRewriters; however, kanren can always be used directly from within a custom Rewriter, so KanrenRelationSub is not necessary.

The following is an example that distributes dot products across additions.

import aesara
import aesara.tensor as at
from aesara.graph.rewriting.kanren import KanrenRelationSub
from aesara.graph.rewriting.basic import EquilibriumGraphRewriter
from aesara.graph.rewriting.utils import rewrite_graph
from aesara.tensor.math import _dot
from etuples import etuple
from kanren import conso, eq, fact, heado, tailo
from kanren.assoccomm import assoc_flatten, associative
from kanren.core import lall
from kanren.graph import mapo
from unification import vars as lvars

# Make the graph pretty printing results a little more readable
aesara.pprint.assign(
_dot, aesara.printing.OperatorPrinter("@", -1, "left")
)

# Tell kanren that add is associative

def dot_distributeo(in_lv, out_lv):
"""A kanren goal constructor relation for the relation A.dot(a + b ...) == A.dot(a) + A.dot(b) ...."""

return lall(
# Make sure the input is a _dot
# Make sure the term being _doted is an add
# Flatten the associative pairings of add operations
# Get the flattened add arguments
# Add all the _doted arguments and set the output
# Apply the _dot to all the flattened add arguments
mapo(lambda x, y: conso(_dot, etuple(A_lv, x), y), add_cdr_lv, dot_cdr_lv),
)

dot_distribute_rewrite = EquilibriumGraphRewriter([KanrenRelationSub(dot_distributeo)], max_use_ratio=10)


Below, we apply dot_distribute_rewrite to a few example graphs. First we create simple test graph:

>>> x_at = at.vector("x")
>>> y_at = at.vector("y")
>>> A_at = at.matrix("A")
>>> test_at = A_at.dot(x_at + y_at)
>>> print(aesara.pprint(test_at))
(A @ (x + y))


Next we apply the rewrite to the graph:

>>> res = rewrite_graph(test_at, include=[], custom_rewrite=dot_distribute_rewrite, clone=False)
>>> print(aesara.pprint(res))
((A @ x) + (A @ y))


We see that the dot product has been distributed, as desired. Now, let’s try a few more test cases:

>>> z_at = at.vector("z")
>>> w_at = at.vector("w")
>>> test_at = A_at.dot((x_at + y_at) + (z_at + w_at))
>>> print(aesara.pprint(test_at))
(A @ ((x + y) + (z + w)))
>>> res = rewrite_graph(test_at, include=[], custom_rewrite=dot_distribute_rewrite, clone=False)
>>> print(aesara.pprint(res))
(((A @ x) + (A @ y)) + ((A @ z) + (A @ w)))

>>> B_at = at.matrix("B")
>>> w_at = at.vector("w")
>>> test_at = A_at.dot(x_at + (y_at + B_at.dot(z_at + w_at)))
>>> print(aesara.pprint(test_at))
(A @ (x + (y + ((B @ z) + (B @ w)))))
>>> res = rewrite_graph(test_at, include=[], custom_rewrite=dot_distribute_rewrite, clone=False)
>>> print(aesara.pprint(res))
((A @ x) + ((A @ y) + ((A @ (B @ z)) + (A @ (B @ w)))))


This example demonstrates how non-trivial matching and replacement logic can be neatly expressed in miniKanren’s DSL, but it doesn’t quite demonstrate miniKanren’s relational properties.

To do that, we will create another Rewriter that simply reverses the arguments to the relation dot_distributeo() and apply it to the distributed result in res:

>>> dot_gather_rewrite = EquilibriumGraphRewriter([KanrenRelationSub(lambda x, y: dot_distributeo(y, x))], max_use_ratio=10)
>>> rev_res = rewrite_graph(res, include=[], custom_rewrite=dot_gather_rewrite, clone=False)
>>> print(aesara.pprint(rev_res))
(A @ (x + (y + (B @ (z + w)))))


As we can see, the kanren relation works both ways, just like the underlying mathematical relation does.

miniKanren relations can be used to explore rewrites of graphs in sophisticated ways. It also provides a framework that more directly maps to the mathematical identities that drive graph rewrites. For some simple examples of relational graph rewriting in kanren see here. For a high-level overview of miniKanren’s use as a tool for symbolic computation see “miniKanren as a Tool for Symbolic Computation in Python”.

