E-Graph

What is an e-graph?

What is a summer’s day? A rainbow?

E-graphs are a data structure that efficiently holds terms and equalities between terms.

It is useful for algebraic simplification, program transformations and proving equivalences in equational reasoning

Destructive term rewriting can be used in

My E-Graph Blog Posts

Union Finds

Union finds are also called disjoint set datastructures.

You can take a set an group it into equivalence classes. One place this is useful is finding the connected components of a graph.

There are different styles of union finds and both make one thing in different and interesting ways.

At a level of fairly high abstraction, a union find is a contracting map. You iterate the map to a fixed point. Each equivalence class is the basin of a fixed point.

See coq post https://www.philipzucker.com/simple-coq-union-find/

How essential is path compression? It is the thing that gets you that inverse ackermann complexity. It requires mutation so far as I know.

Another way of constructing disjoint sets is to note that preimages of any map form disjoint sets.

Is the inverse acckerman complxity a requirement for anything I might call a union find? I don’t think so.

Union finds can be fully normalized to flatness.

Reference union finds

A chain of pointers that lead up to a root. Often the root is a pointer to itself.

# no path compression
# `is` is python reference equality
class BadUF():
  def __init__(self):
    self.parent = self
  def find(self):
    x = self
    while x.parent is not x:
      x = x.parent
    return x
  def union(self,rhs):
    p = self.find()
    p2 = rhs.find()
    p.parent = p2
    return p2

x = BadUF()
y = BadUF()
z = BadUF()

x.union(y)
print(x.find() is y.find())
print(x.find() is z.find())

Union find arrays and ints

What is a pointer but an index? What is an index but a pointer? In some sense your ram is just a giant array that you hand out. And vice versa you can build the analog of pointer based algorithms by using an array as ram.

In some languages you don’t have access to raw pointers easily. The array style also makes it easier/more natural to copy union finds. This style also makes it more clear how to talk about the union find in a purely functional way.

class BadUF():
  # no path compression. no depth stroage.
  def __init__(self):
    self.parent = []
  def find(self,i):
    p = self.parent[i]
    while p != self.parent[p]: # walrus?
      p = self.parent[p]
    return p
  def makeset(self):
    x = len(self.parent) # right? 
    self.parent.append(x)
    return x
  def set_size(self,n):
    while len(self.parent) < n:
      self.makeset()
    return
  def union(self,i,j):
    i = self.find(i)
    j = self.find(j)
    self.parent[i] = j
    return j

uf = BadUF()
x = uf.makeset()
y = uf.makeset()
z = uf.makeset()

uf.union(x,y)
assert(uf.find(x) == uf.find(y))
assert(uf.find(x) != uf.find(z))

Variations

persistent union find

Union Find Dicts: Dictionaries Keyed on Equivalence Classes. You can make a dict from union find to lattices. It needs to know how to merge stuff in the range. Relatedly, you could also have union find keyed on union find.

Union find with group elements on edges. kmett talk. Yihong points out http://poj.org/problem?id=2492 as a competitive programming exercise that can use this. “generalized union find” mentioned in CHR book

Scoped Union find

Colored Union find

Data Structures and Algorithms for Disjoint Set Union Problem “deunions” and backtracking. hmm. 1989

concurrent union find

concrruent union finds

simple union finds incudes description of Rem’s algorithm

parwary thesis - Parallel Graph Algorithms for Combinatorial Scientific Computing Compression methods:

  • compress all to root
  • splitting - compress to grandparent
  • halving compress every other to grandparent

Relationship to minimum spanning tree - Kruskal uses union find to determine whether you need an edge or not

Applications

connected components of graph

reducibility of loops Testing Flow Graph Reducibility - tarjan

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring07/cos226/lectures/01union-find.pdf “ ! Network connectivity. ! Percolation. ! Image processing. ! Least common ancestor. ! Equivalence of finite state automata. ! Hinley-Milner polymorphic type inference. ! Kruskal’s minimum spanning tree algorithm. ! Games (Go, Hex) ! Compiling equivalence statements in Fortran “ quick-find vs quick-union

percolation. estimate percolation via monte carlo. quick test of connectivity between conducting edges. That’s neat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarjan%27s_off-line_lowest_common_ancestors_algorithm

value numbering

Hash Cons

E-matching

Searching over the egraph. It is both simple and complex. It is a brother of pattern matching. The branching factor of each eclass means that it is more nondeterministic than tree pattern matching. It is similar to database search. Relational E-matching.

Consider

  • pattern matching at the root of a single tree
  • pattern matching at ever node in a tree

  • pattern matching over a database of trees (forest)

  • pattern matching over a DAG
  • pattern matching over a graph (hard in principle (subgraph isomorphism), in practice maybe not that bad)

Simplify de Moura and Bjorner Their VM is quire similar to WAM.

