Could we design observations that bypass some theoretical assumptions in the data-processing pipeline?

This is a thoughtful question about whether we can design observations that sidestep hidden assumptions baked into data analysis. The archive addresses this directly.

The Core Problem: Theory-Ladenness in Modern Astronomy

The short answer is yes, but it's hard—and we're already aware of the problem. [AG-2025.02-572] examines exactly this issue in black hole observations. LIGO and the Event Horizon Telescope don't directly "see" black holes; instead, they feed raw detector data into simulations built on general relativity, which then extract astrophysical parameters. This is unavoidable because simulations "amplify" information—they let us infer things we couldn't read off the data alone—but it means our conclusions are only as good as our theoretical assumptions. The paper identifies several strategies to reduce this theory-ladenness, including model-independent checks, though it notes that some degree of inference circularity (where theory helps extract the very data that confirms the theory) is hard to escape entirely.

Practical Workarounds in Real Pipelines

Several approaches dodge theoretical assumptions at different stages:

Observational geometry as a bypass: [AG-2025.04-183] proposes using the light-travel-time arguments inherent in the sky's geometry itself—observing acausal pairs of distant quasars from two independent telescopes—to generate randomness that doesn't depend on any instrumental model. By letting space and causality do the work, you avoid assumptions about correlated noise or intrinsic source behavior.

Measurement-based processing: [AG-2025.02-582] reformulates gravitational-wave postprocessing (time-delay interferometry) to express all delays directly in terms of onboard measurements rather than separately calibrated parameters. This shifts uncertainty from theoretical calibration to directly observable quantities, reducing layers of assumption.

Physical constraints instead of models: [AG-2025.03-363] sidesteps complex foreground-removal models in cosmology by enforcing a single physical principle—non-negativity of the observed field, which follows from mass conservation—to recover lost information. This requires far less machinery than explicit mode-mixing models.

Interpretability in machine learning: [AG-2025.01-309] tackles a subtler problem: deep-learning pipelines in cosmology hide their assumptions inside millions of opaque parameters. The paper explores degraded-data tests *during* training to expose what information the network actually uses, making hidden assumptions visible.

The Honest Limitation

You can't eliminate theory entirely—observations always require *some* framework to be converted into claims about nature. But you can minimize it by (1) using geometry and conservation laws rather than detailed dynamical models, (2) expressing results in terms of directly measured quantities, (3) testing what your pipeline actually depends on, and (4) using independent observational checks to break inferential loops. The best strategy is usually a combination: use minimal theory upfront, validate with independent methods, and make assumptions explicit so others can test them.