Cross-site evaluation reveals bounded generalizability of a generative-AI reconstruction framework, suggesting limitations in rendering fine relief details.
The Heritage-Aligned Reconstruction Framework (HARF) was developed and initially evaluated using the Western Buddha of Bamiyan to structure evidence-constrained generative-AI heritage reconstruction. This article examines its bounded generalisation to the Temple of Bel at Palmyra, a materially, formally and iconographically contrasting heritage monument. The Dynamic Prompt Blueprint was re-instantiated using documentary evidence concerning the temple’s dimensions, limestone construction, Corinthian order, architectural layout, inscriptions and decorative programme, while retaining the framework’s top-level structure. A fourteen-item Palmyra questionnaire block was completed by 32 members of the interdisciplinary panel who also completed the Bamiyan evaluation. Within the Palmyra evaluation, Corinthian-column representation received the most favourable rating, whereas restored relief, inscription and surface detail received the least favourable rating. Eighteen respondents (56.2%) selected “none of the iterations are historically accurate” when assessing relief iconography. The paired difference in global prompt-sufficiency ratings did not reach the conventional significance threshold (p = 0.061), although ratings were positively associated across the two sites (Spearman ρ = 0.664, p < 0.001). The seven-domain keyword-coverage profiles were also positively rank-correlated (ρ = 0.771, p = 0.043). These findings support the bounded re-instantiation of HARF’s prompt schema and diagnostic evaluation logic in a contrasting heritage context. They do not establish equivalence between the two implementations, archaeological validity of the generated Temple of Bel images or validation of the complete HARF workflow.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arzomand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: