Pith. sign in

REVIEW 10 cited by

The Foundation Model Transparency Index

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.12941 v1 pith:CPBBI56C submitted 2023-10-19 cs.LG cs.AI

The Foundation Model Transparency Index

Rishi Bommasani , Kevin Klyman , Shayne Longpre , Sayash Kapoor , Nestor Maslej , Betty Xiong , Daniel Zhang , Percy Liang This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords foundationmodeltransparencyindexmodelsaffectedassessdevelopers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Macro-Prudential AI Governance: A Two-Layer Early Warning and Response System for Frontier AI

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A Basel-III-style two-layer system—coordinated finder-coordinator-defender reporting plus ECAR, CRTH, and ARS buffers—can detect and dampen correlated risk build-up across frontier AI labs’ internal deployments.

  2. M\"OVE: A Holistic LLM Benchmark for the German Public Sector

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MÖVE presents a new German-language benchmark evaluating 39 LLMs on performance and governance criteria using ten public-administration datasets.

  3. A governance horizon for ethical-use constraints in open-weight AI models

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Ethical constraint evidence on open-weight AI models decays with a half-life of 1.31 derivation steps on Hugging Face, creating a governance horizon at seven generations where 80% of models lack traceable information.

  4. The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems

    cs.CY 2026-02 accept novelty 6.0

    The 2025 AI Agent Index catalogs technical and safety details for 30 deployed AI agents and finds low developer transparency on safety, evaluations, and societal impacts.

  5. A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languages

    cs.SE 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Empirical study of eight LLMs finds overuse of popular libraries like NumPy in up to 45% of unnecessary cases and strong default preference for Python even when suboptimal.

  6. Laissez-Faire Harms: Algorithmic Biases in Generative Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Generative LMs in laissez-faire open-ended prompting settings disproportionately generate subordinated portrayals of minoritized race, gender, and sexual orientation identities at rates hundreds to thousands of times ...

  7. TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    TRUST is a decentralized AI auditing framework that decomposes reasoning into HDAGs, maps agent interactions via the DAAN protocol to CIGs, and uses stake-weighted multi-tier consensus to achieve 72.4% accuracy while ...

  8. Mind Your Tone: Does Tone Alter LLM Performance?

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Tonal variations in prompts cause systematic but model-dependent accuracy changes in LLMs on objective multiple-choice questions.

  9. Human-aligned AI Model Cards with Weighted Hierarchy Architecture

    cs.SE 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Introduces CRAI-MCF, an eight-module framework distilling 217 parameters from 240 projects into a quantitative sufficiency criterion for cross-model LLM comparison grounded in Value Sensitive Design.

  10. Taxing Artificial Intelligence

    cs.CY 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Taxation of AI activities can correct externalities, redistribute costs and gains, and support regulation, though instruments like corporate taxes, consumption taxes, and excises vary in feasibility, measurement chall...