Predicting Empirical AI Research Outcomes with Language Models
Jiaxin Wen, Chenglei Si, Yueh-Han Chen, He He, Shi Feng
摘要
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 Finally, we evaluate our system on unpublished novel ideas, including ideas generated by an AI ideation agent.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).
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了每一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
引用它的顶会 Paper2
- The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research IdeasChenglei Si, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Diyi YangICLR 2026 · 被引用 60 次
- From Automation to Autonomy: A Survey on Large Language Models in Scientific DiscoveryTianshi Zheng, Zheye Deng, Hong Ting Tsang, Weiqi Wang 等EMNLP 2025 · 被引用 5 次
它引用的顶会 Paper8
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma 等NeurIPS 2022 · 被引用 22,562 次
- AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human FeedbackYann Dubois, Chen Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang 等NeurIPS 2023 · 被引用 948 次
- MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning ExperimentationQian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, Jure LeskovecICML 2024 · 被引用 209 次
- Approaching Human-Level Forecasting with Language ModelsDanny Halawi, Fred Zhang, Yueh-Han Chen, Jacob SteinhardtNeurIPS 2024 · 被引用 142 次
- Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam SearchReid Pryzant, Dan Iter, Jerry Li, Yin Tat Lee 等EMNLP 2023 · 被引用 137 次
相关 Paper
- Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP ResearchersChenglei Si, Diyi Yang, Tatsunori HashimotoICLR 2025
- Can Large Language Models Unlock Novel Scientific Research Ideas?Sandeep Kumar, Tirthankar Ghosal, Vinayak Goyal, Asif EkbalEMNLP 2025 · 被引用 3 次
- Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI ResearchChenglei Si, Zitong Yang, Yejin Choi, Emmanuel J Candes 等ICML 2026 · 被引用 12 次
- AAAR-1.0: Assessing AI's Potential to Assist ResearchRenze Lou, Hanzi Xu, Sijia Wang, Jiangshu Du 等ICML 2025
- SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?Udari Sehwag, Elaine Lau, Haniyeh Oskouie, Shayan Shabihi 等ICML 2026 · 被引用 1 次
