Archiverse: an Approach for Immersive Cultural Heritage

Anna Jaskulska; Barbara Karpowicz; Rafa{\l} Mas{\l}yk; Stanis{\l}aw Knapi\'nski; Wieslaw Kope\'c; Wiktor Stawski; W{\l}adys{\l}aw Fuchs

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 12 references

Archiverse: an Approach for Immersive Cultural Heritage

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Immersive VR can faithfully recreate lost heritage buildings only through a staged pipeline from field scanning to narrative experience, the paper argues.

desk verdict A clearly written project report whose central accuracy claim is unsupported by the paper's own admitted uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19376 v1 pith:AUSK6ZU7 submitted 2025-07-25 cs.HC cs.CY

Wieslaw Kopeć , Anna Jaskulska , W{l}adys{l}aw Fuchs , Wiktor Stawski , Stanis{l}aw Knapiński , Barbara Karpowicz , Rafa{l} Mas{l}yk This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.CY

keywords VirtualRealityCulturalHeritageDigitalReconstructionBuildingInformationModelingImmersiveVisualizationRomanTheaterVolterraExtended

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that recreating vanished or ruined architecture as an immersive virtual experience is a staged engineering and research process, not a single modeling task. Using the Roman theater in Volterra as the test case, the authors lay out the Archiverse framework: acquire and model source data, convert it for real-time engines, develop the immersive environment, and compose a narrative interactive experience. The framing claim is that static two-dimensional depictions such as plans and photographs are incomplete and potentially misleading, while VR provides a more accurate understanding of spatial relationships, scale, and construction. The authors also stress that the pipeline depends on transdisciplinary collaboration among archaeologists, architects, modelers, developers, and humanities researchers. A reader should care because the paper offers a concrete, reusable recipe for turning ruins into explorable digital heritage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the production pipeline itself, anchored on Building Information Modeling (BIM) — digital architectural models used as the geometric source for the virtual environment. The pipeline's stages decide what is measured, what is inferred, how the model is simplified for real-time rendering, and what narrative layer makes the result meaningful to a user. A supporting geometric insight in the Volterra case is the theater's regular composition based on a 21-sided polygon derived from a heptagon, which gives the reconstruction its architectural coherence. The same pipeline is what lets the project claim a shift from static images to interactive spatial understanding.

What would settle it

A controlled test in which participants judge distances, sightlines, and scale while navigating the VR reconstruction, compared with participants reading annotated 2D plans and photographs of the same theater, would settle the central claim: if the 2D group matches or beats the VR group, the asserted advantage of immersion is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an accurate immersive reconstruction of lost architecture emerges only from a deliberate pipeline that starts with heterogeneous source data and ends with a narratively framed interactive environment. Using the Roman theater in Volterra as the use case, the authors describe how laser scans, photogrammetry, and drone imagery are combined with geometric-architectural analysis into a digital building model (BIM), which is then converted for a real-time graphics engine and developed into a walkable VR scene. They contend that 2D depictions such as plans, sections, and photographs, despite their apparent objectivity, are incomplete and potentially misleading for understanding spatial relationships, because they omit the dynamic, embodied experience of scale, lighting, and construction. The reconstruction's fidelity is presented as sufficient for studying how the building was constructed and used, even though individual model elements carry varying levels of confidence.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the digital building model of the theater — a model that intentionally simplifies some details and marks other elements as less certain — is still faithful enough to anchor a virtual experience described as accurately representing the lost original.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A cultural heritage team can follow the same staged recipe to turn survey data of any ruined site into an interactive VR experience, rather than treating each reconstruction as a bespoke effort.
If the claim holds, VR-based study of ruins should supplement or replace 2D drawings and photographs wherever the research question concerns spatial layout, scale, or embodied use.
Because the pipeline ends in a narrative layer, the framework implies that heritage VR is a storytelling medium, not just a geometric model.
The paper's emphasis on real-time graphics constraints implies that hardware and engine limitations, not just archaeological uncertainty, will shape what can be faithfully shown.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The accuracy claim is testable empirically: comparing spatial-judgment performance in the VR reconstruction against 2D plans of the same theater would tell whether immersion actually delivers the asserted advantage; the paper reports no such test.
Because the BIM model itself carries varying levels of confidence, a natural extension the authors do not develop is to visualize or annotate that uncertainty inside the VR experience.
The same pipeline could generalize to urban-scale heritage sites, not just single buildings, if the data-acquisition and real-time conversion stages scale to larger footprints.
The staged framing implies a need for standard quality metrics at each step, which the paper leaves implicit.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: This is a clearly written project report describing a five-step VR reconstruction pipeline applied to the Roman theater in Volterra. It is not a research contribution: the pipeline is standard digital heritage practice, and the Section 4 accuracy claim is asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper's most valuable asset is its honest acknowledgment that the underlying BIM model is simplified and has varying confidence per element, but that honesty undercuts the very claim of 'accurate representation.'