## The Optimization Database (optdb)¶

Aesara exports a symbol called optdb which acts as a sort of ordered database of rewrites. When a new rewrite is constructed, it must be inserted at the proper place in the database in order for it to be deployed during function compilation.

Each rewrite in a database can be assigned a set of tags that serve as a basis for filtering/querying.

The point of optdb is that one might want to apply many rewrites to a graph in many unique patterns.

For example, one might want to perform rewrite X, then rewrite Y, then rewrite Z. Perhaps rewrite Y is an EquilibriumGraphRewriter containing NodeRewriters A, B and C, which are applied on every node of until they all fail to change it. If some rewrites fail, we may want an easy way to turn them off. Similarly, if some rewrites are very CPU-intensive and we don’t want to take the time to apply them, then we should be able to disable them.

The optdb system allows us to tag each rewrite with a unique name, as well as informative descriptions such as ‘stable’, ‘buggy’ or ‘cpu_intensive’.

For instance, the rewrite tag cxx_only is used for rewrites that insert Ops that have no Python implementation (i.e. they only have C implementations). Rewrites with this tag can be skipped when the C backend is not being used.

### Definition of optdb¶

optdb is an object which is an instance of SequenceDB, itself a subclass of RewriteDatabase. There exist (for now) two types of RewriteDatabase, SequenceDB and EquilibriumDB. When given an appropriate RewriteDatabaseQuery, RewriteDatabase objects build an Rewriter matching the query.

A SequenceDB contains Rewriter or RewriteDatabase objects. Each of them has a name, an arbitrary number of tags and an integer representing their order in the sequence. When a RewriteDatabaseQuery is applied to a SequenceDB, all Rewriters whose tags match the query are inserted in proper order in a SequenceRewriter, which is returned. If the SequenceDB contains RewriteDatabase instances, the RewriteDatabaseQuery will be passed to them as well and the rewriters they return will be put in their places.

An EquilibriumDB contains NodeRewriter or RewriteDatabase objects. Each of them has a name and an arbitrary number of tags. When a RewriteDatabaseQuery is applied to an EquilibriumDB, all NodeRewriters that match the query are inserted into an EquilibriumGraphRewriter, which is returned. If the SequenceDB contains RewriteDatabase instances, the RewriteDatabaseQuery will be passed to them as well and the NodeRewriters they return will be put in their places (note that as of yet no RewriteDatabase can produce NodeRewriter objects, so this is a moot point).

Aesara contains one principal RewriteDatabase object, optdb, which contains all of Aesara’s rewriters with proper tags. It is recommended to insert new Rewriters in it. As mentioned previously, optdb is a SequenceDB, so, at the top level, Aesara applies a sequence of graph rewrites to the graphs it compiles.

### RewriteDatabaseQuery¶

A RewriteDatabaseQuery is built by the following call:

aesara.graph.rewriting.db.RewriteDatabaseQuery(include, require=None, exclude=None, subquery=None)

class RewriteDatabaseQuery
include

A set of tags (a tag being a string) such that every rewrite obtained through this RewriteDatabaseQuery must have one of the tags listed. This field is required and basically acts as a starting point for the search.

require

A set of tags such that every rewrite obtained through this RewriteDatabaseQuery must have all of these tags.

exclude

A set of tags such that every rewrite obtained through this RewriteDatabaseQuery must have none of these tags.

subquery

optdb can contain sub-databases; subquery is a dictionary mapping the name of a sub-database to a special RewriteDatabaseQuery. If no subquery is given for a sub-database, the original RewriteDatabaseQuery will be used again.

Furthermore, a RewriteDatabaseQuery object includes three methods, including(), requiring() and excluding(), which each produce a new RewriteDatabaseQuery object with the include, require, and exclude sets refined to contain the new entries.

