Papers › SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Elaine Lau, Haniyeh Ehsani Oskouie, Shayan Shabihi, Erich Liang, Andrea Toledo, Guillermo Mangialardi, Sergio Fonrouge, Ed-Yeremai Hernandez Cardona, Paula Vergara, Utkarsh Tyagi, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Pavi Bhatter, Nicholas Johnson, Furong Huang, Ernesto Gabriel Hernandez Montoya, Bing Liu
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
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 ≈20%. 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 ≈20% 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 ≈5% to ≈80% 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
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2604.10718")
Code
Syntology Ran 0 of 15 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 15 have no recorded run.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 15 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
15 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 15 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 15 of the 15 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from scaleapi/scipredict. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
9a3794dfa1c1ea2f · report
c29172d588ff084b · report
3a01f02197b982dd · report
00e81d62f4ca6df7 · report
d3e8bba5efdde1f4 · report
0d5e86e917fa6d23 · report
bddb22278f9cde01 · report
5e614ded1dde072f · report
0aa6d866cf3c84e1 · report
c3360adff321d49f · report
94071cc0a6f31dc9 · report
8893be9f3e143cce · report
1c555ee938c0d63d · report
1707ad6213733c95 · report
eda345eabefc9322 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.10718, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections