CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 19Ethics and Social Impacts of AIScientific Computing and Data ManagementLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property

The Model Openness Framework: Promoting Completeness and Openness for Reproducibility, Transparency, and Usability in Artificial Intelligence

Open access
White, Matt, Haddad, Ibrahim, Osborne, Cailean, Liu, Xiao-Yang Yanglet, Abdelmonsef, Ahmed, Varghese, Sachin, Hors, Arnaud Le·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2403.13784arXiv 2403.13784
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers numerous opportunities for research and innovation, but its commercialization has raised concerns about the transparency and safety of frontier AI models. Most models lack the necessary components for full understanding, auditing, and reproducibility, and some model producers use restrictive licenses whilst claiming that their models are "open source". To address these concerns, we introduce the Model Openness Framework (MOF), a three-tiered ranked classification system that rates machine learning models based on their completeness and openness, following open science principles. For each MOF class, we specify code, data, and documentation components of the model development lifecycle that must be released and under which open licenses. In addition, the Model Openness Tool (MOT) provides a user-friendly reference implementation to evaluate the openness and completeness of models against the MOF classification system. Together, the MOF and MOT provide timely practical guidance for (i) model producers to enhance the openness and completeness of their publicly-released models, and (ii) model consumers to identify open models and their constituent components that can be permissively used, studied, modified, and redistributed. Through the MOF, we seek to establish completeness and openness as core tenets of responsible AI research and development, and to promote best practices in the burgeoning open AI ecosystem.

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.2403.13784

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.

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?

  • 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 [59]

  • Another model openness framework converges on many of the same dimensions as our work and proposes to embed openness descriptions in model releases themselves.

    “Another is a model openness framework that converges on many of the same dimensions as our work [59], and which proposes to embed openness descriptions in model releases themselves.”

    From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, "Deep learning," Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436-444, 2015.
  2. J. Dean, D. Patterson, and C. Young, "A new golden age in computer architecture: Empowering the machine learning revolution," IEEE Micro, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 21-29, 2018.
  3. G. Pang, "The AI chip race," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 111-112, 2022.
  4. J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, "ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database," in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 248-255, Ieee, 2009.
  5. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. MIT press, 2016.
  6. J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, "Denoising diffusion probabilistic models," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840-6851, 2020.
  7. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, "Attention is all you need," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017.
  8. J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, "Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classifi- cation," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 77-91, ACM, 2018.
  9. L. Weidinger, J. Mellor, M. Rauh, C. Griffin, J. Uesato, P.-S. Huang, M. Cheng, M. Glaese, B. Balle, A. Kasirzadeh, et al., "Ethical and social risks of harm from language models," arXiv:2112.04359, 2021. · arXiv
  10. E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, "On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can lan- guage models be too big?," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 610-623, Association for Computing Machinery, 2021.
  11. D. Castelvecchi, "Can we open the black box of AI?," Nature News, vol. 538, no. 7623, p. 20, 2016.
  12. R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, et al., "On the opportunities and risks of foundation models," arXiv:2108.07258, 2021. · arXiv
  13. M. Nolan, "Llama and chatgpt are not open-source-few ostensibly open-source llms live up to the openness claim," IEEE Spectrum, vol. 27, 2023.
  14. A. Liesenfeld, A. Lopez, and M. Dingemanse, "Opening up ChatGPT: Tracking openness, transparency, and accountability in instruction-tuned text generators," in International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, pp. 1-6, 2023.
  15. A. Liesenfeld and M. Dingemanse, "Rethinking open source generative AI: Open-washing and the EU AI Act," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Association for Computing Machinery, 2024.
  16. M. Hutson, "AI researchers allege that machine learning is alchemy," Science, vol. 360, no. 6388, p. 861, 2018.
  17. J. Pineau, P. Vincent-Lamarre, K. Sinha, V. Larivière, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché Buc, E. Fox, and H. Larochelle, "Improving reproducibility in machine learning research (a report from the neurips 2019 reproducibility program)," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 164, pp. 1-20, 2021.
  18. A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, "The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 389-399, 2019.
  19. M. Mitchell, S. Wu, A. Zaldivar, P. Barnes, L. Vasserman, B. Hutchinson, E. Spitzer, I. D. Raji, and T. Gebru, "Model cards for model reporting," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* '19, (New York, NY, USA), p. 220-229, Association for Computing Machinery, 2019.
  20. T. Gebru, J. Morgenstern, B. Vecchione, J. W. Vaughan, H. Wallach, H. D. Iii, and K. Crawford, "Datasheets for datasets," Communications of the ACM, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 86-92, 2021.
  21. J. Phang, H. Bradley, L. Gao, L. Castricato, and S. Biderman, "EleutherAI: Going beyond "Open Science" to "Science in the Open"," arXiv:2210.06413, 2022. · arXiv
  22. J. Castaño, S. Martínez-Fernández, and X. Franch, "Lessons learned from mining the Hugging Face repository," arXiv:2402.07323, 2024. · arXiv
  23. C. Osborne, J. Ding, and H. R. Kirk, "The AI community building the future? A quantitative analysis of development activity on Hugging Face Hub," Journal of Computational Social Science, pp. 1-39, 2024.
  24. J. Ding, C. Akiki, Y. Jernite, A. L. Steele, and T. Popo, "Towards openness beyond open access: User journeys through 3 open AI collaboratives," arXiv:2301.08488, 2023. · arXiv
  25. C. Akiki, G. Pistilli, M. Mieskes, M. Gallé, T. Wolf, S. Ilić, and Y. Jernite, "Bigscience: A case study in the social construction of a multilingual large language model," arXiv:2212.04960, 2022. · arXiv
  26. S. Black, S. Biderman, E. Hallahan, Q. Anthony, L. Gao, L. Golding, H. He, C. Leahy, K. McDonell, J. Phang, et al., "Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model," arXiv:2204.06745, 2022. · arXiv
  27. B. Workshop, T. L. Scao, A. Fan, C. Akiki, E. Pavlick, S. Ilić, D. Hesslow, R. Castagné, A. S. Luccioni, F. Yvon, et al., "Bloom: A 176B-parameter open-access multilingual language model," arXiv:2211.05100, 2022. · arXiv
  28. L. B. Allal, R. Li, D. Kocetkov, C. Mou, C. Akiki, C. M. Ferrandis, N. Muennighoff, M. Mishra, A. Gu, M. Dey, et al., "Santacoder: Don't reach for the stars!," arXiv:2301.03988, 2023. · arXiv
  29. I. Solaiman, M. Brundage, J. Clark, A. Askell, A. Herbert-Voss, J. Wu, A. Radford, G. Krueger, J. W. Kim, S. Kreps, et al., "Release strategies and the social impacts of language models," arXiv:1908.09203, 2019. · arXiv
