CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 54Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Digitalization, Law, and Regulation

The Foundation Model Transparency Index

Open access
Bommasani, Rishi, Klyman, Kevin, Longpre, Shayne, Kapoor, Sayash, Maslej, Nestor, Xiong, Betty, Zhang, Daniel, Liang, Percy·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2310.12941arXiv 2310.12941
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for public accountability, scientific innovation, and effective governance. To assess the transparency of the foundation model ecosystem and help improve transparency over time, we introduce the Foundation Model Transparency Index. The Foundation Model Transparency Index specifies 100 fine-grained indicators that comprehensively codify transparency for foundation models, spanning the upstream resources used to build a foundation model (e.g data, labor, compute), details about the model itself (e.g. size, capabilities, risks), and the downstream use (e.g. distribution channels, usage policies, affected geographies). We score 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google, Meta) against the 100 indicators to assess their transparency. To facilitate and standardize assessment, we score developers in relation to their practices for their flagship foundation model (e.g. GPT-4 for OpenAI, PaLM 2 for Google, Llama 2 for Meta). We present 10 top-level findings about the foundation model ecosystem: for example, no developer currently discloses significant information about the downstream impact of its flagship model, such as the number of users, affected market sectors, or how users can seek redress for harm. Overall, the Foundation Model Transparency Index establishes the level of transparency today to drive progress on foundation model governance via industry standards and regulatory intervention.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2310.12941

Cites

0 citation errors · 41 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A transparency index released as a preprint uses a wide range of indicators and methods, including interviews, but does not open up individual data points for scrutiny or contestation.

    “One is a transparency index released as a preprint [8] and widely publicised Ivy League press release that uses a wide range of indicators and methods, including interviews, but which does not open up individual data points for scrutiny or contestation.”

    From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The paper describes a 100-indicator transparency index, but its account of access and contestation says the opposite of the claim. In §1.3, it says scores and justifications are publicly available; in “Company feedback,” it says companies were invited to contest individual scores and that eight submitted rebuttals. Our copy provides section labels but no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The opacity of LLM training, coupled with the lag in evaluation methods, can make it challenging for individuals to form an objective assessment of evaluation results.

    “Coupled with the opacity of LLMs training, this can lead to a situation where it becomes challenging for individuals to form an objective assessment of evaluation results (Bommasani et al., 2023).”

    From Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Bommasani et al., 2023

    The Model section says developers often disclose too little about evaluations for others to reproduce them, and that insufficient public information can leave consumers with poorly calibrated expectations. The Upstream results section also documents limited disclosure about training. The paper does not establish that evaluation methods lag behind LLM development or specifically assess individuals' ability to judge evaluation results objectively. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The multi-faceted nature of openness is also seen in initiatives that aim to codify transparency from upstream resources to downstream uses and in the Linux Foundation's model openness framework.

    “The multi-faceted nature of openness is also seen in initiatives that aim to codify transparency from upstream resources to downstream uses [8] and in a proposal like the Linux Foundation's model openness framework [59], which shows many likenesses to the dimensions we use here and introduced in [32].”

    From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

  • The model layer acquires its commons exemplar in the openly built BLOOM (BigScience Workshop et al., 2022), its accountability machinery in the Foundation Model Transparency Index (Bommasani et al., 2023), and its critical self-correction in the openwashing diagnosis of Widder et al. (2024) and the Open Source AI Definition (Open Source Initiative, 2024).

    “The model layer acquires its commons exemplar in the openly built BLOOM (BigScience Workshop et al., 2022), its accountability machinery in the Foundation Model Transparency Index (Bommasani et al., 2023), and its critical self-correction in the openwashing diagnosis of Widder et al. (2024) and the Open Source AI Definition (Open Source Initiative, 2024).”

    From Commons-Governed Artificial Intelligence: A Taxonomy of Collective Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Bommasani et al., 2023

  • The transparency of the upstream resources that produced a model-its data, its data labor, and its computational cost-is a scarce and contested good.

    “The transparency of the upstream resources that produced a model, its data, its data labor, and its computational cost, is itself a scarce and contested good, as the low scores on exactly those indicators in the Foundation Model Transparency Index demonstrate (Bommasani et al., 2023(Bommasani et al., , 2024)).”

