  Predictions of observable properties by density-functional theory
calculations (DFT) are used increasingly often in experimental condensed-matter
physics and materials engineering as data. These predictions are used to
analyze recent measurements, or to plan future experiments. Increasingly more
experimental scientists in these fields therefore face the natural question:
what is the expected error for such an ab initio prediction? Information and
experience about this question is scattered over two decades of literature. The
present review aims to summarize and quantify this implicit knowledge. This
leads to a practical protocol that allows any scientist - experimental or
theoretical - to determine justifiable error estimates for many basic property
predictions, without having to perform additional DFT calculations. A central
role is played by a large and diverse test set of crystalline solids,
containing all ground-state elemental crystals (except most lanthanides). For
several properties of each crystal, the difference between DFT results and
experimental values is assessed. We discuss trends in these deviations and
review explanations suggested in the literature. A prerequisite for such an
error analysis is that different implementations of the same first-principles
formalism provide the same predictions. Therefore, the reproducibility of
predictions across several mainstream methods and codes is discussed too. A
quality factor Delta expresses the spread in predictions from two distinct DFT
implementations by a single number. To compare the PAW method to the highly
accurate APW+lo approach, a code assessment of VASP and GPAW with respect to
WIEN2k yields Delta values of 1.9 and 3.3 meV/atom, respectively. These
differences are an order of magnitude smaller than the typical difference with
experiment, and therefore predictions by APW+lo and PAW are for practical
purposes identical.
