Hakken: Predicting future discoveries to fill the gaps in today's knowledge

We introduce an explainable machine-learning approach that forecasts the structural precursors of scientific breakthroughs -- the emergence and intensification of links between research concepts -- by modelling how OpenAlex concept networks evolve over time. Using 59 semantic and topological features, a two-stage LightGBM model jointly predicts the formation and the future weight of concept pairs, adding a regression stage that quantifies expected intensity to prior link-existence forecasts. Relative to the state of the art, the approach improves accuracy and explainability at once: comparative validation across four technology and biomedical domains yields ROC-AUC in [0.954, 0.967] at all horizons without re-tuning, exceeding the roughly 0.90 of prior models, while every forecast rests on structural, auditable features rather than opaque embeddings. Classification performance is high (AUC about 0.95) and regression remains stable (RMSLE 0.45 to 0.6 over one to five years). Feature attribution shows that structural factors -- particularly Adamic-Adar similarity and degree-based Hadamard measures -- consistently drive accuracy, suggesting that breakthrough-relevant recombinations emerge in tightly connected sub-networks. Two expert-anchored cases, quantum annealing and AI-enabled quantum architectures, show the model surfacing technological convergence consistent with expert expectations. We then outline a three-layer decision architecture -- detection, expert translation, institutional integration -- that turns these forecasts into evidence-based research strategy and policy, anchored in open data and explainable features.

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 $\approx$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 $\approx$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 $\approx$5% to $\approx$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

Scientific breakthroughs often emerge from synthesizing prior ideas into novel contributions. While language models (LMs) show promise in scientific discovery, their ability to perform this targeted, literature-grounded synthesis remains underexplored. We introduce insight anticipation, a generation task in which a model predicts a downstream paper's core insight from its foundational parent papers. To evaluate this capability, we develop GiantsBench, a benchmark of 17k examples across eight scientific domains, where each example consists of a set of parent papers paired with the core insight of a downstream paper. We evaluate models using an LM judge that scores similarity between generated and ground-truth insights, and show that these similarity scores correlate with expert human ratings. Finally, we present GIANTS-4B, an LM trained via reinforcement learning (RL) to optimize insight anticipation using these similarity scores as a proxy reward. Despite its smaller open-source architecture, GIANTS-4B outperforms proprietary baselines and generalizes to unseen domains, achieving a 34% relative improvement in similarity score over gemini-3-pro. Human evaluations further show that GIANTS-4B produces insights that are more conceptually clear than those of the base model. In addition, SciJudge-30B, a third-party model trained to compare research abstracts by likely citation impact, predicts that insights generated by GIANTS-4B are more likely to lead to higher citations, preferring them over the base model in 68% of pairwise comparisons. We release our code, benchmark, and model to support future research in automated scientific discovery.