### Examples¶

Here are a few examples of how to use a RewriteDatabaseQuery on optdb to produce an Rewriter:

from aesara.graph.rewriting.db import RewriteDatabaseQuery
from aesara.compile import optdb

# This is how the rewrites for the fast_run mode are defined
fast_run = optdb.query(RewriteDatabaseQuery(include=['fast_run']))

# This is how the rewrites for the fast_compile mode are defined
fast_compile = optdb.query(RewriteDatabaseQuery(include=['fast_compile']))

# This is the same as fast_run but no rewrites will replace
# any operation by an inplace version. This assumes, of course,
# that all inplace operations are tagged as 'inplace' (as they
# should!)
fast_run_no_inplace = optdb.query(RewriteDatabaseQuery(include=['fast_run'],
exclude=['inplace']))


### Registering a Rewriter¶

Let’s say we have a graph rewriter called simplify. We can add it to optdb as follows:

optdb.register('simplify', simplify, 'fast_run', position=0.5)


Once this is done, the FAST_RUN mode will automatically include the rewrite, since it was given the 'fast_run' tag. Of course, already-compiled functions will see no change. The position parameter is specific to the type of rewrite database that obtdb is, and is explained in optdb structure.

### Registering a NodeRewriter¶

NodeRewriters may be registered in two ways:

• Wrap them in a NodeProcessingGraphRewriter and insert them like a graph rewriter (see previous section).
• Put them in an EquilibriumDB.

Aesara defines two EquilibriumDBs in which one can put node rewrites:

canonicalize()

This contains rewrites that aim to put graphs in a standard “canonical” form:

• Replace rare or esoterical operations with their equivalents using elementary operations.
• Order operations in a canonical way. For example, any sequence of multiplications and divisions can be rewritten to contain at most one division (e.g. x * x can be rewritten to x**2, etc.)
• Fold constants (e.g. Constant(2) * Constant(2) becomes Constant(4)).
specialize()

This contains rewrites that aim to specialize the graph:

• Replace a combination of operations with a special operation that does the same thing (but better).

For each group, all rewrites of the group that are selected by the RewriteDatabaseQuery will be applied on the graph over and over again until no changes are made.

When using EquilibriumDB, be sure to check carefully that your rewrite leads to a fixed-point (i.e. a graph for which the rewrite cannot be applied anymore), at which point it returns False to indicate its job is done. Also be careful not to undo the work of another rewrites in the group, because the graph will oscillate between two or more states and nothing will get done.

### optdb structure¶

optdb contains the following Rewriterss and sub-DBs, with the given priorities and tags:

Order Name Description
0 merge1 First merge operation
1 canonicalize Simplify the graph
49 merge2 Second merge operation
100 merge3 Third merge operation

The merge operations are meant to put together parts of the graph that represent the same computation. Since rewrites can modify the graph in such a way that two previously different-looking parts of the graph become similar, we merge at the beginning, in the middle and at the very end. Technically, we only really need to do it at the end, but doing it in previous steps reduces the size of the graph and therefore increases the efficiency of the process.

The add_destroy_handler step is not really an rewrite. It is a marker. Basically:

Warning

Any rewrite which inserts inplace operations in the computation graph must appear after the add_destroy_handler “rewriter”. In other words, the priority of any such rewrites must be >= 50. Failure to comply by this restriction can lead to the creation of incorrect computation graphs.

The reason the destroy handler is not inserted at the beginning is that it is costly to run. It is cheaper to run most rewrites under the assumption there are no inplace operations.

### NodeProcessingGraphRewriter¶

class aesara.graph.rewriting.basic.NodeProcessingGraphRewriter(node_rewriter: Optional[NodeRewriter], ignore_newtrees: typing_extensions.Literal[True, False, auto], failure_callback: Optional[Callable[[Exception, NodeProcessingGraphRewriter, List[Tuple[Variable, None]], NodeRewriter, Apply], None]] = None)[source]

A class providing a base implementation for applying NodeRewriter.transform results to a graph.

