Large language models struggle to predict experimental outcomes reliably: they reach only 14–26% accuracy—comparable to human experts—but cannot tell when their predictions are trustworthy; human experts, by contrast, are well calibrated and markedly better at identifying which outcomes can be predicted without physical tests.

Main Finding

SciPredict introduces a large, expert-curated benchmark (405 tasks) for evaluating whether LLMs can predict empirical experimental outcomes in natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics). State-of-the-art LLMs achieve only 14–26% prediction accuracy (across tasks), roughly comparable to or slightly above human expert accuracy (~20%), and crucially they fail to calibrate their confidence/feasibility judgments. Human experts are well-calibrated (accuracy rises from ≈5% to ≈80% as they rate tasks more predictable); models do not show this behavior, making them unreliable for guiding costly physical experiments.

Key Points

• Dataset and scope

  • 405 prediction tasks from empirical studies published after Mar 31, 2025 (to avoid training-set leakage).
  • Tasks span 33 sub-fields across physics (9), chemistry (10), and biology (14).
  • Question formats: multiple-choice (MCQ), free-form (FF), numerical (NUM).
  • Expert-curated background knowledge is included for each task.

• Performance results

  • 15 SOTA LLMs evaluated (examples: GPT‑5.2, Gemini 3P, Claude O4.5, Llama 3.3 70B, Qwen 3 235B).
  • Model accuracies: 14%–26% (task-type and domain dependent).
  • Human experts: ≈20% accuracy overall.
  • MCQs are easier for models than free-form and numerical questions.

• Calibration and reliability

  • Models’ self-reported confidence/feasibility scores do not correlate with actual accuracy (~20% regardless of confidence level).
  • Human experts show strong calibration: predicted-feasibility ratings map well to empirical accuracy (accuracy increases from ≈5% to ≈80% across feasibility bins).
  • Models therefore cannot reliably flag when their predictions are trustworthy.

• Background knowledge effects

  • Expert-curated background knowledge improves model accuracy modestly (~+3% on average; range ~1.2–5.8% depending on model).
  • Models’ self-generated background knowledge often harms performance; combining self-generated with expert-curated usually underperforms.
  • Primary failure modes: factual errors and flawed logical reasoning, not purely misunderstanding the task.

• Curation effort and reproducibility

  • Benchmark construction cost ≈ $336k and 7,380 human expert hours.
  • All data and code released: https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict.

Data & Methods

• Data collection and curation

  • Source: empirical papers (post-March 31, 2025) in natural sciences.
  • Multi-stage expert annotation: extract experimental setup, interventions, measurements, and ground-truth outcomes.
  • Tasks formatted into MCQ / FF / NUM with accompanying rubrics (1–10 rubrics for free-form), acceptable numeric ranges for NUM, and ground-truth labels for MCQ.

• Quality control

  • Iterative expert review and deterministic plus LLM-assisted verifications to ensure task precision without revealing answers.
  • Focus on making tasks challenging but solvable with the right contextual/prior knowledge.

• Evaluation

  • Models supplied: contextual experimental description and various background-knowledge conditions (expert-curated, self-generated, filtered, combined).
  • Metrics: accuracy (task correctness), calibration assessed by correlation of self-reported confidence/feasibility with accuracy, analyses by question type and scientific domain.
  • Human experts provided baseline predictions and self-assessed feasibility/confidence.

• Analysis highlights

  • Comparison across background-knowledge variants to isolate contributions of curated vs. model-generated priors.
  • Domain- and format-specific breakdowns showed consistent degradation from MCQ → FF → NUM.
  • Error analysis attributes failures primarily to factual/ reasoning mistakes rather than annotation issues.

Implications for AI Economics

• R&D productivity and deployment risk

  • Potential value: if reliable, LLMs could filter low-value experiments and accelerate discovery, yielding large cost and time savings in R&D-intensive sectors.
  • Current reality: low accuracy and poor calibration mean deploying these LLMs to prioritize physical experiments risks misallocating scarce experimental budgets and may increase wasted spend rather than reduce it.

• Investment signals

  • Building high-quality experimental-prediction capabilities is costly: SciPredict cost (~$336k, 7,380 expert hours) illustrates nontrivial dataset construction expense. Firms and funders should account for these upfront data/annotation costs when assessing returns on model improvements.
  • There is clear economic value in improving calibration and uncertainty estimation—investments directed at calibrated models, better retrieval of expert priors, or hybrid human-AI workflows likely yield higher marginal returns than naive scaling of current models.

• Market design and productization

  • Short-term product strategy: incorporate LLMs as assistive, low-stakes tools (hypothesis generation, literature triage) with human-in-the-loop validation rather than as autonomous experiment planners.
  • Long-term product-market fit requires models that not only improve raw accuracy but can reliably estimate when they are trustworthy (so firms can make portfolio-level decisions about which experiments to fund).

• Research management and funding allocation

  • Decision models for R&D portfolio optimization must incorporate model calibration. Poorly calibrated models can distort expected-value calculations and lead to overcommitment to high-risk/low-return experiments.
  • Policymakers and lab managers should prefer staged adoption: use LLMs to produce candidate experiments but require human vetting and small-scale validation before committing large resources.

• Incentives and regulation

  • Firms offering experimental-prediction services should be evaluated on calibration metrics and audited benchmarks (like SciPredict) to avoid overclaiming capabilities.
  • Liability and reproducibility concerns: false confidence by models can produce costly downstream harms; transparency about uncertainty and limitations should be required in commercial offerings for experimental guidance.

• Research priorities for economic impact

  • Calibrated uncertainty estimation: methods that make model confidence meaningful will unlock large economic value because managers can trust selective automation.
  • Better grounding and retrieval of expert-curated priors: systems that correctly identify and apply relevant prior experiments will increase predictive performance and decrease expert annotation costs.
  • Hybrid workflows: design incentives for human-AI teams—compensation, interfaces, and process changes—that leverage models’ strengths while controlling for calibration failures.

Suggested actionables for decision-makers - Treat current LLMs as augmentation, not automation: invest in human-in-the-loop processes and small-scale validation experiments before using model predictions to allocate significant funds. - Prioritize funding and procurement for models that demonstrate both improved accuracy and demonstrable calibration on benchmarks like SciPredict. - Factor dataset/annotation costs and repeatability audits into ROI calculations for deploying experimental-prediction tools.

If useful, I can (a) extract the specific domain-level accuracy numbers and per-model results from the paper to quantify heterogeneity across subfields, or (b) draft a brief checklist for R&D managers evaluating whether to pilot LLM-based experimental prediction in their labs. Which would you prefer?