Forecasting Scientific Progress with Artificial Intelligence

Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow? We introduce PreScience, a dataset and benchmark for scientific forecasting built around 98K recent AI research papers, together with companion papers covering author publication histories and citation links, yielding 502K papers in total. The resulting paper records include titles, abstracts, disambiguated author identities, influential references, topic labels, citation trajectories, and metadata snapshotted to respect temporal cutoffs. We instantiate seven exemplar tasks: five paper-anchored tasks -- contribution generation, collaborator prediction, prior work selection, citation count prediction, and future combination prediction -- and two aggregate topic trend forecasting variants. We develop baselines ranging from simple heuristics and embedding methods to frontier language models and agentic systems, and introduce LACER, an LLM-based metric for evaluating similarity of generated contribution descriptions that agrees better with human judgments than existing metrics. Finally, we compose task models to generate a 12-month synthetic corpus and find that the resulting papers are systematically less diverse and less novel than human-authored research from the same period. We release the PreScience dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/prescience) and code (https://github.com/allenai/prescience).

Scientific progress depends on sequences of enabling contributions, yet existing AI4Science benchmarks largely focus on citation prediction, literature retrieval, or idea generation rather than the dependencies that make progress possible. In this paper, we introduce discovery pathway forecasting: given a target scientific contribution and the prior literature available at a specified time, the task is to (1) identify the enabling contributions required to realize it and (2) ground each in prior work when such prior work exists. We present SciPaths, a benchmark of 262 expert-annotated gold pathways and 2,444 silver pathways constructed from machine learning and natural language processing papers, where each pathway records enabling contributions, roles, rationales, and prior-work groundings or unmapped decisions. Evaluating frontier and open-weight language models, we find that the best model reaches only 0.189 F1 under strict semantic matching, with core methodological dependencies hardest to recover. Prior-work grounding improves substantially when gold enabling contributions are provided, showing that decomposition quality is a major bottleneck for end-to-end pathway recovery. SciPaths therefore shifts evaluation toward a missing capability in scientific forecasting: reasoning backward from a target contribution to the enabling scientific building blocks and prior-work dependencies that make it feasible.

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.