This rewriter accepts the output of NodeRewriter.transform implementations and applies them to a FunctionGraph.

It accepts a sequence of new output nodes or dicts.  Entries in these dicts can be Variables and their new values. It also accepts a special "remove" key. A sequence of Variables mapped to the key "remove" are removed from the FunctionGraph.

It also adds some interface elements for simple reentrant/recursive application of rewrites. The parameter NodeRewriter.ignore_newtrees is intended to be used by subclasses, alongside the NodeRewriter.attach_updater and NodeRewriter.detach_updater methods, to determine whether or not sub-graphs created by rewrites are to have the same rewrites applied to them.

## Profiling Aesara Function Compilation¶

If one finds that compiling an Aesara function is taking too much time, profiling information about each Aesara rewrite can be obtained. The normal Aesara profiler provides some high-level performance information. The indentation shows the included in/subset relationship between sections. The top of its output look like this:

Function profiling
==================
Message: PATH_TO_A_FILE:23
Time in 0 calls to Function.__call__: 0.000000e+00s
Total compile time: 1.131874e+01s
Number of Apply nodes: 50
Aesara rewriter time: 1.152431e+00s
Aesara validate time: 2.790451e-02s
Aesara Linker time (includes C, CUDA code generation/compiling): 7.893991e-02s
Import time 1.153541e-02s
Time in all call to aesara.grad() 4.732513e-02s


Explanations:

• Total compile time: 1.131874e+01s gives the total time spent inside aesara.function.
• Number of Apply nodes: 50 means that after rewriting, there are 50 apply node in the graph.
• Aesara rewrite time: 1.152431e+00s means that we spend 1.15s in the rewriting phase of aesara.function.
• Aesara validate time: 2.790451e-02s means that we spent 2.8e-2s in the validation phase of rewriting.
• Aesara Linker time (includes C code generation/compiling): 7.893991e-02s means that we spent 7.9e-2s in linker phase of aesara.function.
• Import time 1.153541e-02s is a subset of the linker time where we import the compiled module.
• Time in all call to aesara.grad() 4.732513e-02s tells that we spent a total of 4.7e-2s in all calls to aesara.grad. This is outside of the calls to aesara.function.

The linker phase includes the generation of the C code, the time spent by g++ to compile and the time needed by Aesara to build the object we return. The C code generation and compilation is cached, so the first time you compile a function and the following ones could take different amount of execution time.

### Detailed Profiling of Aesara Rewrites¶

You can get more detailed profiling information about the Aesara rewriting phase by setting to True the Aesara flags config.profile_optimizer (this requires config.profile to be True as well).

This will output something like this:

