返回 2026-08-24 编辑版
发现与解读中文优先 · EN 原文实践提示

Nathan Lambert 发布:其对 500K 篇 arXiv AI/ML 论文的解析显示中国开放模型引用占比升至约 40%

周末我用 Codex 解析了 500K arXivAI/ML自以来的论文ChatGPT了解哪些开放模型用于研究。 2024 年,约 30% 的论文提到美国开放模式,只有 10% 提到中国模式。 如今,约 40% 的论文提到了中国人(开放)LLM,而且只有 25-30% 是美国人。中国模型是研究的默认模型。中国的提及仍在增长,而美国的开放模式却停滞不前。 在查看这些数据时,重要的是要记住,论文大大滞后于模型发布,因为研究需要很长时间。 Qwen 的稳定增长反映了这一点,Llama 的持久力量也反映了这一点。 更多观察结果: 1.Qwen一直在稳步成长,到今天1/3提及任何的论文LLM提到qwen。OpenAI的封闭模型总体最高,约为 37%。 2. Llama 在 2025 年 4 月左右达到顶峰,有 30% 的论文提到了 LlamaLLM(包括ChatGPTETC)。 Llama 4 大约在同一时间发布,此后 Llama 的销量一直在下降。 3.Gemini和Claude不如领先的开放模型常见,10-15% 的论文中提到它们,使它们落后于所有 Qwen、Llama 和DeepSeek。开放模型应该并且确实是开放研究的基础。 提及任何内容的论文百分比LLM自2023年以来一直在稳步攀升。 |年份|一月 |四月|七月 |十月 | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 2024 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 2025 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 2026 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% |TBD现在超过50%AI论文,从 2023 年的 10% 开始。 其他注意事项: - Gemma 和 Mistral 徘徊在 5-10% 左右。 - 自 2024 年 1 月首次发布以来,我们喜爱的完全开放 Olmo 模型已经下降了约 1%。 -DeepSeek2025年1月R1后有明显跳跃 - 数据来源于最流行的MLarXiv 类别:cs。AI, CS。CL, CS。CV, CS。LG,统计。ML就像我们的下载和衍生模型数据一样,这些数据每天都会在互连开放模型仪表板上更新。

查看英文原文

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open models are used for research. In 2024, ~30% of papers mentioned an American open model and only 10% a Chinese model. Today, ~40% of papers mention a Chinese (open) LLM, and only 25-30% an American one. Chinese models are the default for research. Chinese mentions are still growing while American open models are stagnating. When looking at this data it's important to remember that papers substantially lag model releases, as research takes a long time. Qwen's steady growth is reflective of this, but so is Llama's lasting power. Some more observations: 1. Qwen has been steadily growing, and today 1/3 of papers which mention any LLM mention qwen. OpenAI's closed models are the highest overall, at ~37%. 2. Llama peaked around April of 2025 at 30% of papers which mention any LLM (including ChatGPT etc). Llama 4 was released at about the same time, and Llama has been declining since. 3. Gemini and Claude are less common than the leading open models, mentioned in 10-15% of papers puts them behind all of Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek. Open models should be and are the foundations of open research. The % of papers mentioning any LLM have been steadily climbing since 2023. | Year | January | April | July | October | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% | TBD Now over 50% of AI papers, from 10% in 2023. Other notes: - Gemma and Mistral hover around 5-10%. - Our beloved fully-open Olmo models have been ~1% since the first release in Jan. 2024. - DeepSeek has a clear jump after R1 in Jan. 2025 - Data derived from the most popular ML arXiv categories: cs. AI, cs. CL, cs. CV, cs. LG, stat. ML Just like our downloads and derivative model data, this is updated daily on the Interconnects Open Model Dashboard.

