Currently, TVM uses the following way to define expression simplifying rules: https://github.com/apache/tvm/blob/f5e0c102057641d88f06ad865d5a1d4e99bd70d7/src/arith/rewrite_simplify.cc
This approach is error-prone and not scalable: 1. The rewrite rules were added manually, the number of possible rewriting rules might be too large and not maintainable. 2. Lack verification of rewriting rules, we only have unittests: which can not cover all possible cases. 3. The order of rewrite matters, which is not considered here. For 2, we can use existing SMT solvers such as Z3, for the issue introduced in https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/10610, we can try finding a counter-example with Z3: ```python >>> from z3 import * >>> x = BitVec('x', 32) >>> y = BitVec('y', 32) >>> c1 = BitVec('c1', 32) >>> c2 = BitVec('c2', 32) >>> solve(x > 0, y > 0, c1 > 0, c2 > 0, c2 % c1 == 0, (x * c1 + y) % c2 != (x % >>> (c2 / c1)) * c1 + y, y < c1) [y = 79521, x = 201523190, c1 = 1909062, c2 = 1956788550] ``` where `BitVec(..., 32)` means int32. We can write tests for all these rewriting rules either on C++ side or Python side. How to automatically generate rewrite rules remains a research problem, program synthesis ([rosette](https://github.com/emina/rosette)) and equality saturation ([egg](https://github.com/egraphs-good/egg), [ruler](https://github.com/uwplse/ruler)) might help here. However, we need to define the optimization target of rewriting (make it simpler? can we formulate the level of "simple"? etc). --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-verification-and-possibly-program-synthesis-of-expression-rewriting-rules/12319/1) to respond. You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe/1114de82dd0594ed1801155d824f56da0ed2726d535e89a3a4a4a5bcf66a3d35).
