Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study conducts a large-scale evaluation of the completeness of Artificial Intelligence Bills of Materials (AIBOMs) in Hugging Face model repositories, focusing on the documentation of model provenance, licenses, datasets, and limitations. While the analysis of approximately 97.5K AIBOM artifacts reveals that required structural fields are fully represented, it highlights significant gaps in AI-specific documentation such as model-card details and responsible-use information. The findings underscore the need for enhanced model-card practices and automated validation processes to improve transparency and governance in the AI supply chain.
AIBOMs in Hugging Face models are structurally complete but lack essential AI-specific documentation, revealing critical transparency gaps in the AI supply chain.
Pretrained machine learning (ML) models help developers build ML-intensive software systems without training models from scratch. However, model repositories often provide incomplete machine-readable documentation about model provenance, licenses, datasets, limitations, and external references, creating transparency and governance gaps across the AI supply chain. Artificial Intelligence Bills of Materials (AIBOMs) address these gaps by documenting AI artifacts, including models, metadata, licenses, datasets, model-card information, and external references. Taking public Hugging Face (HF) model repositories as a case study, this paper empirically investigates AIBOM completeness, defined as the extent to which repositories provide AIBOM-relevant information for machine-readable AI supply-chain documentation. We examine approximately 97.5K AIBOM artifacts to assess the extent to which generated AIBOMs: (i) contain required structural and metadata fields, (ii) represent model identity, license, and external-reference information, (iii) capture model-card documentation such as datasets, limitations, safety-risk assessment, and environmental information, and (iv) vary in documentation coverage across repository and artifact characteristics such as task, license availability, dataset declaration, model family, and paper reference. Results indicate that generated AIBOMs provide complete coverage of required AIBOM structure but limited AI-specific documentation completeness. Required fields are fully represented, but model-card, metadata, responsible-use, environmental, limitation, and meaningful-description fields remain weakly represented or missing across generated artifacts. Our findings motivate improved model-card practices, repository-level traceability, and automated AIBOM validation to advance the generation and adoption of more complete AIBOMs.
