SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
Accelerating scientific discovery requires the identification of which experiments would yield the best outcomes before committing resources to costly physical validation. While existing benchmarks evaluate LLMs on scientific knowledge and reasoning, their ability to predict experimental outcomes - a task where AI could significantly exceed human capabilities - remains largely underexplored. We introduce SciPredict, a benchmark comprising 405 tasks derived from recent empirical studies in 33 specialized sub-fields of physics, biology, and chemistry. SciPredict addresses two critical questions: (a) can LLMs predict the outcome of scientific experiments with sufficient accuracy? and (b) can such predictions be reliably used in the scientific research process? Evaluations reveal fundamental limitations on both fronts. Model accuracies are 14-26% and human expert performance is approx20%. Although some frontier models exceed human performance model accuracy is still far below what would enable reliable experimental guidance. Even within the limited performance, models fail to distinguish reliable predictions from unreliable ones, achieving only approx20% accuracy regardless of their confidence or whether they judge outcomes as predictable without physical experimentation. Human experts, in contrast, demonstrate strong calibration: their accuracy increases from approx5% to approx80% as they deem outcomes more predictable without conducting the experiment. SciPredict establishes a rigorous framework demonstrating that superhuman performance in experimental science requires not just better predictions, but better awareness of prediction reliability. For reproducibility all our data and code are provided at https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict
69ddb807aea31e227c22c587
Udari Madhushani Sehwag
69ddb807aea31e227c22c588
Elaine Lau
69ddb807aea31e227c22c589
Haniyeh Ehsani Oskouie
69ddb807aea31e227c22c58a
Shayan Shabihi
69ddb807aea31e227c22c58b
Erich Liang
69ddb807aea31e227c22c58c
Andrea Toledo
69ddb807aea31e227c22c58d
Guillermo Mangialardi
69ddb807aea31e227c22c58e
Sergio Fonrouge
69ddb807aea31e227c22c58f
Ed-Yeremai Hernandez Cardona
69ddb807aea31e227c22c590
Paula Vergara
69ddb807aea31e227c22c591
Utkarsh Tyagi
69ddb807aea31e227c22c592
Chen Bo Calvin Zhang
69ddb807aea31e227c22c593
Pavi Bhatter
69ddb807aea31e227c22c594
Nicholas Johnson
69ddb807aea31e227c22c595
Furong Huang
69ddb807aea31e227c22c596
Ernesto Gabriel Hernandez Montoya
69ddb807aea31e227c22c597
Bing Liu
SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
Accelerating scientific discovery requires the identification of which experiments would yield the best outcomes before committing resources to costly physical validation. While existing benchmarks evaluate LLMs on scientific knowledge and reasoning, their ability to predict experimental outcomes - a task where AI could significantly exceed human capabilities - remains largely underexplored. We introduce SciPredict, a benchmark comprising 405 tasks derived from recent empirical studies in 33 specialized sub-fields of physics, biology, and chemistry. SciPredict addresses two critical questions: (a) can LLMs predict the outcome of scientific experiments with sufficient accuracy? and (b) can such predictions be reliably used in the scientific research process? Evaluations reveal fundamental limitations on both fronts. Model accuracies are 14-26% and human expert performance is approx20%. Although some frontier models exceed human performance model accuracy is still far below what would enable reliable experimental guidance. Even within the limited performance, models fail to distinguish reliable predictions from unreliable ones, achieving only approx20% accuracy regardless of their confidence or whether they judge outcomes as predictable without physical experimentation. Human experts, in contrast, demonstrate strong calibration: their accuracy increases from approx5% to approx80% as they deem outcomes more predictable without conducting the experiment. SciPredict establishes a rigorous framework demonstrating that superhuman performance in experimental science requires not just better predictions, but better awareness of prediction reliability. For reproducibility all our data and code are provided at https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict
SciPredict benchmark reveals that large language models struggle to accurately predict scientific experiment outcomes and cannot reliably assess prediction confidence, unlike human experts who show better calibration and performance when experiments are deemed predictable.
LLMs experimental outcomes scientific knowledge reasoning benchmark prediction accuracy calibration reproducibility