Lune

NeurIPS2025Top-tier venue

Predicting Empirical AI Research Outcomes with Language Models

Jiaxin Wen, Chenglei Si, Yueh-Han Chen, He He, Shi Feng

2025Year
18Citations
2Top-tier citations

Abstract

Many promising-looking ideas in AI research fail to deliver, but their validation takes substantial human labor and compute. Predicting an idea's chance of success is thus crucial for accelerating empirical AI research, a skill that even expert researchers can only acquire through substantial experience. We build the first benchmark for this task and compare LMs with human experts. Concretely, given two research ideas (e.g., two jailbreaking methods), we aim to predict which will perform better on a set of benchmarks. We scrape ideas and experimental results from conference papers, yielding 1,444 human-verified idea pairs published after our base model's cut-off date for testing, and 6,000 pairs for training. We then develop a system that combines a fine-tuned GPT-4.1 with a paper retrieval agent, and we recruit 25 human experts to compare with. In the NLP domain, our system beats human experts by a large margin (64.4% v.s. 48.9%). On the full test set, our system achieves 77% accuracy, while off-the-shelf frontier LMs like o3 perform no better than random guessing, even with the same retrieval augmentation. We verify that our system does not exploit superficial features like idea complexity through extensive human-written and LM-designed robustness tests. Finally, we evaluate our system on unpublished novel ideas, including ideas generated by an AI ideation agent. Our system achieves 63.6% accuracy, demonstrating its potential as a reward model for improving idea generation models. Altogether, our results outline a promising new direction for LMs to accelerate empirical AI research. Figure 1: Our system is more accurate than human NLP experts. Majority aggregates predictions from all annotators, while Best keeps only the best-performing annotator per research topic. For the stress test, we select a subset of idea pairs where the mathematically complex one is actually ineffective. While humans often get misled by this feature, our model does not. 39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025).

Ask about this paper

Your agent reads all of it.

Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.

Questions to start from

Your agent calls

Luneget_paper_fulltext

Ask in Lune

Free to start. No credit card required.

Cited by top-tier papers2

Ask how each one uses it

Builds on8

Related papers

Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines