IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v17y2025i1p35-d1566799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey of Artificial Intelligence Model Marketplace

Author

Listed:
  • Mian Qian

    (Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

  • Abubakar Ahmad Musa

    (Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

  • Milon Biswas

    (Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

  • Yifan Guo

    (Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

  • Weixian Liao

    (Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

  • Wei Yu

    (Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

Abstract

The rapid advancement and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) across diverse industries, including healthcare, finance, manufacturing, and retail, underscore the transformative potential of AI technologies. This necessitates the development of viable AI model marketplaces that facilitate the development, trading, and sharing of AI models across the pervasive industrial domains to harness and streamline their daily activities. These marketplaces act as centralized hubs, enabling stakeholders such as developers, data owners, brokers, and buyers to collaborate and exchange resources seamlessly. However, existing AI marketplaces often fail to address the demands of modern and next-generation application domains. Limitations in pricing models, standardization, and transparency hinder their efficiency, leading to a lack of scalability and user adoption. This paper aims to target researchers, industry professionals, and policymakers involved in AI development and deployment, providing actionable insights for designing robust, secure, and transparent AI marketplaces. By examining the evolving landscape of AI marketplaces, this paper identifies critical gaps in current practices, such as inadequate pricing schemes, insufficient standardization, and fragmented policy enforcement mechanisms. It further explores the AI model life-cycle, highlighting pricing, trading, tracking, security, and compliance challenges. This detailed analysis is intended for an audience with a foundational understanding of AI systems, marketplaces, and their operational ecosystems. The findings aim to inform stakeholders about the pressing need for innovation and customization in AI marketplaces while emphasizing the importance of balancing efficiency, security, and trust. This paper serves as a blueprint for the development of next-generation AI marketplaces that meet the demands of both current and future application domains, ensuring sustainable growth and widespread adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Mian Qian & Abubakar Ahmad Musa & Milon Biswas & Yifan Guo & Weixian Liao & Wei Yu, 2025. "Survey of Artificial Intelligence Model Marketplace," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-32, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:17:y:2025:i:1:p:35-:d:1566799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/17/1/35/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/17/1/35/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Rysman, 2009. "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 125-143, Summer.
    2. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    4. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    2. Grace Gu & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Trust and Disintermediation: Evidence from an Online Freelance Marketplace," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 794-807, February.
    3. Zoë Cullen & Chiara Farronato, 2021. "Outsourcing Tasks Online: Matching Supply and Demand on Peer-to-Peer Internet Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 3985-4003, July.
    4. Roma, Paolo & Vasi, Maria, 2019. "Diversification and performance in the mobile app market: The role of the platform ecosystem," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 123-139.
    5. Adrien Querbes, 2018. "Banned from the sharing economy: an agent-based model of a peer-to-peer marketplace for consumer goods and services," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 633-665, August.
    6. Fang, Mingyue & Nie, Huihua & Shen, Xinyi, 2023. "Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Hui, Xiang & Klein, Tobias & Stahl, Konrad, 2022. "Learning from Online Ratings," CEPR Discussion Papers 17006, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Edgardo Arturo Ayala Gaytán, 2009. "Social network externalities and price dispersion in online markets," Ensayos Revista de Economia, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Facultad de Economia, vol. 0(2), pages 1-28, November.
    10. Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Charles A. Wood, 2008. "The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 460-476, March.
    11. Ravi Bapna & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Sarah Rice, 2010. "Vertically Differentiated Simultaneous Vickrey Auctions: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1074-1092, July.
    12. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    13. Tobias Gesche, 2022. "Reference‐price shifts and customer antagonism: Evidence from reviews for online auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 558-578, August.
    14. Nan Yang & Renyu Zhang, 2022. "Dynamic pricing and inventory management in the presence of online reviews," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3180-3197, August.
    15. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1587-1602, November.
    16. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.
    17. Heyes, Anthony & Kapur, Sandeep, 2012. "Angry customers, e-word-of-mouth and incentives for quality provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 813-828.
    18. Nuria Huete-Alcocer & Miguel Ángel Valero-Tévar, 2021. "Impact of Information Sources on Promoting Tourism in a Rural Region: The Case of the Roman Villa of Noheda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.
    19. Judy E. Scott & Dawn G. Gregg & Jae Hoon Choi, 2015. "Lemon complaints: When online auctions go sour," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 177-191, February.
    20. Andrew W. Bausch, 2014. "Evolving intergroup cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 369-393, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:17:y:2025:i:1:p:35-:d:1566799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.