What the paper does well: the Volterra case is concretely presented, with figures showing the point cloud, graybox, and immersive visualization. The emphasis on cross-disciplinary collaboration, and the need to convert BIM data for real-time engines, is sensible and will resonate with practitioners. The references to Fuchs' earlier geometric studies give the reconstruction a substantive archaeological basis.

Soft spots: the load-bearing problem is the accuracy claim in Section 4. No user study compares VR against 2D spatial understanding, no fidelity metric connects the finished environment to the physical remains, and the pipeline contains no step for estimating or communicating uncertainty. The five-step description is a restatement of scan-model-convert-visualize-narrate. The citation pattern is mostly self-citations; that is not inherently a flaw when the prior work is the basis, but it supplies no independent grounding. If the paper were reframed as a project report, these would be minor caveats; as a research paper, they are central.

Who this is for: practitioners and researchers in VR/cultural heritage who want a short description of one project's workflow, and a reminder that interdisciplinary collaboration is hard. It does not offer a testable method or a benchmark.

Recommendation: I would not send this to a full peer-reviewed venue; it would be desk rejected for lack of validated contribution. It could be accepted in a workshop or short-paper track as a status report, but it doesn't need a serious referee. The authors should either add empirical validation or explicitly tone down the accuracy claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes Archiverse, a framework for creating immersive virtual reality (VR) experiences of lost architectural heritage, with the Roman theater in Volterra as its use case. The authors argue that VR/XR can overcome the limitations of static two-dimensional depictions by providing interactive, three-dimensional access to reconstructed spaces. They outline a five-step pipeline from data acquisition and modeling through real-time conversion, immersive environment development, and narrative composition, and they report on a panel and exhibition associated with the project. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the underlying BIM model is not a digital replica, that some details were simplified, and that reconstruction confidence varies across elements, yet Section 4 nevertheless claims that the process yields an environment that 'accurately represents lost architectural heritage.'

Significance. If its central claims were empirically supported, the paper would be a useful practitioner-oriented contribution to virtual heritage, particularly for teams working with BIM-derived VR reconstructions. The manuscript has several strengths: it is grounded in a concrete archaeological use case, it draws on prior published work by the authors (including Fuchs's geometric analyses), it transparently discloses funding and institutional support, and it acknowledges—at least in Section 1—that the reconstruction has varying confidence levels and simplified details. However, the current version is essentially a workflow description supported by plausibility arguments rather than by validation: no user study, no accuracy metric, and no comparison against 2D representations is reported. The significance is therefore potential rather than demonstrated, and the paper would need substantial additional evidence or a reframing of its claims to meet the standard of a research contribution in human-computer interaction.

major comments (3)