Equality Saturation

Proof Production

Proof producing congruence closure

A union find is a data structure useful for finding connected components in a graph. The “proof” that two vertices are connected is the path between them. We need to maintain an incremental spanning tree of some kind.

We also need to record “reasons” why each edge got added. Reasons may be rewrite rules, or congruence closure.

A proof might be:

  • a term rewriting sequence
  • a grounded confluent terminating term rewriting system
  • The ground equalities to assert to an egraph that are enough to push the proof through with no egraph rewrite rules

See also Z3’s proof production

E Graph Tactics

de moura selsam

Axiom i64 : Type.
Axiom add : i64 -> i64 -> i64.

Axioms add_comm : forall x y, add x y = add y x.
Axioms add_assoc : forall x y z, add (add x y) z = add x (add y z).

Axioms a b c d : i64.
Axiom num : nat -> i64.

Definition add_rule_set := (add_comm , add_assoc).

Fixpoint addl (n : nat) : i64 :=
     match n with
     | O => num 0
     | S n => add (num (S n)) (addl n)
     end.
Fixpoint addr (n : nat) : i64 :=
    match n with
    | O => num 0
    | S n => add (addr n) (num (S n))
    end.

Global Hint Rewrite add_assoc : base0. (* add_comm is no good. nonterminating as a rewrite*)
Goal addl 10 = addr 10. simpl. 
(* congruence with (add_comm (num 0) (num 1)). autorewrite with base0.  *)
(* pose add_comm. pose add_assoc. *)
pose add_rule_set as rs. destruct rs.
congruence. Qed.

Applications

PEG Program Expression Graphs

https://ztatlock.net/pubs/2009-popl-equality-saturation-optimizations-egraphs.pdf https://rosstate.org/publications/eqsat/

Control flow graph (CFG) is just like, a thing. Its denotational semantics are a bit confused.

Egraphs like talking about functions. How to encode something cfg like into functions?

Dataflow graphs are basically just a DAG functional representation. So that intra block dataflow is not really a problem.

Being in SSA make one close to purely functional. YOu never assign to the sam name twice (although let binding shadowing could also model this purely functionally).

SSA Phi nodes are slightly bizarre. Gated Phi nodes make explicit the condition on which the merging happens. This makes them more like a purely functional if-then-else.

One can consider using streams as a functional representation of loop behavior. There are operations like tail, head, other on the stream.

PEGs have some clues on how to treat summation symbols $\Sigma$ in an egraph. Surely you can write a sum function asa CFG. Partial Sums / indefinite integrals rather than closed sum, definite integrals.

Is there a relationship between pegs and timely dataflow?

You only Grep once by koppel - uses PEG-like representation for semantic code search.

representing loops within egg

RVSDG https://github.com/jameysharp/optir/

Loops in egraphs and Landin’s knot.

Equality Saturation: a New Approach to Optimization

Quiche quiche python egraph for manipulating python AST

Tree Automata

https://github.com/ondrik/libvata Tree Automata Techniques and Applications

E-Graphs, VSAs, and Tree Automata: a Rosetta Stone slides merge only rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_automaton

Egglog

See language/egglog

First class sets

GATs

# I should try souffle using subsumption UF. Maybe it'll work now?

class BadUF():
  # no path compression. no depth stroage.
  def __init__(self):
    self.parent = []
  def find(self,i):
    p = self.parent[i]
    while p != self.parent[p]: # walrus?
      p = self.parent[p]
    return p
  def makeset(self):
    x = len(self.parent) # right? 
    self.parent.append(x)
    return x
  def set_size(self,n):
    while len(self.parent) < n:
      self.makeset()
    return
  def union(self,i,j):
    i = self.find(i)
    j = self.find(j)
    self.parent[i] = j
    return j

uf = BadUF()
uf.set_size(5)


'''
add = {(0,1,2), (1,0,3), (0,1,4)} # x + y, y + x
while True:
  newadd = {(y,x,xy) for (x,y,xy) in add if (y,x,xy) not in add}
  if newadd.issubset(add):
    break
  add.update(newadd)
  # rebuild
  while True:
    # normalize
    add = {(uf.find(x), uf.find(y), uf.find(xy)) for (x,y,xy) in add}
    # congruence close
    fresh = { (x,y,uf.union(xy,xy1))  for (x,y,xy) in add for (x1,y1,xy1) in add if x == x1 and y == y1 and xy != xy1}
    if len(fresh) == 0:
      break
print(add)
'''

add = {(0,1,2), (1,0,3), (0,1,4)} # x + y, y + x
while True:
  newadd = {(y,x,xy) for (x,y,xy) in add if (y,x,xy) not in add}
  if newadd.issubset(add):
    break
  add.update(newadd)
  # rebuild
  while True:
    # normalize
    add = {(uf.find(x), uf.find(y), uf.find(xy)) for (x,y,xy) in add}
    addind = {(x,y) : xy for (x,y,xy) in add}
    # congruence close
    fresh = [uf.union(xy,addind[(x,y)]) for (x,y,xy) in add if addind[(x,y)] != xy]
    if len(fresh) == 0:
      break
print(add)

