Title:Position: AI for Science Should Treat Measurement-to-Dataset Pipelines as Inference Components

Abstract:AI for Science (AI4Science) workflows often treat the released dataset as a fixed interface to the underlying system.
However, in domains relying on \emph{indirect observation}, the learner observes a derivative representation produced by multi-stage measurement, reconstruction, and preprocessing pipelines.
\textbf{We argue that these measurement-to-dataset pipelines are inference components: treating their outputs as ``given data'' freezes an observation model and obscures uncertainty over feasible pipeline choices.}
We identify three failure modes arising from this ``frozen lens'': \textbf{(C1) hidden hypothesis space}, where the released dataset does not specify the pipeline configuration or its validity conditions; \textbf{(C2) uncertified transportability}, where a pipeline may be documented but its regime of validity is untested, so failures under distribution shift cannot be adjudicated; \textbf{(C3) ungoverned multiplicity}, where many defensible pipelines exist and dispersion is real but not propagated into uncertainty-aware evidence.
We stress-test these claims with a large-scale neuroscience empirical audit, finding a survival rate of $\approx 0.0004\%$ under a cross-dataset stability criterion.
We call on the AI4Science community to make pipelines \emph{computable} inference objects via domain-specific Computable Observation Frameworks.
This shift enables quantifying pipeline adequacy and stability, converting implicit implementation choices into auditable, reproducible, and cumulative scientific evidence.

Bookmark

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools