-
Systematic Literature Review of Commercial Participation in Open Source Software
Authors:
Xuetao Li,
Yuxia Zhang,
Cailean Osborne,
Minghui Zhou,
Zhi **,
Hui Liu
Abstract:
Open source software (OSS) has been playing a fundamental role in not only information technology but also our social lives. Attracted by various advantages of OSS, increasing commercial companies take extensive participation in open source development and have had a broad impact. This paper provides a comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) of existing research on company participation i…
▽ More
Open source software (OSS) has been playing a fundamental role in not only information technology but also our social lives. Attracted by various advantages of OSS, increasing commercial companies take extensive participation in open source development and have had a broad impact. This paper provides a comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) of existing research on company participation in OSS. We collected 92 papers and organized them based on their research topics, which cover three main directions, i.e., participation motivation, contribution model, and impact on OSS development. We found the explored motivations of companies are mainly from economic, technological, and social aspects. Existing studies categorize companies' contribution models in OSS projects mainly through their objectives and how they shape OSS communities. Researchers also explored how commercial participation affects OSS development. We conclude with research challenges and promising research directions on commercial participation in OSS. This study contributes to a comprehensive understanding of commercial participation in OSS development.
△ Less
Submitted 27 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
The AI Community Building the Future? A Quantitative Analysis of Development Activity on Hugging Face Hub
Authors:
Cailean Osborne,
Jennifer Ding,
Hannah Rose Kirk
Abstract:
Open model developers have emerged as key actors in the political economy of artificial intelligence (AI), but we still have a limited understanding of collaborative practices in the open AI ecosystem. This paper responds to this gap with a three-part quantitative analysis of development activity on the Hugging Face (HF) Hub, a popular platform for building, sharing, and demonstrating models. Firs…
▽ More
Open model developers have emerged as key actors in the political economy of artificial intelligence (AI), but we still have a limited understanding of collaborative practices in the open AI ecosystem. This paper responds to this gap with a three-part quantitative analysis of development activity on the Hugging Face (HF) Hub, a popular platform for building, sharing, and demonstrating models. First, various types of activity across 348,181 model, 65,761 dataset, and 156,642 space repositories exhibit right-skewed distributions. Activity is extremely imbalanced between repositories; for example, over 70% of models have 0 downloads, while 1% account for 99% of downloads. Furthermore, licenses matter: there are statistically significant differences in collaboration patterns in model repositories with permissive, restrictive, and no licenses. Second, we analyse a snapshot of the social network structure of collaboration in model repositories, finding that the community has a core-periphery structure, with a core of prolific developers and a majority of isolate developers (89%). Upon removing the isolate developers from the network, collaboration is characterised by high reciprocity regardless of developers' network positions. Third, we examine model adoption through the lens of model usage in spaces, finding that a minority of models, developed by a handful of companies, are widely used on the HF Hub. Overall, activity on the HF Hub is characterised by Pareto distributions, congruent with OSS development patterns on platforms like GitHub. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, companies, and policymakers to advance our understanding of open AI development.
△ Less
Submitted 5 June, 2024; v1 submitted 20 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Public-private funding models in open source software development: A case study on scikit-learn
Authors:
Cailean Osborne
Abstract:
Governments are increasingly funding open source software (OSS) development to support software security, digital sovereignty, and national competitiveness in science and innovation, amongst others. However, little is known about how OSS developers evaluate the relative benefits and drawbacks of governmental funding for OSS. This study explores this question through a case study on scikit-learn, a…
▽ More
Governments are increasingly funding open source software (OSS) development to support software security, digital sovereignty, and national competitiveness in science and innovation, amongst others. However, little is known about how OSS developers evaluate the relative benefits and drawbacks of governmental funding for OSS. This study explores this question through a case study on scikit-learn, a Python library for machine learning, funded by public research grants, commercial sponsorship, micro-donations, and a 32 euro million grant announced in France's artificial intelligence strategy. Through 25 interviews with scikit-learn's maintainers and funders, this study makes two key contributions. First, it contributes empirical findings about the benefits and drawbacks of public and private funding in an impactful OSS project, and the governance protocols employed by the maintainers to balance the diverse interests of their community and funders. Second, it offers practical lessons on funding for OSS developers, governments, and companies based on the experience of scikit-learn. The paper concludes with key recommendations for practitioners and future research directions.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2024; v1 submitted 9 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
The Model Openness Framework: Promoting Completeness and Openness for Reproducibility, Transparency, and Usability in Artificial Intelligence
Authors:
Matt White,
Ibrahim Haddad,
Cailean Osborne,
Xiao-Yang Liu Yanglet,
Ahmed Abdelmonsef,
Sachin Varghese
Abstract:
Generative AI (GAI) offers unprecedented opportunities for research and innovation, but its commercialization has raised concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and safety. Many open GAI models lack the necessary components for full understanding and reproducibility, and some use restrictive licenses whilst claiming to be ``open-source''. To address these concerns, we propose the Model Openn…
▽ More
Generative AI (GAI) offers unprecedented opportunities for research and innovation, but its commercialization has raised concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and safety. Many open GAI models lack the necessary components for full understanding and reproducibility, and some use restrictive licenses whilst claiming to be ``open-source''. To address these concerns, we propose the Model Openness Framework (MOF), a ranked classification system that rates machine learning models based on their completeness and openness, following principles of open science, open source, open data, and open access. The MOF requires specific components of the model development lifecycle to be included and released under appropriate open licenses. This framework aims to prevent misrepresentation of models claiming to be open, guide researchers and developers in providing all model components under permissive licenses, and help individuals and organizations identify models that can be safely adopted without restrictions. By promoting transparency and reproducibility, the MOF combats ``openwashing'' practices and establishes completeness and openness as primary criteria alongside the core tenets of responsible AI. Wide adoption of the MOF will foster a more open AI ecosystem, benefiting research, innovation, and adoption of state-of-the-art models.
△ Less
Submitted 3 June, 2024; v1 submitted 20 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
MLPerf Inference Benchmark
Authors:
Vijay Janapa Reddi,
Christine Cheng,
David Kanter,
Peter Mattson,
Guenther Schmuelling,
Carole-Jean Wu,
Brian Anderson,
Maximilien Breughe,
Mark Charlebois,
William Chou,
Ramesh Chukka,
Cody Coleman,
Sam Davis,
Pan Deng,
Greg Diamos,
Jared Duke,
Dave Fick,
J. Scott Gardner,
Itay Hubara,
Sachin Idgunji,
Thomas B. Jablin,
Jeff Jiao,
Tom St. John,
Pankaj Kanwar,
David Lee
, et al. (22 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devic…
▽ More
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devices to data-center solutions. Fueling the hardware are a dozen or more software frameworks and libraries. The myriad combinations of ML hardware and ML software make assessing ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner challenging. There is a clear need for industry-wide standard ML benchmarking and evaluation criteria. MLPerf Inference answers that call. In this paper, we present our benchmarking method for evaluating ML inference systems. Driven by more than 30 organizations as well as more than 200 ML engineers and practitioners, MLPerf prescribes a set of rules and best practices to ensure comparability across systems with wildly differing architectures. The first call for submissions garnered more than 600 reproducible inference-performance measurements from 14 organizations, representing over 30 systems that showcase a wide range of capabilities. The submissions attest to the benchmark's flexibility and adaptability.
△ Less
Submitted 9 May, 2020; v1 submitted 6 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