  30. E. Seger, N. Dreksler, R. Moulange, E. Dardaman, J. Schuett, K. Wei, C. Winter, M. Arnold, S. Ó. hÉigeartaigh, A. Korinek, et al., "Open-sourcing highly capable foundation models: An evaluation of risks, benefits, and alternative methods for pursuing open-source objectives," arXiv:2311.09227, 2023. · arXiv
  31. I. Solaiman, "The gradient of generative AI release: Methods and considerations," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 111-122, Association for Computing Machinery, 2023.
  32. I. D. Raji and J. Buolamwini, "Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased perfor- mance results of commercial AI products," in PAAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 429-435, 2019.
  33. K. Pipatanakul, P. Jirabovonvisut, P. Manakul, S. Sripaisarnmongkol, R. Patomwong, P. Chokchainant, and K. Tharnpipitchai, "Typhoon: Thai large language models," arXiv:2312.13951, 2023. · arXiv
  34. X. Yang, X. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. Petzold, W. Y. Wang, X. Zhao, and D. Lin, "Shadow alignment: The ease of subverting safely-aligned language models," arXiv:2310.02949, 2023. · arXiv
  35. J. Kirchenbauer, J. Geiping, Y. Wen, J. Katz, I. Miers, and T. Goldstein, "A watermark for large language models," in International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 17061-17084, PMLR, 2023.
  36. T. Han, L. C. Adams, J.-M. Papaioannou, P. Grundmann, T. Oberhauser, A. Löser, D. Truhn, and K. K. Bressem, "MedAlpaca-An open-source collection of medical conversational AI models and training data," arXiv:2304.08247, 2023. · arXiv
  37. M. Musser, "A cost analysis of generative language models and influence operations," arXiv:2308.03740, 2023. · arXiv
  38. F. Menczer, D. Crandall, Y.-Y. Ahn, and A. Kapadia, "Addressing the harms of AI-generated inauthentic content," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 679-680, 2023.
  39. S. Maffulli, "Meta's LLaMa 2 license is not open source," Voices of Open Source. July, vol. 20, 2023.
  40. S. Don-Yehiya, B. Burtenshaw, R. F. Astudillo, C. Osborne, M. Jaiswal, T.-S. Kuo, W. Zhao, I. Shenfeld, A. Peng, M. Yurochkin, A. Kasirzadeh, Y. Huang, T. Hashimoto, Y. Jernite, D. Vila-Suero, O. Abend, J. Ding, S. Hooker, H. R. Kirk, and L. Choshen, "The Future of Open Human Feedback," arXiv:2408.16961, 2024. · arXiv
  41. T. R. McIntosh, T. Susnjak, T. Liu, P. Watters, and M. N. Halgamuge, "Inadequacies of large language model benchmarks in the era of generative artificial intelligence," arXiv:2402.09880, 2024. · arXiv
  42. A. G. González, "Open science: Open source licenses in scientific research," NCJL & Tech., vol. 7, p. 321, 2005.
  43. Y.-H. Lin, T.-M. Ko, T.-R. Chuang, K.-J. Lin, et al., "Open source licenses and the creative commons framework: License selection and comparison," Journal of information science and engineering, vol. 22:1, pp. 1-17, 2006.
  44. A. Birhane, R. Steed, V. Ojewale, B. Vecchione, and I. D. Raji, "AI auditing: The broken bus on the road to AI accountability," arXiv:2401.14462, 2024. · arXiv
  45. R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, F. Turini, F. Giannotti, and D. Pedreschi, "A survey of methods for explaining black box models," ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1-42, 2018.
  46. I. D. Raji, A. Smart, R. N. White, M. Mitchell, T. Gebru, B. Hutchinson, J. Smith-Loud, D. Theron, and P. Barnes, "Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 33-44, Association for Computing Machinery, 2020.
  47. B. Richardson and J. E. Gilbert, "A framework for fairness: A systematic review of existing fair ai solutions," arXiv:2112.05700, 2021. · arXiv
  48. V. Arya, R. K. Bellamy, P.-Y. Chen, A. Dhurandhar, M. Hind, S. C. Hoffman, S. Houde, Q. V. Liao, R. Luss, A. Mojsilović, et al., "One explanation does not fit all: A toolkit and taxonomy of ai explainability techniques," arXiv:1909.03012, 2019. · arXiv
  49. J. Mökander, J. Schuett, H. R. Kirk, and L. Floridi, "Auditing large language models: a three-layered approach," AI and Ethics, pp. 1-31, 2023.
  50. B. A. Nosek, G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, S. Buck, C. D. Chambers, G. Chin, G. Christensen, M. Contestabile, A. Dafoe, E. Eich, J. Freese, R. Glennerster, D. Goroff, D. P. Green, B. Hesse, M. Humphreys, J. Ishiyama, D. Karlan, A. Kraut, A. Lupia, P. Mabry, T. Madon, N. Malhotra, E. Mayo-Wilson, M. McNutt, E. Miguel, E. L. Paluck, U. Simonsohn, C. Soderberg, B. A. Spellman, J. Turitto, G. VandenBos, S. Vazire, E. J. Wagenmakers, R. Wilson, and T. Yarkoni, "Promoting an open research culture," Science, vol. 348, no. 6242, pp. 1422-1425, 2015.
  51. J. Schuett, A.-K. Reuel, and A. Carlier, "How to design an AI ethics board," AI and Ethics, pp. 1-19, 2024.
  52. M. A. Peters and P. Roberts, Virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. Routledge, 2015.
  53. R. Vicente-Saez and C. Martinez-Fuentes, "Open science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of business research, vol. 88, pp. 428-436, 2018.
  54. J. Colazo and Y. Fang, "Impact of license choice on open source software development activity," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 997-1011, 2009.
  55. B. Mittelstadt, C. Russell, and S. Wachter, "Explaining explanations in AI," in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 279-288, Association for Computing Machinery, 2019.
  56. F. J. García-Peñalvo, C. Garcia de Figuerola, and J. A. Merlo, "Open knowledge: Challenges and facts," Online information review, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 520-539, 2010.
  57. J. C. Molloy, "The open knowledge foundation: Open data means better science," PLoS biology, vol. 9, no. 12, p. e1001195, 2011.
