MetaGAI: A Large-Scale and High-Quality Benchmark for Generative AI Model and Data Card Generation

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

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.

This work addresses the challenge of disseminating reusable artificial intelligence (AI) models accompanied by AI documentation (a.k.a., AI model cards). The work is motivated by the large number of trained AI models that are not reusable due to the lack of (a) AI documentation and (b) the temporal lag between rapidly changing requirements on AI model reusability and those specified in various AI model cards. Our objectives are to shorten the lag time in updating AI model card templates and align AI documentation more closely with current AI best practices. Our approach introduces a methodology for delivering agile, data-driven, and community-based AI model cards. We use the Hugging Face (HF) repository of AI models, populated by a subset of the AI research and development community, and the AI consortium-based Zero Draft (ZD) templates for the AI documentation of AI datasets and AI models, as our test datasets. We also address questions about the value of AI documentation for AI reusability. Our work quantifies the correlations between AI model downloads/likes (i.e., AI model reuse metrics) from the HF repository and their documentation alignment with the ZD documentation templates using tables of contents and word statistics (i.e., AI documentation quality metrics). Furthermore, our work develops the infrastructure to regularly compare AI documentation templates against community-standard practices derived from millions of uploaded AI models in the Hugging Face repository. The impact of our work lies in introducing a methodology for delivering agile, data-driven, and community-based standards for documenting AI models and improving AI model reuse.