Rewriter Profile
----------------
SequentialGraphRewriter  OPT_FAST_RUN  time 1.152s for 123/50 nodes before/after rewriting
0.028s for fgraph.validate()
0.131s for callback
time      - (name, class, index) - validate time
0.751816s - ('canonicalize', 'EquilibriumGraphRewriter', 4) - 0.004s
EquilibriumGraphRewriter      canonicalize
time 0.751s for 14 passes
nb nodes (start, end,  max) 108 81 117
time io_toposort 0.029s
time in node rewriters 0.687s
time in graph rewriters 0.010s
0 - 0.050s 27 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 108 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 9) ('local_upcast_elemwise_constant_inputs', 5) ('local_shape_to_shape_i', 3) ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 2) ...
1 - 0.288s 26 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 117 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 8) ('local_fill_sink', 4) ('constant_folding', 4) ('local_useless_elemwise', 3) ('local_subtensor_make_vector', 3) ...
2 - 0.044s 13 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.003s io_toposort) - 96 nodes - ('constant_folding', 4) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 3) ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_useless_elemwise', 1) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ...
3 - 0.045s 11 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 91 nodes - ('constant_folding', 3) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 2) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_mul_canonizer', 2) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ...
4 - 0.035s 8 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 93 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('constant_folding', 1)
5 - 0.035s 6 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 88 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 2) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('local_mul_canonizer', 1)
6 - 0.038s 10 (0.001s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 95 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 3) ('constant_folding', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1)
7 - 0.032s 5 (0.001s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 91 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 1)
8 - 0.034s 5 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 92 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_greedy_distributor', 1)
9 - 0.031s 6 (0.001s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 90 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 1) ('local_greedy_distributor', 1)
10 - 0.032s 5 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 89 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_fill_sink', 1)
11 - 0.030s 5 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 88 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('constant_folding', 1)
12 - 0.026s 1 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.003s io_toposort) - 81 nodes - ('MergeOptimizer', 1)
13 - 0.031s 0 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.003s io_toposort) - 81 nodes -
times - times applied - nb node created - name:
0.263s - 15 - 0 - constant_folding
0.096s - 2 - 14 - local_greedy_distributor
0.066s - 4 - 19 - local_mul_canonizer
0.046s - 28 - 57 - local_fill_sink
0.042s - 35 - 78 - local_dimshuffle_lift
0.018s - 5 - 15 - local_upcast_elemwise_constant_inputs
0.010s - 11 - 4 - MergeOptimizer
0.009s - 4 - 0 - local_useless_elemwise
0.005s - 11 - 2 - local_fill_to_alloc
0.004s - 3 - 6 - local_neg_to_mul
0.002s - 1 - 3 - local_lift_transpose_through_dot
0.002s - 3 - 4 - local_shape_to_shape_i
0.002s - 2 - 4 - local_subtensor_lift
0.001s - 3 - 0 - local_subtensor_make_vector
0.001s - 1 - 1 - local_sum_all_to_none
0.131s - in 62 rewrite(s) that where not used (display only those with a runtime > 0)
0.018s - local_mul_zero
0.016s - local_one_minus_erf
0.010s - local_func_inv
0.006s - local_0_dot_x
0.005s - local_track_shape_i
0.004s - local_mul_switch_sink
0.004s - local_fill_cut
0.004s - local_one_minus_erf2
0.003s - local_remove_switch_const_cond
0.003s - local_cast_cast
0.002s - local_IncSubtensor_serialize
0.001s - local_sum_div_dimshuffle
0.001s - local_div_switch_sink
0.001s - local_dimshuffle_no_inplace_at_canonicalize
0.001s - local_cut_useless_reduce
0.001s - local_reduce_join
0.000s - local_sum_sum
0.000s - local_useless_alloc
0.000s - local_reshape_chain
0.000s - local_useless_subtensor
0.000s - local_reshape_lift