  58. P. Suber, Open access. The MIT Press, 2012.
  59. J. P. Tennant, F. Waldner, D. C. Jacques, P. Masuzzo, L. B. Collister, and C. H. Hartgerink, "The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: An evidence-based review," F1000Research, vol. 5, 2016.
  60. E. Enkel, O. Gassmann, and H. Chesbrough, "Open r&d and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon," R&d Management, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 311-316, 2009.
  61. H. Chesbrough, Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, 2003.
  62. M. Langenkamp and D. N. Yue, "How open source machine learning software shapes AI," in Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '22, (New York, NY, USA), p. 385-395, Association for Computing Machinery, 2022.
  63. C. Osborne, "Public-private funding models in open source software development: A case study on scikit-learn," arXiv:2404.06484, 2024. · arXiv
  64. G. Von Krogh and S. Spaeth, "The open source software phenomenon: Characteristics that promote research," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 236-253, 2007.
  65. G. Von Krogh, S. Haefliger, S. Spaeth, and M. W. Wallin, "Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development," MIS Quarterly, pp. 649-676, 2012.
  66. A. Bonaccorsi and C. Rossi, "Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the open source movement: From community to business," Knowledge, Technology & Policy, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 40-64, 2006.
  67. X. Li, Y. Zhang, C. Osborne, M. Zhou, Z. Jin, and H. Liu, "Systematic literature review of commercial participation in open source software," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2024.
  68. J. Lerner and J. Tirole, "Some simple economics of open source," The Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 197-234, 2002.
  69. S. Sonnenburg, M. L. Braun, C. S. Ong, S. Bengio, L. Bottou, G. Holmes, Y. LeCun, K.-R. Müller, F. Pereira, C. E. Rasmussen, G. Rätsch, B. Schölkopf, A. Smola, P. Vincent, J. Weston, and R. Williamson, "The need for open source software in machine learning," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 8, p. 2443-2466, 2007.
  70. C. Osborne, "Why Companies "Democratise" Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Open Source Software Donations," arXiv:2409.17876, 2024. · arXiv
  71. S. O. Alexander Hars, "Working for free? motivations for participating in open-source projects," International Journal of Electronic Commerce, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 25-39, 2002.
  72. J. Lindman, J.-P. Juutilainen, and M. Rossi, "Beyond the business model: Incentives for organizations to publish software source code," in IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, pp. 47-56, Springer, 2009.
  73. B. Birkinbine, Incorporating the digital commons: Corporate involvement in free and open source software. University of Westminster Press, 2020.
  74. M. Fink, The business and economics of Linux and open source. Prentice Hall Professional, 2003.
  75. R. Hiesgen, M. Nawrocki, T. C. Schmidt, and M. Wählisch, "The race to the vulnerable: Measuring the log4j shell incident," arXiv:2205.02544, 2022. · arXiv
  76. C. Payne, "On the security of open source software," Information Systems Journal, vol. 12:1, pp. 61-78, 2002.
  77. P. Murray-Rust, "Open data in science," Nature Precedings, pp. 1-1, 2008.
  78. P. Heltweg and D. Riehle, "A systematic analysis of problems in open collaborative data engineering," Trans. Soc. Comput., vol. 6, dec 2023.
  79. P. F. Uhlir and P. Schröder, "Open data for global science," Data Science Journal, vol. 6, pp. OD36-OD53, 2007.
  80. M. Janssen, Y. Charalabidis, and A. Zuiderwijk, "Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government," Information Systems Management, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 258-268, 2012.
  81. H. Jaakkola, T. Mäkinen, and A. Eteläaho, "Open data: Opportunities and challenges," in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, pp. 25-39, 2014.
  82. K. Krleža-Jerić, M. Gabelica, R. Banzi, M. Krnić-Martinić, B. Pulido, M. Mahmić-Kaknjo, L. Reveiz, J. Šimić, A. Utrobičić, and I. Hrgović, "Impact observatory: Tracking the evolution of clinical trial data sharing and research integrity," Biochemia Medica, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 308-317, 2016.
  83. B. M. Knoppers and C. Fecteau, "Human genomic databases: A global public good," European Journal of Health Law, vol. 10, p. 27, 2003.
  84. O. Reichman, M. B. Jones, and M. P. Schildhauer, "Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology," Science, vol. 331, no. 6018, pp. 703-705, 2011.
  85. M. G. De Vos, W. Hazeleger, D. Bari, J. Behrens, S. Bendoukha, I. Garcia-Marti, R. van Haren, S. E. Haupt, R. Hut, F. Jansson, et al., "Open weather and climate science in the digital era," Geoscience Communication, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 191-201, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
White, M., Haddad, I., Osborne, C., Liu, X.-Y. Y., Abdelmonsef, A., Varghese, S., & Hors, A. L.
Affiliations
  • Linux Foundation (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Osborne, Cailean
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2403.13784
arXiv
2403.13784
OpenAlex
W4393063870
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Keywords
generative AI models, model completeness, open science, open licensing, reproducibility, transparency, responsible AI, model auditing, open source software

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