'''
add = {(0,1) : 2, (1,0) : 3 , (0,1) : 4} # x + y, y + x
while True:
  newadd = {(y,x,xy) for (x,y),xy in add.items() if (y,x) not in add or add[(y,x)] != xy}
  if newadd.issubset(add):
    break
  add.update(newadd)
  # rebuild
  while True:
    # normalize
    add = {(uf.find(x), uf.find(y), uf.find(xy)) for (x,y,xy) in add}
    # congruence close
    fresh = { (x,y,uf.union(xy,xy1))  for (x,y,xy) in add for (x1,y1,xy1) in add if x == x1 and y == y1 and xy != xy1}
    if len(fresh) == 0:
      break
'''
print(add)

Lambda Encoding

Might work:

  • Combinators. SKI or categorical. Many projects are doing something like this. Relational Algebra or matrix algebra are the same thing. Combinators require many administrative rewrites
  • Succ lifting. pavel oleg. Do de bruijn but let Succ float out of Var. Let’s you do de bruijn index lifting as local rewrite rule. Succ has interpretation as a higher order function.
  • Lambda lifting.
  • Defunctionalization.
  • Closure conversion.

Arguable:

  • Co de-bruijn. Hash Cons modulo alpha. Mcbride’s Do Be doo be doo. Doesn’t seem to work. Correlated rewrites required
  • Graph compilation. Optimal graph reduction

Why are de bruijn indices insufficient? Or are they?

I was asked by a coworker yesterday to elaborate why I thought lambdas were an unsolved problem in egraphs.

I’m semi convinced that there will never be a completely satsifactory answer to this an that it is probaby a bad question in some way.

Nevertheless, it is desirable to apply egraphs to domain that contain lambdas

  • functional programming languages
  • theorem provers

A notion of binding that doesn’t persay require entire lambdas

  • integrals
  • sums
  • einstein notation
  • forall, exists quantifiers
  • let binding

Alpha v Beta substitution ()

Even hash consing is conceptually bad for binding. Hash consing identifies all terms regardless of context. Is the 0 in \x. 0 the same as 0 not inside a binding context? Maaaaybe.

Capture avoiding substition. Problematic examples

Contextual EGraphs

No one know what this means. Everyone wants it.

colored egraphs colored egg

Perhaps related to backtracking

Equational Logic

Maude Goguen theorem proving and algebra

rigid e-uniifcation https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/311063/80170.pdf Equational Proofs in Tableaux en Logic Programming de Kogel, E.A. Another fairly extnsive work that seems a lot like egglog.

Theories AC

CC(X): Semantic Combination of Congruence Closure with Solvable Theories

Sylvain Conchon, Evelyne Contejean, and Mohamed Iguernelala. Canonized Rewriting and Ground AC Completion Modulo Shostak Theories : Design and Implementation. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 8(3), 2012.

Ashish TIwari

CHR egraphs

:- use_module(library(chr)).
:- initialization(main,main).
% hmm are these annotations ok?
:- chr_constraint make(+int), find(+int,-), root(+int,+int), union(+int,+int), 
                  link(+int,+int), pto(+int,+int), counter(+int).

make(A), counter(N) <=> N = A, N1 is N + 1, counter(N1), root(A,0).
union(A,B) <=> find(A,X), find(B,Y), link(X,Y).
pto(A, B), find(A,X) <=> find(B,X), pto(A,X).
root(A,_) \ find(A,X) <=> X=A.
link(A,A) <=> true.
link(A,B), root(A,N), root(B,M) <=> N>=M | pto(B,A), K is max(N,M+1), root(A,K).
link(B,A), root(A,N), root(B,M) <=> N>=M | pto(B,A), K is max(N,M+1), root(A,K).

main(_) :- counter(0), make(A), make(B), make(C), union(A,B), find(B,X), find(C,Y), 
    print(X),print(Y), union(A,B), chr_show_store(true).



norm @ pto(A, A1), pto(B,B1), pto(E,E1) \ eclass(A + B, E) <=> eclass(A1 + B1, E1).

cong @ eclass(T,E1) \ eclass(T, E2) <=> E1 < E2 | pto(E2, E1).