0.000s - local_flatten_lift
0.000s - local_useless_slice
0.000s - local_subtensor_of_alloc
0.000s - local_subtensor_of_dot
0.000s - local_subtensor_merge
0.101733s - ('elemwise_fusion', 'SequentialGraphRewriter', 13) - 0.000s
SequentialGraphRewriter      elemwise_fusion  time 0.102s for 78/50 nodes before/after rewriting
0.000s for fgraph.validate()
0.004s for callback
0.095307s - ('composite_elemwise_fusion', 'FusionOptimizer', 1) - 0.000s
FusionOptimizer
nb_iter 3
nb_replacement 10
nb_inconsistency_replace 0
validate_time 0.000249624252319
callback_time 0.00316381454468
time_toposort 0.00375390052795
0.006412s - ('local_add_mul_fusion', 'FusionOptimizer', 0) - 0.000s
FusionOptimizer
nb_iter 2
nb_replacement 3
nb_inconsistency_replace 0
validate_time 6.43730163574e-05
callback_time 0.000783205032349
time_toposort 0.0035240650177
0.090089s - ('inplace_elemwise_optimizer', 'FromFunctionGraphRewriter', 30) - 0.019s
0.048993s - ('BlasOpt', 'SequentialGraphRewriter', 8) - 0.000s
SequentialGraphRewriter      BlasOpt  time 0.049s for 81/80 nodes before/after rewriting
0.000s for fgraph.validate()
0.003s for callback
0.035997s - ('gemm_optimizer', 'GemmOptimizer', 1) - 0.000s
GemmOptimizer
nb_iter 2
nb_replacement 2
nb_replacement_didn_t_remove 0
nb_inconsistency_make 0
nb_inconsistency_replace 0
time_canonicalize 0.00720071792603
time_factor_can 9.05990600586e-06
time_factor_list 0.00128507614136
time_toposort 0.00311398506165
validate_time 4.60147857666e-05
callback_time 0.00174236297607
0.004569s - ('local_dot_to_dot22', 'WalkingGraphRewriter', 0) - 0.000s
WalkingGraphRewriter
nb_node (start, end, changed) (81, 81, 5)
init io_toposort 0.00139284133911
loop time 0.00312399864197
callback_time 0.00172805786133
0.002283s - ('local_dot22_to_dot22scalar', 'WalkingGraphRewriter', 2) - 0.000s
WalkingGraphRewriter
nb_node (start, end, changed) (80, 80, 0)
init io_toposort 0.00171804428101
loop time 0.000502109527588
callback_time 0.0
0.002257s - ('local_gemm_to_gemv', 'EquilibriumGraphRewriter', 3) - 0.000s
EquilibriumGraphRewriter          local_gemm_to_gemv
time 0.002s for 1 passes
nb nodes (start, end,  max) 80 80 80
time io_toposort 0.001s
time in node rewriters 0.000s
time in graph rewriters 0.000s
0 - 0.002s 0 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.001s io_toposort) - 80 nodes -
0.002227s - ('use_c_blas', 'WalkingGraphRewriter', 4) - 0.000s
WalkingGraphRewriter
nb_node (start, end, changed) (80, 80, 0)
init io_toposort 0.0014750957489
loop time 0.00068998336792
callback_time 0.0
0.001632s - ('use_scipy_ger', 'WalkingGraphRewriter', 5) - 0.000s
WalkingGraphRewriter
nb_node (start, end, changed) (80, 80, 0)
init io_toposort 0.00138401985168
loop time 0.000202178955078
callback_time 0.0
0.031740s - ('specialize', 'EquilibriumGraphRewriter', 9) - 0.000s
EquilibriumGraphRewriter      specialize
time 0.031s for 2 passes
nb nodes (start, end,  max) 80 78 80
time io_toposort 0.003s
time in node rewriters 0.022s
time in graph rewriters 0.004s
0 - 0.017s 6 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.001s io_toposort) - 80 nodes - ('constant_folding', 2) ('local_mul_to_sqr', 1) ('local_elemwise_alloc', 1) ('local_div_to_inv', 1) ('local_mul_specialize', 1)
1 - 0.014s 0 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.001s io_toposort) - 78 nodes -
times - times applied - nb node created - name:
0.003s - 1 - 1 - local_mul_specialize
0.002s - 1 - 2 - local_elemwise_alloc
0.002s - 2 - 0 - constant_folding
0.001s - 1 - 1 - local_div_to_inv
0.001s - 1 - 1 - local_mul_to_sqr
0.016s - in 69 rewrite(s) that where not used (display only those with a runtime > 0)
0.004s - crossentropy_to_crossentropy_with_softmax_with_bias
0.002s - local_one_minus_erf
0.002s - Elemwise{sub,no_inplace}(z, Elemwise{mul,no_inplace}(alpha subject to <function <lambda> at 0x7f475e4da050>, SparseDot(x, y))) -> Usmm{no_inplace}(Elemwise{neg,no_inplace}(alpha), x, y, z)
0.001s - local_func_inv
0.001s - local_useless_elemwise
0.001s - local_abs_merge
0.001s - local_track_shape_i
0.000s - local_one_minus_erf2
0.000s - local_sum_mul_by_scalar
0.000s - local_elemwise_sub_zeros
0.000s - local_cast_cast
0.000s - local_alloc_unary
0.000s - Elemwise{log,no_inplace}(Softmax(x)) -> <function make_out_pattern at 0x7f47619a8410>(x)
0.000s - local_sum_div_dimshuffle
0.000s - local_sum_alloc
0.000s - local_dimshuffle_lift
0.000s - local_log_erfc
0.000s - local_log1p
0.000s - local_useless_alloc
0.000s - local_neg_neg
0.000s - local_neg_div_neg
...