    From Commons-Governed Artificial Intelligence: A Taxonomy of Collective Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Bommasani et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. 104 California Law Review, 3:671-732.
  2. Emily M. Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018b. Data statements for natural language processing: Toward mitigating system bias and enabling better science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:587-604. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Clare Birchall. 2021. Radical secrecy: The ends of transparency in datafied America, volume 60. U of Minnesota Press.
  4. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, pages 77-91.
  5. A. Feder Cooper, David Mimno, Madiha Choksi, and Katherine Lee. 2023. Machine learning and artificial intelligence: Legal concepts. Generative AI and Law Workshop at the International Conference of Machine Learning.
  6. Kate Crawford. 2021. The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
  7. EU. 2016. Official journal of the european union 2016. Official Journal of the European Union, L 119/1.
  8. Ann Florini. 2007. The right to know: transparency for an open world. Columbia University Press.
  9. Ritwick Ghosh and Hilary Oliva Faxon. 2023. Smart corruption: Satirical strategies for gaming accountability. Big Data & Society, 10(1):20539517231164119. · DOI
  10. Nelson Granados and Alok Gupta. 2013. Transparency strategy: Competing with information in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 37(2):637-641.
  11. Byung-Chul Han. 2015. The transparency society. Stanford University Press.
  12. Karen Hao and Deepa Seetharaman. 2023. Cleaning up chatgpt takes heavy toll on human workers. The Wall Street Journal. Photographs by Natalia Jidovanu.
  13. Melissa Heikkilä. 2023. It's high time for more ai transparency. MIT Technology Review.
  14. Peter Henderson, Jieru Hu, Joshua Romoff, Emma Brunskill, Dan Jurafsky, and Joelle Pineau. 2020. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(248):1-43.
  15. David Hess. 2019. The transparency trap: Non-financial disclosure and the responsibility of business to respect human rights. American Business Law Journal, 56(1):5-53. · DOI
  16. Daniel E. Ho. 2012. Fudging the nudge: Information disclosure and restaurant grading. Yale Law Journal, 122:574-583.
  17. Michael Johnston. 2006. Good governance: Rule of law, transparency, and accountability. New York: United Nations Public Administration Network, pages 1-32.
  18. Mark Eli Kalderon. 2015. Transparency. In Form without Matter: Empedocles and Aristotle on Color Perception. Oxford University Press. · DOI
  19. John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. A watermark for large language models. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 17061-17084.
  20. PMLR.
  21. Daniel Lathrop and Laurel Ruma. 2010. Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. " O'Reilly Media, Inc. ".
  22. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Chris- tian Alexander Cosgrove, Christopher D Manning, Christopher Re, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew Arad Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue WANG, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Andrew Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2023. Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Featured Certification, Expert Certification.
  23. Zeming Lin, Halil Akin, Roshan Rao, Brian Hie, Zhongkai Zhu, Wenting Lu, Nikita Smetanin, Robert Verkuil, Ori Kabeli, Yaniv Shmueli, Allan dos Santos Costa, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Tom Sercu, Salvatore Candido, and Alexander Rives. 2023. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science, 379(6637):1123-1130. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 220-229.
  25. Deirdre K. Mulligan, Colin Koopman, and Nick Doty. 2016. Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi- dimensional analytic for mapping privacy. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A, 374.
  26. Arvind Narayanan and Dillon Reisman. 2017. The princeton web transparency and accountability project. Transparent data mining for big and small data, pages 45-67.
  27. Deepak Narayanan, Keshav Santhanam, Peter Henderson, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, and Percy Liang. 2023. Cheaply evaluating inference efficiency metrics for autoregressive transformer APIs. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  28. Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
  29. Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Emily Denton, Emily M. Bender, Alex Hanna, and Amandalynne Paullada. 2021. AI and the everything in the whole wide world benchmark. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2).
  30. Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of uber's drivers. International Journal Of Communication, 10:27. Posted: 5 Nov 2015; Last revised: 25 Jul 2017.
  31. Michael Schudson. 2015. The rise of the right to know: Politics and the culture of transparency, 1945-1975. Harvard University Press.
  32. Sanjana Srivastava, Chengshu Li, Michael Lingelbach, Roberto Martín-Martín, Fei Xia, Kent Vainio, Zheng Lian, Cem Gokmen, Shyamal Buch, Karen Liu, Silvio Savarese, Hyowon Gweon, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. 2021. Behavior: Benchmark for everyday household activities in virtual, interactive, and ecological environments. In Conference in Robot Learning (CoRL), page accepted.
  33. Elham Tabassi. 2023b. Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).
  35. Amy Winograd. 2023. Loose-lipped large language modells spill your secrets: The privacy implications of large language models. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 36(2).
  36. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022b. OPT: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bommasani, R., Klyman, K., Longpre, S., Kapoor, S., Maslej, N., Xiong, B., Zhang, D., & Liang, P.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2310.12941
arXiv
2310.12941
OpenAlex
W4387839193
Cited by
46
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Yale University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Health Resources in Action
  • European Commission
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
foundation models, transparency, transparency index, generative AI, AI governance, AI accountability, AI regulation, training data, downstream effects, OpenAI, Google, Meta

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