cs.AIMay 23, 2026

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

Authors: Weiwei Xu, Hengzhi Ye, Haoran Ye, Kai Gao, Vladimir Filkov, Minghui Zhou

Abstract

Ethical constraints on open-weight AI models are both a reflection of societal concerns and a foundation for AI governance policy. They are expected to propagate to downstream derivatives while implemented as voluntary metadata disclosures that must be restated at each generation of reuse. We audit 2,142,823 model repositories on Hugging Face Hub to test whether this disclosure-based governance infrastructure can sustain traceability across deep model lineages. Restriction evidence decays with a half-life of 1.31 derivation steps (R2R^2=0.98), and beyond seven downstream generations at least 80% of descendant models lack sufficient public evidence for a governance determination, a depth boundary we formalize as the governance horizon. Platform-level interventions to restore missing licence metadata reveal that policy design (not enforcement alone) is the binding factor: inheritance-only designs require near-complete enforcement to move the horizon, whereas a mandatory-declaration design that explicitly resolves orphan lineage components shifts the horizon already at moderate enforcement. The structural bottleneck is lineages with no inheritable upstream intent: such orphan components remain undecidable under any inheritance-only policy regardless of enforcement rate, and unresolved upstream nodes additionally create direct downstream undecidability bottlenecks that inheritance rules alone cannot recover. Comparison with PyPI, where governance signals are carried by explicit machine-readable declarations, corroborates that the collapse is topology-specific to open-weight derivation rather than inherent to open ecosystems. These results establish that disclosure-based governance has a shallow, structurally determined reach in open-weight AI, and that achieving deep supply-chain accountability requires provenance mechanisms propagating governance signals through derivation itself.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 19, 2026cs.CY

The Open-Weight Paradox: Why Restricting Access to AI Models May Undermine the Safety It Seeks to Protect

The governance of open-weight artificial intelligence (AI) models has been framed as a binary choice: openness as risk, restriction as safety. This paper challenges that framing, arguing that access restrictions, without governed alternatives, may displace risks rather than reduce them. The global concentration of compute infrastructure makes open-weight models one of the most viable pathways to sovereign AI capacity in the Global South; restricting such access deepens asymmetries while driving proliferation into unsupervised settings. This analysis proposes that hardware-layer governance, including chip-level attestation mechanisms such as FlexHEG, trusted execution environments, confidential computing, and complementary software-layer safeguards, offers a defense-in-depth alternative to the current binary. A threat model taxonomy mapping misuse vectors to hardware, software, institutional, and liability layers illustrates why no single governance mechanism suffices. To operationalize this approach, the paper argues that effective AI governance as a dual-use technology will likely require a multilateral institutional architecture functionally analogous, though not identical, to the role performed by the IAEA in the nuclear domain, with explicit safeguards against the co-option of hardware controls for domestic repression. The relevant policy question is how to make openness safer through technical and institutional design while addressing the transition realities of legacy hardware, attestation at scale, and civil liberties protection.
Vinicius Santana Gomes
Artificial Intelligence GovernanceGovernance LayerArtificial Intelligence ModelsInstitutional CompositionSafety
AskPDF
Jul 19, 2026cs.SE

A Large-Scale Measurement of AI Bill of Materials Completeness in Hugging Face Models

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.
Md Erfan, Ahmed Ryan, Md Rayhanur Rahman
Artificial Intelligence ModelsArtificial Intelligence GovernanceContent ProvenanceMulti-Model StudySupply Chain OptimizationLimited Data
AskPDF
Jul 12, 2026cs.LG

modelDNA: Calibrated Lineage Verification and Merge Decomposition from Sampled Weight Fingerprints

The lineage graph of open-weight language models is self-reported: Hugging Face's base_model metadata field is optional and unverified, and over 60% of Hub models document no parentage at all. Methods for detecting lineage from weights exist in the research literature, but each ships as paper code tied to one signal and one experiment; when a provenance dispute breaks, the analysis is redone by hand. This report describes modelDNA, a tool that fingerprints a model from roughly 100-300 MB of ranged HTTP reads (instead of a full 15 GB download for a 7B model), compares the fingerprint against a reference database of foundation models across four published signal families, and returns one of eight verdict classes with a calibrated probability, preferring honest abstention to confident error. On a benchmark of 15 real Hub models with org-documented parentage, judged against 8 candidate bases (13 positives, 107 hard negatives), the system achieves AUROC 1.0, zero false positives at its reporting threshold, and 13/13 correct top-1 parent attribution. The report's second contribution is merge decomposition. Every mainstream weight-merging method is (near-)linear per tensor, and fingerprint sample positions are deterministic functions of tensor identity, so a merged model's fingerprint is the same linear combination of its parents' fingerprints. Mixture weights can therefore be recovered from fingerprints alone by sum-to-one constrained least squares. Against merges with published mergekit configurations as ground truth, the method recovers a slerp merge's layer-interpolation curves at r = 0.999 and a dare_ties merge's mixture weights to within 0.011 of the published values, without downloading any weights beyond the fingerprints. All fingerprints, benchmarks, and the inferred lineage graph of 55 models are public and reproducible offline.
Muhammad Awais Bin Adil, Saad Aamir
LineagesFingerprintWireless Foundation ModelsFeature AlignmentGround Truth
AskPDF