Welcome to our monthly digest, where you can catch up with any AIhub stories you may have missed, peruse the latest news, recap recent events, and more. This month, we explore kernel representation learning for time series, learn about fairness in machine learning, and tackle bad practice in the publication world. During 2024, we spoke to thirteen of the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants to find out more about their research and PhD life. Following the success of that series, we're back in 2025 to talk to this year's cohort. We began the series with two great interviews, hearing from Kunpeng Xu, a final-year PhD student at Université de Sherbrooke, and Kayla Boggess, who is studying for her PhD at the University of Virginia.

This month we tackle the topic of bad practice in the sphere of publication. Joining the conversation this time are: Sanmay Das (Virginia Tech), Tom Dietterich (Oregon State University), Sabine Hauert (University of Bristol), and Sarit Kraus (Bar-Ilan University). Sabine Hauert: Today's topic is bad practice in the publication world. For example, people trying to cheat the review system, paper mills. What bad behaviors have you seen, and is it really a problem? Tom Dietterich: Well, I can talk about it from an arXiv point of view.

As the Ethereum platform continues to mature and gain widespread usage, it is crucial to maintain high standards of smart contract writing practices. While bad practices in smart contracts may not directly lead to security issues, they do elevate the risk of encountering problems. Therefore, to understand and avoid these bad practices, this paper introduces the first systematic study of bad practices in smart contracts, delving into over 35 specific issues. Specifically, we propose a large language models (LLMs)-based framework, SCALM. It combines Step-Back Prompting and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to identify and address various bad practices effectively. Our extensive experiments using multiple LLMs and datasets have shown that SCALM outperforms existing tools in detecting bad practices in smart contracts.

Autonomous driving is getting a lot of attention in the last decade and will be the hot topic at least until the first successful certification of a car with Level 5 autonomy. There are many public datasets in the academic community. However, they are far away from what a robust industrial production system needs. There is a large gap between academic and industrial setting and a substantial way from a research prototype, built on public datasets, to a deployable solution which is a challenging task. In this paper, we focus on bad practices that often happen in the autonomous driving from an industrial deployment perspective. Data design deserves at least the same amount of attention as the model design. There is very little attention paid to these issues in the scientific community, and we hope this paper encourages better formalization of dataset design. More specifically, we focus on the datasets design and validation scheme for autonomous driving, where we would like to highlight the common problems, wrong assumptions, and steps towards avoiding them, as well as some open problems.

For research to go in the right direction, it is essential to be able to compare and quantify performance of different algorithms focused on the same problem. Choosing a suitable evaluation metric requires deep understanding of the pursued task along with all of its characteristics. We argue that in the case of applied machine learning, proper evaluation metric is the basic building block that should be in the spotlight and put under thorough examination. Here, we address tasks with class imbalance, in which the class of interest is the one with much lower number of samples. We encountered non-insignificant amount of recent papers, in which improper evaluation methods are used, borrowed mainly from the field of balanced problems. Such bad practices may heavily bias the results in favour of inappropriate algorithms and give false expectations of the state of the field.

Google's John Mueller warns site owners using meta refresh that doing so may lead to the wrong content getting indexed. That can happen because Google treats meta refresh as a redirect, meaning the page that the user ultimately lands on is the one that will get indexed. Site owners may run into problems using meta refresh in certain instances. For example, if an online store uses meta refresh to send a customer from a product listing page to a payment page. In that example, using meta refresh would be problematic because the payment page would get indexed and not the actual product page.