MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407857946 · doi:10.1145/3696443.3708957

DialEgg: Dialect-Agnostic MLIR Optimizer using Equality Saturation with Egglog

2025· article· en· W4407857946 on OpenAlexaff
Abd-El-Aziz Zayed, Christophe Dubach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)Computer scienceMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MLIR’s ability to optimize programs at multiple levels of abstraction is key to enabling domain-specific optimizing compilers. However, expressing optimizations remains tedious. Optimizations can interact in unexpected ways, making it hard to unleash full performance. Equality saturation promises to solve these challenges. First, it simplifies the expression of optimizations using rewrite rules. Secondly, it considers all possible optimization interactions, through saturation, selecting the best program variant. Despite these advantages, equality saturation remains absent from production compilers such as MLIR. This paper proposes to integrate Egglog, a recent equality saturation engine, with MLIR, in a dialect-agnostic manner. This paper shows how the main MLIR constructs such as operations, types or attributes can be modeled in Egglog. It also presents DialEgg, a tool that pre-defines a large set of common MLIR constructs in Egglog and automatically translates between the MLIR and Egglog program representations. Using a few use-cases, this paper demonstrates the potential for combining equality saturation and MLIR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207