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open models are used for research. In 2024, ~30% of papers mentioned an American open model and only 10% a Chinese model. Today, ~40% of papers mention a Chinese (open) LLM, and only 25-30% an American one. Chinese models are the default for research. Chinese mentions are still growing while American open models are stagnating. When looking at this data it's important to remember that papers substantially lag model releases, as research takes a long time. Qwen's steady growth is reflective of this, but so is Llama's lasting power. Some more observations: 1. Qwen has been steadily growing, and today 1/3 of papers which mention any LLM mention qwen. OpenAI's closed models are the highest overall, at ~37%. 2. Llama peaked around April of 2025 at 30% of papers which mention any LLM (including ChatGPT etc). Llama 4 was released at about the same time, and Llama has been declining since. 3. Gemini and Claude are less common than the leading open models, mentioned in 10-15% of papers puts them behind all of Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek. Open models should be and are the foundations of open research. The % of papers mentioning any LLM have been steadily climbing since 2023. | Year | January | April | July | October | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% | TBD Now over 50% of AI papers, from 10% in 2023. Other notes: - Gemma and Mistral hover around 5-10%. - Our beloved fully-open Olmo models have been ~1% since the first release in Jan. 2024. - DeepSeek has a clear jump after R1 in Jan. 2025 - Data derived from the most popular ML arXiv categories: cs. AI, cs. CL, cs. CV, cs. LG, stat. ML Just like our downloads and derivative model data, this is updated daily on the Interconnects Open Model Dashboard.

开放模型影响力从权重榜延伸到论文引用和可编辑媒体研究,但身份与能力仍需分层核验

为什么值得看

研究引用、可部署资产和新任务方法可以共同观察开放模型生态重心,但它们分别回答影响力、可用性和研究方向。

最强反方

40% 是论文提及代理指标且存在发表滞后;Qwen3.8 没有官方权重;InfinityEdit 当前只是论文发布线索。

原始出现与传播对照

2 条出现 · AIHOT 精确重复

传播对照

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open mo…

Nathan Lambert用Codex分析50万篇arXiv论文发现,中国开源LLM在AI研究中的提及率从2024年的10%升至如今的约40%,而美国开源模型从30%降至25-30%。Qwen被1/3提及LLM的论文引用,DeepSeek在R1发布后明显跃升;Llama于2025年4月达30%峰值后持续下滑。

直接发布标题X:Nathan Lambert (@natolambert)打开该层出处 ↗

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open mo…

直接发布摘要X:Nathan Lambert (@natolambert)打开该层出处 ↗

Nathan Lambert用Codex分析50万篇arXiv论文发现,中国开源LLM在AI研究中的提及率从2024年的10%升至如今的约40%,而美国开源模型从30%降至25-30%。Qwen被1/3提及LLM的论文引用,DeepSeek在R1发布后明显跃升;Llama于2025年4月达30%峰值后持续下滑。

来源
AIHOT 公开增量传播发现池 · aihot-control
证据角色
control_baseline
时间状态
known
用户判决
未判
查看该来源原文raw/aihot-control.json0df0981c6c51f5f774d19f1ebc2bb6505371fd8fb5adf64f46f1ddb985fd27c0
发现与解读

周末我用 Codex 解析了 500K arXivAI/ML自以来的论文ChatGPT了解哪些开放模型用于研究。

周末我用 Codex 解析了 500K arXivAI/ML自以来的论文ChatGPT了解哪些开放模型用于研究。 2024 年,约 30% 的论文提到美国开放模式,只有 10% 提到中国模式。 如今,约 40% 的论文提到了中国人(开放)LLM,而且只有 25-30% 是美国人。中国模型是研究的默认模型。中国的提及仍在增长,而美国的开放模式却停滞不前。 在查看这些数据时,重要的是要记住,论文大大滞后于模型发布,因为研究需要很长时间。 Qwen 的稳定增长反映了这一点,Llama 的持久力量也反映了这一点。 更多观察结果: 1.Qwen一直在稳步成长,到今天1/3提及任何的论文LLM提到qwen。OpenAI的封闭模型总体最高,约为 37%。

