ONNX provides an optional implementation of shape inference on ONNX graphs. This implementation covers each of the core operators, as well as provides an interface for extensibility. Therefore, you may choose to invoke the existing shape inference functionality on your graphs, or to define shape inference implementations to go along with your custom operators (or both!). Shape inference functions are stored as a member of the OpSchema objects.
In ONNX 1.10 release, symbol generation and propagation along with shape data propagation was added to ONNX graph level shape inference. Detailed proposal is here
Shape inference can be invoked either via C++ or Python. The Python API is described, with example, here.
The C++ API consists of a single function
shape_inference::InferShapes(
ModelProto& m,
const ISchemaRegistry* schema_registry);
The first argument is a ModelProto
to perform shape inference on,
which is annotated in-place with shape information. The second
argument is optional.
You can add a shape inference function to your operator's Schema with
OpSchema& Opschema::TypeAndShapeInferenceFunction(InferenceFunction inferenceFunction);
InferenceFunction
is defined in
shape_inference.h, along with the core
interface struct InferenceContext
and an assortment of helper
methods. InferenceContext
is the core struct which is provided to
your inference function. It allows accessing information about the
operator's inputs, and also allows writing out inferred information.
To see numerous examples, search for occurrences of
TypeAndShapeInferenceFunction
in the codebase. One that is
relatively involved is the implementation for Concat
, in
onnx/defs/tensor/defs.cc.
Shape inference is not guaranteed to be complete. In particular, some dynamic behaviors block the flow of shape inference, for example a Reshape to a dynamically-provide shape. Also, all operators are not required to have a shape inference implementation.
Shape inference works only with constants and simple variables. It
does not support arithmetic expressions containing variables. For
example, Concat
on tensors of shapes (5, 2)
and (7, 2)
can be
inferred to produce a result of shape (12, 2)
, but Concat
on
tensors of shapes (5, 2)
and (N, 2)
will simply produce (M, 2)
,
rather than containing a representation of N+5
. Note that differing
unknown symbolic values will be propagated, so the M
here represents
an unknown quantity that is the same as other occurrences of M
.
These limitations are a property of the current implementation, not fundamental constraints - if you are in need of something more advanced, do let us know!