In this article, we solve some of the geometry problems of the N\'aboj 2023 competition with the help of a computer, using examples that the software tool GeoGebra Discovery can calculate. In each case, the calculation requires symbolic computations. We analyze the difficulty of feeding the problem into the machine and set further goals to make the problems of this type of contests even more tractable in the future.

The pursue of what are properties that can be identified to permit an automated reasoning program to generate and find new and interesting theorems is an interesting research goal (pun intended). The automatic discovery of new theorems is a goal in itself, and it has been addressed in specific areas, with different methods. The separation of the "weeds", uninteresting, trivial facts, from the "wheat", new and interesting facts, is much harder, but is also being addressed by different authors using different approaches. In this paper we will focus on geometry. We present and discuss different approaches for the automatic discovery of geometric theorems (and properties), and different metrics to find the interesting theorems among all those that were generated. After this description we will introduce the first result of this article: an undecidability result proving that having an algorithmic procedure that decides for every possible Turing Machine that produces theorems, whether it is able to produce also interesting theorems, is an undecidable problem. Consequently, we will argue that judging whether a theorem prover is able to produce interesting theorems remains a non deterministic task, at best a task to be addressed by program based in an algorithm guided by heuristics criteria. Therefore, as a human, to satisfy this task two things are necessary: an expert survey that sheds light on what a theorem prover/finder of interesting geometric theorems is, and - to enable this analysis - other surveys that clarify metrics and approaches related to the interestingness of geometric theorems. In the conclusion of this article we will introduce the structure of two of these surveys - the second result of this article - and we will discuss some future work.

ADG is a forum to exchange ideas and views, to present research results and progress, and to demonstrate software tools at the intersection between geometry and automated deduction. The conference is held every two years. The previous editions of ADG were held in Hagenberg in 2021 (online, postponed from 2020 due to COVID-19), Nanning in 2018, Strasbourg in 2016, Coimbra in 2014, Edinburgh in 2012, Munich in 2010, Shanghai in 2008, Pontevedra in 2006, Gainesville in 2004, Hagenberg in 2002, Zurich in 2000, Beijing in 1998, and Toulouse in 1996. The 14th edition, ADG 2023, was held in Belgrade, Serbia, in September 20-22, 2023. This edition of ADG had an additional special focus topic, Deduction in Education. Invited Speakers: Julien Narboux, University of Strasbourg, France "Formalisation, arithmetization and automatisation of geometry"; Filip Mari\'c, University of Belgrade, Serbia, "Automatization, formalization and visualization of hyperbolic geometry"; Zlatan Magajna, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, "Workshop OK Geometry"

Mathematical proof is undoubtedly the cornerstone of mathematics. The emergence, in the last years, of computing and reasoning tools, in particular automated geometry theorem provers, has enriched our experience with mathematics immensely. To avoid disparate efforts,the Open Geometry Prover Community Project aims at the integration of the different efforts for the development of geometry automated theorem provers, under a common "umbrella". In this article the necessary steps to such integration are specified and the current implementation of some of those steps is described.

Automated Deduction in Geometry (ADG) is a forum to exchange ideas and views, to present research results and progress, and to demonstrate software tools at the intersection between geometry and automated deduction. Relevant topics include (but are not limited to): polynomial algebra, invariant and coordinate-free methods; probabilistic, synthetic, and logic approaches, techniques for automated geometric reasoning from discrete mathematics, combinatorics, and numerics; interactive theorem proving in geometry; symbolic and numeric methods for geometric computation, geometric constraint solving, automated generation/reasoning and manipulation with diagrams; design and implementation of geometry software, automated theorem provers, special-purpose tools, experimental studies; applications of ADG in mechanics, geometric modelling, CAGD/CAD, computer vision, robotics and education. Traditionally, the ADG conference is held every two years. The previous editions of ADG were held in Nanning in 2018, Strasbourg in 2016, Coimbra in 2014, Edinburgh in 2012, Munich in 2010, Shanghai in 2008, Pontevedra in 2006, Gainesville in 2004, Hagenberg in 2002, Zurich in 2000, Beijing in 1998, and Toulouse in 1996. The 13th edition of ADG was supposed to be held in 2020 in Hagenberg, Austria, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was postponed for 2021, and held online (still hosted by RISC Institute, Hagenberg, Austria), September 15-17, 2021 (https://www.risc.jku.at/conferences/adg2021).

We re-examine the topic of machine-learned clause selection guidance in saturation-based theorem provers. The central idea, recently popularized by the ENIGMA system, is to learn a classifier for recognizing clauses that appeared in previously discovered proofs. In subsequent runs, clauses classified positively are prioritized for selection. We propose several improvements to this approach and experimentally confirm their viability. For the demonstration, we use a Recursive Neural Network to classify clauses based on their derivation history and the presence or absence of automatically supplied theory axioms therein. The automatic theorem prover Vampire guided by the network achieves a 41 % improvement on a relevant subset of smt-lib in a real time evaluation.

Vampire has been for a long time the strongest first-order automated theorem prover, widely used for hammer-style proof automation in ITPs such as Mizar, Isabelle, HOL and Coq. In this work, we considerably improve the performance of Vampire in hammering over the full Mizar library by enhancing its saturation procedure with efficient neural guidance. In particular, we employ a recursive neural network classifying the generated clauses based only on their derivation history. Compared to previous neural methods based on considering the logical content of the clauses, this leads to large real-time speedup of the neural guidance. The resulting system shows good learning capability and achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Mizar library, while proving many theorems that the related ENIGMA system could not prove in a similar hammering evaluation.

"Mathematics is not a careful march down a well-cleared highway, but a journey into a strange wilderness, where the explorers often get lost. Rigour should be a signal to the historian that the maps have been made, and the real explorers have gone elsewhere." W.S. Anglin, the Mathematical Intelligencer, 4 (4), 1982.

We present a system that utilizes machine learning for tactic proof search in the Coq Proof Assistant. In a similar vein as the TacticToe project for HOL4, our system predicts appropriate tactics and finds proofs in the form of tactic scripts. To do this, it learns from previous tactic scripts and how they are applied to proof states. The performance of the system is evaluated on the Coq Standard Library. Currently, our predictor can identify the correct tactic to be applied to a proof state 23.4% of the time. Our proof searcher can fully automatically prove 39.3% of the lemmas. When combined with the CoqHammer system, the two systems together prove 56.7% of the library's lemmas.

The geometry automated theorem proving area distinguishes itself by a large number of specific methods and implementations, different approaches (synthetic, algebraic, semi-synthetic) and different goals and applications (from research in the area of artificial intelligence to applications in education). Apart from the usual measures of efficiency (e.g. CPU time), the possibility of visual and/or readable proofs is also an expected output against which the geometry automated theorem provers (GATP) should be measured. The implementation of a competition between GATP would allow to create a test bench for GATP developers to improve the existing ones and to propose new ones. It would also allow to establish a ranking for GATP that could be used by "clients" (e.g. developers of educational e-learning systems) to choose the best implementation for a given intended use.