:- use_module(library(chr)).
:- initialization(main,main).
:- chr_option(optimize,full). % Thanks Tom Schrijvers for the tip
:- chr_constraint eclass(?,-).




:- use_module(library(chr)).
:- initialization(main,main).
:- chr_option(optimize,full). % Thanks Tom Schrijvers for the tip
:- chr_constraint eclass(?,-), eclass2(?,-), collect/1, kill/0, count/1.

cong @ eclass(T, E1) \ eclass(T, E2) <=> E1 = E2.

% rewrite rules.
% how can we run only once?
% How can we not make a counter inc if already exists? Maybe that doesn't matter much.
comm @ eclass(X + Y, E) ==> eclass2(Y + X, E).
assocl @ eclass(X + YZ, E), eclass(Y + Z, YZ) ==> eclass2(X + Y, XY), eclass2(XY + Z, E). % if I put counter(N) in here, can refire?
assocr @ eclass(X + Y, XY), eclass(XY + Z, E) ==> eclass2(X + YZ, E), eclass2(Y + Z, YZ).

% To collect up new eclasses
collect @ eclass2(T,E), collect(L) <=> L = [eclass3(T,E) | L1], collect(L1).
done @ collect(L) <=> L = [].

% helpers to cleanup eclass2
kill @ kill \ eclass2(_,_) <=> true.
killdone @ kill <=> true.

% helper to count eclasses
count @ count(N), eclass(_,_) <=> N1 is N + 1, count(N1).

% Take rhs list and inject them as CHR constraints 
process([]).
process([eclass3(T, E)| L]) :- eclass(T,E), process(L).

% Do N rewriting runs
batch() :- collect(L), process(L).
batch(0).
batch(N) :- batch(), N1 is N -1, batch(N1).

init_add(N) :- eclass(N,E), N1 is N - 1, init_add_aux(N1,E).
init_add_aux(0,_).
init_add_aux(N,E) :-
  eclass(N, EN), eclass(EN + E, E2), N1 is N-1, init_add_aux(N1, E2).


insert( T , E) :-
 ground(T),
 var(E),
 T =.. [F | Args],
 length(Args, N), length(Es, N),
 T2 =.. [F | Es],
 eclass(T2, E),
 maplist(insert, Args, Es).


main(_) :- 
          N = 6,
          init_add(N),
          Num is 3**(N) - 2**(N+1) + 1 + N, print(Num),
          BNum is N,
          time(batch(BNum)), kill, count(0), chr_show_store(true).
/*
Output:
608
% 397,754,165 inferences, 41.712 CPU in 41.732 seconds (100% CPU, 9535677 Lips)
count(608)

N=5 is under a second. Not good scaling.
*/

Misc

What would be a mvp egraph in C specialized for the comm/assoc problem look like. Use reference based union find with tag bits?

Is ematching a wam? I suppose so. Ematching over a fixed egraph is easily expressible in prolog. We could implement egraph as assert We can’t use unification vars? Does tabling help?

f(1,2,3).
g(1,2,3).

-? plus(A,B,AB), plus(AB,C,ABC)

Sketch-Guided Equality Saturation Scaling Equality Saturation to Complex Optimizations in Languages with Bindings de buijn indexes with extraction. Rise compiler

denali

tactic lean

Cheli Thesis

EGRAPH 2022 workshop youtube feed

chasing an egg

denali

Yihong trick to make ematching faster

oliver egraph intersection

wasm mutate - fuzzing wasm with egraphs

abstract interp for egraphs improving interval boounds

sketch guided equality satruation Give sketches (~ patterns?) which one the ergaph reaches, transition to a new set of rewriting rules / clear the egraphs.

beam search

Caviar: an e-graph based TRS for automatic code optimization halide

Automatic Datapath Optimization using E-Graphs Samuel Coward, George A. Constantinides, Theo Drane

Cranelift egraph rfc aegraphs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-graph

Equality-Based Translation Validator for LLVM

Automatic Datapath Optimization using E-Graphs RTL optimization

Improving MBA Deobfuscation using Equality Saturation

Fast equality saturation in Haskell

naive egraph

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Equality Saturation caviar TRS system for proving optimizations applied to Halide.

WebAssembly Diversification for Malware Evasion

MCTS-GEB: Monte Carlo Tree Search is a Good E-graph Builder

risinglightdb query planner

An Evaluation Algorithm for Datalog with Equality Martin E. Bidlingmaier

MetaEmu - ssa form rewriting out of ghidra? dang.

Rewriting History: Repurposing Domain-Specific CGRAs course gfrained reconfigurable arrays. Huh

Latent Idiom Recognition for a Minimalist Functional Array Language using Equality Saturation