An Empirical Study of Pre-Trained Model Reuse in the Hugging Face Deep Learning Model Registry
Open accessAbstract
Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are being adopted as components in software systems. Creating and specializing DNNs from scratch has grown increasingly difficult as state-of-the-art architectures grow more complex. Following the path of traditional software engineering, machine learning engineers have begun to reuse large-scale pre-trained models (PTMs) and fine-tune these models for downstream tasks. Prior works have studied reuse practices for traditional software packages to guide software engineers towards better package maintenance and dependency management. We lack a similar foundation of knowledge to guide behaviors in pre-trained model ecosystems. In this work, we present the first empirical investigation of PTM reuse. We interviewed 12 practitioners from the most popular PTM ecosystem, Hugging Face, to learn the practices and challenges of PTM reuse. From this data, we model the decision-making process for PTM reuse. Based on the identified practices, we describe useful attributes for model reuse, including provenance, reproducibility, and portability. Three challenges for PTM reuse are missing attributes, discrepancies between claimed and actual performance, and model risks. We substantiate these identified challenges with systematic measurements in the Hugging Face ecosystem. Our work informs future directions on optimizing deep learning ecosystems by automated measuring useful attributes and potential attacks, and envision future research on infrastructure and standardization for model registries.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PQC transition guidance, including NIST SP 800-208 and CNSA 2.0, does not address AI artifacts or model provenance.
“PQC transition guidance, including NIST SP 800-208 [15] and CNSA 2.0 [8], does not address AI artifacts or model provenance.”
From AI Supply Chain Security: MBOM-PQC Provenance, PQC Attestation, and a Maturity Model for Quantum-Resistant Assurance (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
The Abstract discusses provenance as an attribute of pre-trained models, but does not discuss whether PQC transition guidance addresses AI artifacts or model provenance. Searches for NIST SP 800-208, CNSA 2.0, and post-quantum guidance found no passage addressing that claim. The printed sentence cites [15] and [8], not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 78 · Cited by 76
- Authors
- Jiang, W., Synovic, N., Hyatt, M., Schorlemmer, T. R., Sethi, R., Lu, Y.-H., Thiruvathukal, G. K., & Davis, J. C.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-05
- Pages
- 2463-2475
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4384345640
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 9
- FWCI
- 19.55
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ecommons.luc.edu
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
- Loyola eCommons (Loyola University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Cisco
- NSF (2107230,2229703,2107020,2104319)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Keywords
- Hugging Face, model registry, model provenance, reproducibility, model portability, model risk, practitioner interviews, decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review