查看英文原文

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open models are used for research. In 2024, ~30% of papers mentioned an American open model and only 10% a Chinese model. Today, ~40% of papers mention a Chinese (open) LLM, and only 25-30% an American one. Chinese models are the default for research. Chinese mentions are still growing while American open models are stagnating. When looking at this data it's important to remember that papers substantially lag model releases, as research takes a long time. Qwen's steady growth is reflective of this, but so is Llama's lasting power. Some more observations: 1. Qwen has been steadily growing, and today 1/3 of papers which mention any LLM mention qwen. OpenAI's closed models are the highest overall, at ~37%. 2. Llama peaked around April of 2025 at 30% of papers which mention any LLM (including ChatGPT etc). Llama 4 was released at about the same time, and Llama has been declining since. 3. Gemini and Claude are less common than the leading open models, mentioned in 10-15% of papers puts them behind all of Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek. Open models should be and are the foundations of open research. The % of papers mentioning any LLM have been steadily climbing since 2023. | Year | January | April | July | October | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% | TBD Now over 50% of AI papers, from 10% in 2023. Other notes: - Gemma and Mistral hover around 5-10%. - Our beloved fully-open Olmo models have been ~1% since the first release in Jan. 2024. - DeepSeek has a clear jump after R1 in Jan. 2025 - Data derived from the most popular ML arXiv categories: cs. AI, cs. CL, cs. CV, cs. LG, stat. ML Just like our downloads and derivative model data, this is updated daily on the Interconnects Open Model Dashboard.

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open models are used for research. In 2024, ~30% of papers mentioned an American open model and only 10% a Chinese model. Today, ~40% of papers mention a Chinese (open) LLM, and only 25-30% an American one. Chinese models are the default for research. Chinese mentions are still growing while American open models are stagnating. When looking at this data it's important to remember that papers substantially lag model releases, as research takes a long time. Qwen's steady growth is reflective of this, but so is Llama's lasting power. Some more observations: 1. Qwen has been steadily growing, and today 1/3 of papers which mention any LLM mention qwen. OpenAI's closed models are the highest overall, at ~37%. 2. Llama peaked around April of 2025 at 30% of papers which mention any LLM (including ChatGPT etc). Llama 4 was released at about the same time, and Llama has been declining since. 3. Gemini and Claude are less common than the leading open models, mentioned in 10-15% of papers puts them behind all of Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek. Open models should be and are the foundations of open research. The % of papers mentioning any LLM have been steadily climbing since 2023. | Year | January | April | July | October | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% | TBD Now over 50% of AI papers, from 10% in 2023. Other notes: - Gemma and Mistral hover around 5-10%. - Our beloved fully-open Olmo models have been ~1% since the first release in Jan. 2024. - DeepSeek has a clear jump after R1 in Jan. 2025 - Data derived from the most popular ML arXiv categories: cs. AI, cs. CL, cs. CV, cs. LG, stat. ML Just like our downloads and derivative model data, this is updated daily on the Interconnects Open Model Dashboard.

直接发布标题Nathan Lambert@natolambert打开该层出处 ↗

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open models are used for research. In 2024, ~30% of papers mentioned an American open model and only 10% a Chinese model. Today, ~40% of papers mention a Chinese (open) LLM, and only 25-30% an American one. Chinese models are the default for research. Chinese mentions are still growing while American open models are stagnating. When looking at this data it's important to remember that papers substantially lag model releases, as research takes a long time. Qwen's steady growth is reflective of this, but so is Llama's lasting power. Some more observations: 1. Qwen has been steadily growing, and today 1/3 of papers which mention any LLM mention qwen. OpenAI's closed models are the highest overall, at ~37%. 2. Llama peaked around April of 2025 at 30% of papers which mention any LLM (including ChatGPT etc). Llama 4 was released at about the same time, and Llama has been declining since. 3. Gemini and Claude are less common than the leading open models, mentioned in 10-15% of papers puts them behind all of Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek. Open models should be and are the foundations of open research. The % of papers mentioning any LLM have been steadily climbing since 2023. | Year | January | April | July | October | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% | TBD Now over 50% of AI papers, from 10% in 2023. Other notes: - Gemma and Mistral hover around 5-10%. - Our beloved fully-open Olmo models have been ~1% since the first release in Jan. 2024. - DeepSeek has a clear jump after R1 in Jan. 2025 - Data derived from the most popular ML arXiv categories: cs. AI, cs. CL, cs. CV, cs. LG, stat. ML Just like our downloads and derivative model data, this is updated daily on the Interconnects Open Model Dashboard.

来源
X @natolambert · x-natolambert
证据角色
x_open_model_network
时间状态
known
用户判决
未判
查看该来源原文raw/x-natolambert.jsondaf453c4d71988364f6f101b3a0ba4bf21770b405b84e4069c71495464d4bb52
Cluster IDevt_949028638c1eae7451cea1d8精确去重依据canonical_url事件状态未判