Open-weight LLM adoption in science has surged since 2023, but the growth is driven largely by Chinese-developed models—Qwen alone accounts for a large share—while researchers at Chinese institutions are significantly more likely to use open-weight systems, suggesting geopolitics and platform ecosystems, not a simple move to open science, shape model choices.

Main Finding

The study analyzes 21M full-text scientific articles (S2ORC) through June 2026 and shows that open-weight LLM usage in science has risen substantially, but this increase is not a broad move to “open science.” Instead, it is concentrated in a few Chinese-developed, open-weight model families (notably Qwen and DeepSeek). GPT-family models dominated early research but researchers now use a more diverse set of models. Chinese institutional affiliation strongly predicts use of open-weight (mostly Chinese) models: Chinese institutions have ≈2.23× the odds of using open-weight models, and Chinese open-weight model use is much higher among China-linked authors than among non-China-linked authors.

Key Points

• Corpus and scale: 157,446 papers identified as using LLMs (Jan 2023–Jun 2026), yielding 2,276,136 model-use occurrences.
• Modelling the literature: the author distinguishes single-family papers (one model family used — proxy for applied/task-oriented work) and multi-family papers (≥2 families — proxy for benchmarking/foundational work).
• Aggregate trend: GPT-family dominated early (first-mover) but its share fell as more model families entered the ecosystem.
• Open-weight prevalence:
  • Single-family papers: open-weight use rose to 44.0% in 2026.
  • Multi-family papers: 87.2% included ≥1 open-weight family in 2026; open-weight families constituted 59.3% of model-family uses there.
• Concentration in Chinese families:
  • Qwen accounted for 22.0% of single-family papers in 2026 and roughly 49.9% of open-weight selections in that setting.
  • Chinese models (Qwen, DeepSeek, etc.) account for ~60.5% of open-weight use in single-family papers.
  • Western open-weight families (Llama, Mistral) declined or remained marginal in single-family papers; Llama peaked in 2025 then fell.
• Geography and authorship:
  • Logistic regression (controlling for time and field) estimates Chinese institutional affiliation raises odds of open-weight selection by ≈2.23×.
  • Chinese-affiliated papers account for 44.0% of the observed increase in open-weight adoption since 2023 while composing 24.8% of 2026 sample.
  • Multinomial model (2026): adjusted use of Chinese open-weight models is 37.1% among Chinese-affiliated papers vs 9.2% for papers with no China link (27.9 pp difference); use of other open-weight models is similar or lower among China-linked papers.
• Interpretation: the rise in open-weight usage is best read as a geographic/market realignment of which model ecosystems become scientific instruments — influenced by availability, cost, language, platform access, and state/commercial strategies — rather than a simple discipline-wide embrace of openness.

Data & Methods

• Data:
  • Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC v2) snapshot (21.34M structured full-text documents as of July 21, 2026); deduplicated across schema changes.
  • Author and affiliation metadata from OpenAlex; Chinese-named author detection via a name classifier built from public name lists plus manual audits.
• Extraction & classification pipeline:
  • Candidate model mentions extracted by dictionary-based recognizer compiled from initial agent (Codex/GPT-5.5) inventory and manual curation; mapped to model families.
  • Three SciBERT classifiers were fine-tuned using silver-standard labels produced by an LLM (DeepSeek-V4-Flash) validated against small gold standards:
    • Model-identity classifier (to resolve collisions where a string may denote non-LLM entities).
      • SciBERT performance: accuracy 0.92, F1 0.94.
    • Author-use classifier (distinguishing reported use vs mere mention).
      • SciBERT performance: accuracy 0.89, use-class F1 0.93.
    • AI-disclosure classifier (to remove workflow disclosures like ChatGPT-assisted drafting).
      • SciBERT performance: accuracy 0.98, disclosure-class F1 0.96.
  • A paper-family match was recorded when at least one occurrence passed identity and author-use tests and was not just a disclosure.
• Analyses:
  • Descriptive time-series and share calculations by family and by single- vs multi-family grouping.
  • Logistic regression (with spline for publication date and field random effects) modeling the probability a single-family paper used an open-weight family, with predictors for China links (institutional and name-based).
  • Multinomial model to partition open-weight use into Chinese open-weight families vs other open-weight families.

Limitations noted by authors: - Open-weight vs proprietary is a coarse axis — weights alone don’t guarantee full reproducibility (training data, code, docs often withheld). - S2ORC coverage and schema/deduplication issues; classifier errors despite high reported metrics; single-/multi-family is an imperfect proxy for applied vs foundational research.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market structure & competition:
  • The rise of high-quality open-weight Chinese models shifts the competitive landscape for scientific instrumentality in AI. Availability of weights (and lower-cost local execution) can reduce dependence on provider-controlled API access, undermining incumbents’ monopoly power in some research contexts.
  • Developers’ release strategies (open-weight vs API-only) create divergent adoption equilibria across geographies; incentives to open or close weights are strategic choices with market consequences.
• Geographic specialization and comparative advantage:
  • Model ecosystems are becoming regionally differentiated. Chinese models’ rapid uptake by China-linked researchers suggests a feedback loop: local availability, language fit, policy support, and institutional procurement shape demand and reinforce supply-side specialization.
  • This can foster localized AI supply chains and alter global flows of scientific capability and knowledge production.
• Access, cost, and adoption dynamics:
  • Open-weight availability reduces marginal cost for researchers who can run models locally or on cheaper compute; this affects demand elasticity for paid APIs and may change compute-market dynamics (GPU/cloud demand).
  • Network effects and path dependence: early-provided models (GPT) retained prominence as baselines, but as alternative ecosystems reach competitive performance, switching becomes feasible — especially where local incentives and costs favor open-weight families.
• Reproducibility and public goods provision:
  • Open-weight models can improve reproducibility and auditability where researchers can archive and rerun parameterized models, possibly lowering verification costs in some settings. But weight availability is only one dimension — missing training data, preprocessing, and documentation limit scientific replicability.
  • Public-good considerations arise: if open-weight releases enhance transparent science, policymakers might subsidize or incentivize openness; conversely, open-weight availability can be weaponized in other policy dimensions (export controls, IP disputes).
• Policy and regulation:
  • Cross-border differences in model release regimes complicate harmonized policy responses. Trade, intellectual property, and export-control regimes may shape whether open-weight ecosystems remain localized or diffuse internationally.
  • Funding and procurement policies that favor reproducibility could change incentives for open releases; however, the study shows that commercial and state strategies already shape real adoption patterns.
• Research & measurement priorities for AI economists:
  • Quantify welfare effects of open-weight vs API-only regimes for science (e.g., lower research costs, increased output quality, replication rates).
  • Measure impact on cloud/GPU markets (demand shifts from provider-run inference to local training/fine-tuning).
  • Study how release strategies affect innovation rates, entry barriers, and concentration in model development.
  • Investigate citation, collaboration, and productivity effects tied to model-family adoption and geographic model ecosystems.
  • Examine whether open-weight adoption reduces or increases inequality in scientific capacity across countries (depends on local compute access and skills).
• Practical takeaways:
  • Economically meaningful distinctions about openness must go beyond “weights vs APIs.” Full assessment must include data/code availability, licensing, compute costs, and institutional constraints.
  • Policymakers and research funders should consider targeted interventions (subsidies, compute grants, documentation standards) to shape how model ecosystems affect scientific production and market competition.

If you want, I can: - Extract the key numeric results (tables/coefficients) from the regression models and present them in a concise table; - Draft a short policy brief for funders/regulators focused on the economic consequences of open-weight vs API release strategies.