Code Ownership in Open-Source AI Software Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As open-source AI software projects become an integral component in the AI software development, it is critical to develop a novel measurement method to ensure the security of the open-source AI projects for developers. Code ownership, pivotal in the evolution of such projects, offers insights into developer engagement and potential vulnerabilities. In this paper, we leverage the code ownership metrics to empirically investigate the correlation with the latent vulnerabilities across five prominent open-source AI software projects. The findings from the large-scale empirical study suggest a positive relationship between high-level ownership (characterised by a limited number of minor contributors) and a decrease in vulnerabilities. Furthermore, we innovatively introduce the time metrics, anchored on the project's duration, individual source code file timelines, and the count of impacted releases. These metrics adeptly categorise distinct phases of open-source AI software projects and their respective vulnerability intensities. With these novel code ownership metrics, we have implemented a Python-based command-line application to aid project curators and quality assurance professionals in evaluating and benchmarking their on-site projects. We anticipate this work will embark a continuous research development for securing and measuring open-source AI project security.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".