Dinner
Monday 19:30 at the Camaroes PotiguarWorkshop Description
General Information
The Second International ARCADE (Automated Reasoning: Challenges, Applications, Directions, Exemplary Achievements) Workshop will take place in association with The 27th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE27) on August 26, 2019.
Scope
The main goal of this workshop is to bring together key people from various subcommunities of automated reasoning—such as SAT/SMT, resolution, tableaux, theoryspecific calculi (e.g. for description logic, arithmetic, set theory), interactive theorem proving—to discuss the present, past, and future of the field. The intention is to provide an opportunity to discuss broad issues facing the community.
The first ARCADE was held in conjunction with CADE 2017 in Gothenburg, Sweden.
The structure of the workshop will be informal. We invite extended abstracts in the form of nontechnical position statements aimed at prompting lively discussion. The title of the workshop is indicative of the kind of discussions we would like to encourage:
 Challenges: What are the next grand challenges for research on automated reasoning? Thereby, we refer to problems, solving which would imply a significant impact (e.g., shift of focus) on the CADE community and beyond?
 Applications: Is automated reasoning applicable in realworld (industrial) scenarios? Should reports on such applications be encouraged at a venue like CADE, perhaps by means of a special case study paper category?
 Directions: Based on the grand challenges and requirements from real world applications, what are the research directions the community should promote? What bridges between the different subcommunities of CADE need to be strengthened? What new communities should be included?
 Exemplary Achievements: What are the landmark achievements of automated reasoning whose influence reached far beyond the CADE community itself? What can we learn from those successes when shaping our future research?
Contributions will be grouped into similar themes and authors will be invited to make their case within discussion panels. Authors will then be invited to extend their abstracts for inclusion in postproceedings.
Submission
Please submit your paper via this EasyChair submission page. Submissions should use the EPiC LaTeX format. We solicit nontechnical extended abstracts of 2–4 pages (without firmly enforcing this length requirement). The postproceedings version of the paper may be longer (but still of a reasonable length).
Important Dates
Submission deadline:  
Author notification:  
Workshop:  26 August 2019 
Postproceedings deadline:  29 September 2019 
Topics
To collect the most relevant and timely topics from various subcommunities, we asked the program committee for input. The following list summarizing the gathered questions is in no way meant to be exhaustive; rather, it collects example questions revolving around current challenges, applications, and directions.
Historically, a lot of research on automated reasoning was motivated by applications in mathematics and logic, verification, or artificial intelligence. Paragraphs (1)–(3) collect questions from these domains. Naturally, we are also most interested in contributions on challenges and difficulties at the very core of theorem proving and proofs (4). Finally, we also encourage discussion of nontechnical issues about the future of our community (5).
(1) Automated Reasoning and Artificial Intelligence
 What is the role of automated reasoning (AR) in artificial intelligence (AI)?
 How can we use machine learning (ML) to build better provers, and how come it had so little impact in AR so far? Is AR not suited to ML?
 Conversely, can we use AR to better understand the results of machine learning techniques and thus help to provide explainable AI?
(2) Automated Reasoning and Verification
 The currently most widely used provers are for relatively “lowlevel” or even decidable logics such as SAT, SMT, and description logic. What are the practical prospects for provers for full firstorder logic and beyond?
 What is the role of AR in program verification? What can AR offer to the program verification community, and which challenges need to be tackled to analyze realworld programs?
 What is the relationship between automated theorem provers and interactive proof assistant, beyond hammers?
(3) Automated Reasoning for Logic and Mathematics
 How to develop suitable standards, techniques and approaches for non classical logics, in particular modal logic?
 What is the relationship between AR and symbolic computation?
(4) In the Guts of Theorem Proving and Proofs
 How to identify relevant facts from large knowledge bases?
 How can provers exploit semantic knowledge, or benefit from case analysis?
 How can we understand proofs of automatic theorem provers?
 How can we ensure reliability of formal verification tools? Should they be held to the same high standards that our community often applies to other pieces of software, i.e., should they be verified?
(5) NonTechnical Challenges
 Confluence of techniques and languages from fields such as propositional logic, SMT, classical firstorder reasoning, and higherorder logic.
 How can we document, maintain, and transfer the vast amount of knowledge of our community that is encapsulated in software?
 How can we attract young people to our field?
Program
Our preliminary schedule assuming presentations of roughly 10 minutes comprises six topic blocks distributed over three sessions, as listed below. Every topic block is concluded by a discussion of 1525 minutes.8:3010:00  Semantic and syntactic inference 
Christoph Weidenbach: The Challenge of Unifying Semantic and Syntactic Inference Restrictions  
John Hester: Automated Axiom Schemas with E  
Questions:


Machine learning in theorem proving  
Claudia Schon, Frieder Stolzenburg and Sophie Siebert: Using ConceptNet to Teach Common Sense to an Automated Theorem Prover  
Georg Moser and Sarah Winkler: Smarter Features, Simpler Learning  
Questions:


10:3012:30  Automating higher order reasoning 
Jasmin Blanchette, Pascal Fontaine, Stephan Schulz, Sophie Tourret and Uwe Waldmann: Stronger HigherOrder Automation: A Report on the Ongoing Matryoshka Project  
Questions:


Ethical aspects  
Christoph Benzmüller and Geoff Sutcliffe: Explicit Normative Reasoning and Machine Ethics  
Naveen Sundar Govindarajulu and Selmer Bringsjord: On Theorem Proving for Quantified Modal Logics: With Applications in Modeling Ethical Principles  
Making sure our tools are really useful  
Martin Riener: How can we improve theorem provers for tool chains?  
Giles Reger: Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before  
14:0015:30  New application areas 
Pedro Quaresma, Intelligent Geometry Community, and James H. Davenport: Intelligent Geometry Tools  
Diego Calvanese, Silvio Ghilardi, Alessandro Gianola, Marco Montali and Andrey Rivkin: Verification of DataAware Processes: Challenges and Opportunities for Automated Reasoning  
General discussion 
Organisation
Organisers
Martin Suda, Czech Technical University
Sarah Winkler, University of Innsbruck
Program Committee
Franz Baader, TU Dresden
Christoph Benzmüller, Freie Universität Berlin
Armin Biere, Johannes Kepler University Linz
Nikolaj Bjørner, Microsoft Research
Jasmin Christian Blanchette, Inria Nancy & LORIA
Maria Paola Bonacina, Università degli Studi di Verona
Pascal Fontaine, LORIA, Inria, University of Lorraine
Silvio Ghilardi, Università degli Studi di Milano
Jürgen Giesl, RWTH Aachen
Alberto Griggio, FBKIRST
Reiner Hähnle,TU Darmstadt
Marijn Heule, The University of Texas at Austin
Cezary Kaliszyk, University of Innsbruck
Laura Kovacs, Vienna University of Technology
Aart Middeldorp, University of Innsbruck
Neil Murray, SUNY at Albany
David Plaisted, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Andrei Popescu, Middlesex University London
Renate Schmidt, The University of Manchester
Stephan Schulz, DHBW Stuttgart
Geoff Sutcliffe, University of Miami
Josef Urban, Czech Technical University
Christoph Weidenbach, Max Planck Institute for Informatics