Which of these preprints directly addresses observational evidence versus theoretical speculation?

Based on the preprints provided, [AG-2025.02-572] most directly addresses observational evidence versus theoretical speculation.

That paper evaluates how deeply general relativistic *assumptions* penetrate the simulations used to extract results from two landmark experiments: LIGO-Virgo gravitational wave observations and the Event Horizon Telescope's black hole images [AG-2025.02-572]. The core question it tackles is this: when we claim to have "observed" a black hole, how much of what we're seeing is actually data, and how much is theoretical framework baked into the data-processing pipeline?

The paper identifies a real tension: simulations play an "ampliative role," meaning they let us extract *more* information from raw data than the data alone would yield—a genuine scientific win. But this amplification comes at a cost: theory-ladenness, where our theoretical assumptions shape what we conclude we've observed [AG-2025.02-572]. The paper even flags inferential circularity, a thorny problem where the theory used to extract evidence then gets tested against that very evidence.

The other preprints approach related themes from different angles: [AG-2026.04-565] and [AG-2026.01-1434] examine AI reasoning about competing models; [AG-2024.03-181] weighs competing dark energy theories when data underdetermines them; [AG-2024.11-1092] uses Bayesian reasoning to track how data should shift credence in SUSY. But none focuses as sharply on the boundary between what we observe directly and what we infer through theory.