To counter fragmented, high-risk adoption of commercial AI tools, we built and ran an institutional AI platform in a six-month, 300-user pilot, showing that a university of applied sciences can offer advanced AI with fair access, transparent risks, controlled costs, and alignment with European law. Commercial AI subscriptions create unequal access and compliance risks through opaque processing and non-EU hosting, yet banning them is neither realistic nor useful. Institutions need a way to provide powerful AI in a sovereign, accountable form. Our solution is a governed gateway platform with three layers: a ChatGPT-style frontend linked to institutional identity that makes model choice explicit; a gateway core enforcing policy, controlling access and budgets, and routing traffic to EU infrastructure by default; and a provider layer wrapping commercial and open-source models in institutional model cards that consolidate vendor documentation into one governance interface. The pilot ran reliably with no privacy incidents and strong adoption, enabling EU-default routing, managed spending, and transparent model choices. Only the gateway pattern combines model diversity and rapid innovation with institutional control. The central insight: AI is not a support function but strategy, demanding dedicated leadership. Sustainable operation requires governance beyond traditional boundaries. We recommend establishing a formal AI Officer role combining technical literacy, governance authority, and educational responsibility. Without it, AI decisions stay ad-hoc and institutional exposure grows. With it, higher-education institutions can realistically operate their own multi-provider AI platform, provided they govern AI as seriously as they teach it.

As machine learning (ML) becomes an integral part of high-autonomy systems, it is critical to ensure the trustworthiness of learning-enabled software systems (LESS). Yet, the nondeterministic and run-time-defined semantics of ML complicate traditional software refactoring. We define semantic preservation in LESS as the property that optimizations of intelligent components do not alter the system's overall functional behavior. This paper introduces an empirical framework to evaluate semantic preservation in LESS by mining model evolution data from HuggingFace. We extract commit histories, $\textit{Model Cards}$, and performance metrics from a large number of models. To establish baselines, we conducted case studies in three domains, tracing performance changes across versions. Our analysis demonstrates how $\textit{semantic drift}$ can be detected via evaluation metrics across commits and reveals common refactoring patterns based on commit message analysis. Although API constraints limited the possibility of estimating a full-scale threshold, our pipeline offers a foundation for defining community-accepted boundaries for semantic preservation. Our contributions include: (1) a large-scale dataset of ML model evolution, curated from 1.7 million Hugging Face entries via a reproducible pipeline using the native HF hub API, (2) a practical pipeline for the evaluation of semantic preservation for a subset of 536 models and 4000+ metrics and (3) empirical case studies illustrating semantic drift in practice. Together, these contributions advance the foundations for more maintainable and trustworthy ML systems.

Context: Open-source Pre-Trained Models (PTMs) provide extensive resources for various Machine Learning (ML) tasks, yet these resources lack a classification tailored to Software Engineering (SE) needs to support the reliable identification and reuse of models for SE. Objective: To address this gap, we derive a taxonomy encompassing 147 SE tasks and apply an SE-oriented classification to PTMs in a popular open-source ML repository, Hugging Face (HF). Method: Our repository mining study followed a five-phase pipeline: (i) identification SE tasks from the literature; (ii) collection of PTM data from the HF API, including model card descriptions and metadata, and the abstracts of the associated arXiv papers; (iii) text processing to ensure consistency; (iv) a two-phase validation of SE relevance, involving humans and LLM assistance, supported by five pilot studies with human annotators and a generalization test; (v) and data analysis. This process yielded a curated catalogue of 2,205 SE PTMs. Results: We find that most SE PTMs target code generation and coding, emphasizing implementation over early or late development stages. In terms of ML tasks, text generation dominates within SE PTMs. Notably, the number of SE PTMs has increased markedly since 2023 Q2, while evaluation remains limited: only 9.6% report benchmark results, mostly scoring below 50%. Conclusions: Our catalogue reveals documentation and transparency gaps, highlights imbalances across SDLC phases, and provides a foundation for automated SE scenarios, such as the sampling and selection of suitable PTMs.

Evaluation has long been a central concern in NLP, and transparent reporting practices are more critical than ever in today's landscape of rapidly released open-access models. Drawing on a survey of recent work on evaluation and documentation, we identify three persistent shortcomings in current reporting practices: reproducibility, accessibility, and governance. We argue that existing standardization efforts remain insufficient and introduce Evaluation Disclosure Cards (EvalCards) as a path forward. EvalCards are designed to enhance transparency for both researchers and practitioners while providing a practical foundation to meet emerging governance requirements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in their ability to interact with external interfaces. Selecting reasonable external interfaces has thus become a crucial step in constructing LLM agents. In contrast to invoking API tools, directly calling AI models across different modalities from the community (e.g., HuggingFace) poses challenges due to the vast scale (> 10k), metadata gaps, and unstructured descriptions. Current methods for model selection often involve incorporating entire model descriptions into prompts, resulting in prompt bloat, wastage of tokens and limited scalability. To address these issues, we propose HuggingR$^4$, a novel framework that combines Reasoning, Retrieval, Refinement, and Reflection, to efficiently select models. Specifically, We first perform multiple rounds of reasoning and retrieval to get a coarse list of candidate models. Then, we conduct fine-grained refinement by analyzing candidate model descriptions, followed by reflection to assess results and determine if retrieval scope expansion is necessary. This method reduces token consumption considerably by decoupling user query processing from complex model description handling. Through a pre-established vector database, complex model descriptions are stored externally and retrieved on-demand, allowing the LLM to concentrate on interpreting user intent while accessing only relevant candidate models without prompt bloat. In the absence of standardized benchmarks, we construct a multimodal human-annotated dataset comprising 14,399 user requests across 37 tasks and conduct a thorough evaluation. HuggingR$^4$ attains a workability rate of 92.03% and a reasonability rate of 82.46%, surpassing existing method by 26.51% and 33.25% respectively on GPT-4o-mini.