To understand this profile here is some explanation of how rewrites work:

• Rewrites are organized in a hierarchy. At the top level, there is a SequentialGraphRewriter. It contains other rewriters, and applies them in the order they were specified. Those sub-rewriters can be of other types, but are all graph rewriters.

• Each Rewriter in the hierarchy will print some stats about itself. The information that it prints depends of the type of the rewriter.

• The SequentialGraphRewriter will print some stats at the start:

Rewriter Profile
----------------
SequentialGraphRewriter  OPT_FAST_RUN  time 1.152s for 123/50 nodes before/after rewriting
0.028s for fgraph.validate()
0.131s for callback
time      - (name, class, index) - validate time


Then it will print, with some additional indentation, each sub-rewriter’s profile information. These sub-profiles are ordered by the time they took to execute, not by their execution order.

• OPT_FAST_RUN is the name of the rewriter
• 1.152s is the total time spent in that rewriter
• 123/50 means that before this rewriter, there were 123 apply node in the function graph, and after only 50.
• 0.028s means it spent that time calls to fgraph.validate()
• 0.131s means it spent that time for callbacks. This is a mechanism that can trigger other execution when there is a change to the FunctionGraph.
• time      - (name, class, index) - validate time tells how the information for each sub-rewriter get printed.
• All other instances of SequentialGraphRewriter are described like this. In particular, some sub-rewriter from OPT_FAST_RUN that are also SequentialGraphRewriter.
• The SequentialGraphRewriter will print some stats at the start:

0.751816s - ('canonicalize', 'EquilibriumGraphRewriter', 4) - 0.004s
EquilibriumGraphRewriter      canonicalize
time 0.751s for 14 passes
nb nodes (start, end,  max) 108 81 117
time io_toposort 0.029s
time in node rewriters 0.687s
time in graph rewriters 0.010s
0 - 0.050s 27 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 108 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 9) ('local_upcast_elemwise_constant_inputs', 5) ('local_shape_to_shape_i', 3) ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 2) ...
1 - 0.288s 26 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 117 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 8) ('local_fill_sink', 4) ('constant_folding', 4) ('local_useless_elemwise', 3) ('local_subtensor_make_vector', 3) ...
2 - 0.044s 13 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.003s io_toposort) - 96 nodes - ('constant_folding', 4) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 3) ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_useless_elemwise', 1) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ...
3 - 0.045s 11 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 91 nodes - ('constant_folding', 3) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 2) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_mul_canonizer', 2) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ...
4 - 0.035s 8 (0.002s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 93 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('constant_folding', 1)
5 - 0.035s 6 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 88 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 2) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('local_mul_canonizer', 1)
6 - 0.038s 10 (0.001s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 95 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 3) ('constant_folding', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1)
7 - 0.032s 5 (0.001s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 91 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 1)
8 - 0.034s 5 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 92 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 3) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_greedy_distributor', 1)
9 - 0.031s 6 (0.001s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 90 nodes - ('local_fill_sink', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 1) ('local_greedy_distributor', 1)
10 - 0.032s 5 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 89 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('local_fill_sink', 1)
11 - 0.030s 5 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.002s io_toposort) - 88 nodes - ('local_dimshuffle_lift', 2) ('local_fill_to_alloc', 1) ('MergeOptimizer', 1) ('constant_folding', 1)
12 - 0.026s 1 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.003s io_toposort) - 81 nodes - ('MergeOptimizer', 1)
13 - 0.031s 0 (0.000s in global rewrites, 0.003s io_toposort) - 81 nodes -
times - times applied - nb node created - name:
0.263s - 15 - 0 - constant_folding
0.096s - 2 - 14 - local_greedy_distributor
0.066s - 4 - 19 - local_mul_canonizer
0.046s - 28 - 57 - local_fill_sink
0.042s - 35 - 78 - local_dimshuffle_lift
0.018s - 5 - 15 - local_upcast_elemwise_constant_inputs
0.010s - 11 - 4 - MergeOptimizer
0.009s - 4 - 0 - local_useless_elemwise
0.005s - 11 - 2 - local_fill_to_alloc
0.004s - 3 - 6 - local_neg_to_mul
0.002s - 1 - 3 - local_lift_transpose_through_dot
0.002s - 3 - 4 - local_shape_to_shape_i
0.002s - 2 - 4 - local_subtensor_lift
0.001s - 3 - 0 - local_subtensor_make_vector
0.001s - 1 - 1 - local_sum_all_to_none
0.131s - in 62 rewrite(s) that where not used (display only those with a runtime > 0)
0.018s - local_mul_zero
0.016s - local_one_minus_erf
0.010s - local_func_inv
0.006s - local_0_dot_x
0.005s - local_track_shape_i
0.004s - local_mul_switch_sink
0.004s - local_fill_cut
0.004s - local_one_minus_erf2
0.003s - local_remove_switch_const_cond
0.003s - local_cast_cast
0.002s - local_IncSubtensor_serialize
0.001s - local_sum_div_dimshuffle
0.001s - local_div_switch_sink
0.001s - local_dimshuffle_no_inplace_at_canonicalize
0.001s - local_cut_useless_reduce
0.001s - local_reduce_join
0.000s - local_sum_sum
0.000s - local_useless_alloc
0.000s - local_reshape_chain
0.000s - local_useless_subtensor
0.000s - local_reshape_lift
0.000s - local_flatten_lift
0.000s - local_useless_slice
0.000s - local_subtensor_of_alloc
0.000s - local_subtensor_of_dot
0.000s - local_subtensor_merge

