Daily Papers

The DISL dataset features a collection of 514,506 unique Solidity files that have been deployed to Ethereum mainnet. It caters to the need for a large and diverse dataset of real-world smart contracts. DISL serves as a resource for developing machine learning systems and for benchmarking software engineering tools designed for smart contracts. By aggregating every verified smart contract from Etherscan up to January 15, 2024, DISL surpasses existing datasets in size and recency.

This paper deals with the formation and evolution of Mars' moons, Phobos and Deimos, assuming the dislocation of a larger progenitor as the origin of these moons. The study by Hyodo et al. (2022) argue that under somewhat simplistic modeling, the post-dislocation orbits of Phobos and Deimos inevitably collide within 10,000 years, leading to their mutual annihilation. These findings are based on N-body simulations, accounting for Mars' J_2 and J_4 gravitational perturbations and mutual perturbations between the moons. In this paper, we challenge these findings by extending their work. We incorporate important perturbations such as solar perturbations, Mars' axial precession and nutation, and its deformation along three axes. We also extend some of the hypotheses made by Hyodo et al. (2022) concerning the initial distribution of Phobos and Deimos after the dislocation. Our analysis reveals that including these additional perturbations as well as the possibility of having more than two fragments after the dislocation does not alter the ultimate fate of Phobos and Deimos. The moons still converge towards collision within comparable timescales, supporting Hyodo et al. (2022) conclusions that the dislocation hypothesis under the dynamical scenario developed by Bagheri et al. (2021) has, in the best conditions, about 10\% chance of surviving after the first 100,000 years following their formation.

Recent research on explainable recommendation generally frames the task as a standard text generation problem, and evaluates models simply based on the textual similarity between the predicted and ground-truth explanations. However, this approach fails to consider one crucial aspect of the systems: whether their outputs accurately reflect the users' (post-purchase) sentiments, i.e., whether and why they would like and/or dislike the recommended items. To shed light on this issue, we introduce new datasets and evaluation methods that focus on the users' sentiments. Specifically, we construct the datasets by explicitly extracting users' positive and negative opinions from their post-purchase reviews using an LLM, and propose to evaluate systems based on whether the generated explanations 1) align well with the users' sentiments, and 2) accurately identify both positive and negative opinions of users on the target items. We benchmark several recent models on our datasets and demonstrate that achieving strong performance on existing metrics does not ensure that the generated explanations align well with the users' sentiments. Lastly, we find that existing models can provide more sentiment-aware explanations when the users' (predicted) ratings for the target items are directly fed into the models as input. We will release our code and datasets upon acceptance.