Clinical ML workflows are often fragmented and inefficient: triage, task selection, and model deployment are handled by a patchwork of task-specific networks. These pipelines are rarely aligned with data-science practice, reducing efficiency and increasing operational cost. They also lack data-driven model identification (from imaging/tabular inputs) and standardized delivery of model outputs. We present a framework that employs a single vision-language model (VLM) in two complementary, modular roles. First (Solution 1): the VLM acts as an aware model-card matcher that routes an incoming image to the appropriate specialist model via a three-stage workflow (modality -> primary abnormality -> model-card ID). Reliability is improved by (i) stage-wise prompts enabling early termination via "None"/"Other" and (ii) a calibrated top-2 answer selector with a stage-wise cutoff. This raises routing accuracy by +9 and +11 percentage points on the training and held-out splits, respectively, compared with a baseline router, and improves held-out calibration (lower Expected Calibration Error, ECE). Second (Solution 2): we fine-tune the same VLM on specialty-specific datasets so that one model per specialty covers multiple downstream tasks, simplifying deployment while maintaining performance. Across gastroenterology, hematology, ophthalmology, pathology, and radiology, this single-model deployment matches or approaches specialized baselines. Together, these solutions reduce data-science effort through more accurate selection, simplify monitoring and maintenance by consolidating task-specific models, and increase transparency via per-stage justifications and calibrated thresholds. Each solution stands alone, and in combination they offer a practical, modular path from triage to deployment.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, enabling fast development of tools like stress monitors, wellness trackers, and mental health chatbots. However, rapid and low-barrier development can introduce risks of bias, privacy violations, and unequal access, especially when systems ignore real-world contexts and diverse user needs. Many recent methods use AI to detect risks automatically, but this can reduce human engagement in understanding how harms arise and who they affect. We present a human-centered framework that generates user stories and supports multi-agent discussions to help people think creatively about potential benefits and harms before deployment. In a user study, participants who read stories recognized a broader range of harms, distributing their responses more evenly across all 13 harm types. In contrast, those who did not read stories focused primarily on privacy and well-being (58.3%). Our findings show that storytelling helped participants speculate about a broader range of harms and benefits and think more creatively about AI's impact on users.

As the complexity and number of machine learning (ML) models grows, well-documented ML models are essential for developers and companies to use or adapt them to their specific use cases. Model metadata, already present in unstructured format as model cards in online repositories such as Hugging Face, could be more structured and machine readable while also incorporating environmental impact metrics such as energy consumption and carbon footprint. Our work extends the existing State of the Art by defining a structured schema for ML model metadata focusing on machine-readable format and support for integration into a knowledge graph (KG) for better organization and querying, enabling a wider set of use cases. Furthermore, we present an example wireless localization model metadata dataset consisting of 22 models trained on 4 datasets, integrated into a Neo4j-based KG with 113 nodes and 199 relations.

This paper introduces the Hazard-Aware System Card (HASC), a novel framework designed to enhance transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems. The HASC builds upon existing model card and system card concepts by integrating a comprehensive, dynamic record of an AI system's security and safety posture. The framework proposes a standardized system of identifiers, including a novel AI Safety Hazard (ASH) ID, to complement existing security identifiers like CVEs, allowing for clear and consistent communication of fixed flaws. By providing a single, accessible source of truth, the HASC empowers developers and stakeholders to make more informed decisions about AI system safety throughout its lifecycle. Ultimately, we also compare our proposed AI system cards with the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard and discuss how they can be used to complement each other, providing greater transparency and accountability for AI systems.

Visual reasoning over structured data such as tables is a critical capability for modern vision-language models (VLMs), yet current benchmarks remain limited in scale, diversity, or reasoning depth, especially when it comes to rendered table images. Addressing this gap, we introduce Visual-TableQA, a large-scale, open-domain multimodal dataset specifically designed to evaluate and enhance visual reasoning over complex tabular data. Our generation pipeline is modular, scalable, and fully autonomous, involving multiple reasoning LLMs collaborating across distinct roles: generation, validation, and inspiration. Visual-TableQA comprises 2.5k richly structured LaTeX-rendered tables and 6k reasoning-intensive QA pairs, all produced at a cost of under USD 100. To promote diversity and creativity, our pipeline performs multi-model collaborative data generation via cross-model prompting ('inspiration') and LLM-jury filtering. Stronger models seed layouts and topics that weaker models elaborate, collectively distilling diverse reasoning patterns and visual structures into the dataset. Empirical results show that models fine-tuned on Visual-TableQA generalize robustly to external benchmarks, outperforming several proprietary models despite the dataset's synthetic nature. The full pipeline and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/AI-4-Everyone/Visual-TableQA.