• 0.751816s - ('canonicalize', 'EquilibriumGraphRewriter', 4) - 0.004s This line is from SequentialGraphRewriter, and indicates information related to a sub-rewriter. It means that this sub-rewriter took a total of .7s. Its name is 'canonicalize'. It is an EquilibriumGraphRewriter. It was executed at index 4 by the SequentialGraphRewriter. It spent 0.004s in the validate phase.
• All other lines are from the profiler of the EquilibriumGraphRewriter.
• An EquilibriumGraphRewriter does multiple passes on the Apply nodes from the graph, trying to apply local and graph rewriters. Conceptually, it tries to execute all graph rewriters, and to apply all node rewriters on all nodes in the graph. If no rewrites got applied during a pass, it stops. So it tries to find an equilibrium state where no further rewrites can be applied. This is useful when we do not know a fixed order for the execution of rewrites.
• time 0.751s for 14 passes means that it took .7s and did 14 passes over the graph.
• nb nodes (start, end, max) 108 81 117 means that at the start, the graph had 108 node, at the end, it had 81 and the maximum size was 117.
• Then it prints some global timing information: it spent 0.029s in io_toposort(), all node rewriters took 0.687s together for all passes, and graph rewriters took a total of 0.010s.
• Then we print the timing for each pass, the rewrite that got applied, and the number of time they got applied. For example, in pass zero, the local_dimshuffle_lift() rewrite changed the graph nine time.
• Then we print the time spent in each rewriter, the number of times they changed the graph and the number of nodes they introduced in the graph.
• Rewrites with that pattern local_op_lift() indicate that a node with that Op will be replaced by another node with the same Op, but will do computation closer to the inputs of the graph: i.e. a “lift” of the Op. For instance, in local_op(f(x)), local_op is lifted through f to produce f(local_op(x)).
• Rewrites with that pattern local_op_sink() is the opposite of lifting. For instance, in f(local_op(x)), local_op is sunk through f to produce local_op(f(x)).
• Local rewriters can replace any arbitrary node in the graph, not only the nodes they receive as input. In this case, the local rewrite returns a dict, where the keys are Variables to be replaced and the values are the corresponding replacements.