[Section 4 (Discussion and Conclusions), first paragraph] The central claim that the proposed process produces an environment that 'accurately represents lost architectural heritage' is not supported by the evidence in the paper. Section 1 explicitly states that Fuchs's model 'was not a digital replica,' that 'some architectural details were simplified,' and that 'the project has varying levels of confidence regarding the individual elements.' The pipeline described in Section 4 contains no step for estimating, propagating, or communicating this uncertainty, and no validation of the finished environment against the physical remains or against independent archaeological evidence is reported. As written, the accuracy claim is an assertion, not a demonstrated result; it should either be weakened to a claim about plausible reconstruction or the pipeline should be extended with an explicit validation/uncertainty-communication step.
[Section 4, paragraph beginning 'Despite the above-mentioned technological advancements'] The paper asserts that static 2D depictions 'provide an incomplete and potentially misleading understanding of spatial relationships' and that interactive 3D simulations give a 'more accurate understanding.' The only cited support for this comparative claim is reference [11], which is an opinion/position chapter rather than empirical evidence, and the paper reports no user study, no spatial-comprehension measure, and no direct comparison between VR and 2D conditions. For a paper submitted in the field of human-computer interaction, this load-bearing comparative claim requires either a reported experiment or at least a careful citation of existing controlled studies on spatial understanding in VR versus 2D.
[Section 4, 'Developing an immersive virtual experience...'] The proposed 'five-step process' is described at a level of abstraction that prevents evaluation or replication. The text lists only four items ('data acquisition and modeling,' 'conversion for real-time environments,' 'development of immersive environment,' 'composition of narrative interactive experience') and gives no specifics on model-conversion criteria, real-time rendering constraints, interaction design, narrative structure, or handoff artifacts between interdisciplinary team members. As a result, the paper's claim that this process is what is 'required' for accurate representation cannot be assessed, and the framework is difficult to apply or test in its current form.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4, first paragraph of the process description] The text calls the process 'five-step' but enumerates only four items; either add a fifth step or correct the number to four.
[Section 2, first paragraph] 'Roman theater in Voltera use-case' contains a typo: 'Voltera' should be 'Volterra.'
[Section 1 and Section 4, Figures 3 and 4] Figures 3 (graybox prototype) and 4 (immersive visualization) are referenced but not described in the text; a sentence explaining how the point cloud, graybox, and final visualization relate would improve readability.
[Section 4, paragraph on laser scanning] The phrase 'highly detailed and objective data' overstates the capabilities of laser scanning and photogrammetry, which involve measurement error, occlusion, and processing decisions; 'highly detailed' would be more accurate than 'objective.'
[Section 2, 'Discussion Points'] The paper presents the panel and exhibition as part of the project but reports no outcomes of the panel discussion; if the panel is intended as a contribution, a summary of its conclusions or discussion points should be included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a descriptive workflow and panel summary with no fitted quantities, predictions, or derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a position/panel paper presenting the Archiverse framework and the Volterra Roman theater use case. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, and no empirical prediction; the 'five-step process' in Section 4 (data acquisition and modeling, conversion for real-time environments, development of immersive environment, composition of narrative interactive experience) is a descriptive methodological summary, not a derivation whose conclusion is presupposed by its premises. The claim that the resulting environment 'accurately represents lost architectural heritage' is an evidentiary assertion that the paper itself qualifies: Section 1 admits the BIM model was 'not a digital replica,' that 'some architectural details were simplified,' and that the project has 'varying levels of confidence regarding the individual elements.' That is a gap in validation and certainty, but it is not circularity, because the pipeline does not define accuracy in terms of its own output. The paper cites prior work by the same authors and collaborators (e.g., Fuchs' geometric studies of the theater, prior HASE/XR Center projects) but these citations are background context and prior findings, not a load-bearing chain that forces the framework's claims. No step fits a parameter to data and then re-presents the fit as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own work to forbid alternatives. The absence of external benchmarking or user studies is a limitation of support, not a circular structure. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters. It relies on three domain assumptions about data objectivity, VR fidelity, and BIM reliability. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Laser scanning, photogrammetry, and drone imagery produce highly detailed and objective data about heritage sites.
Section 4 asserts these methods are 'objective' and 'revolutionizing' without providing error analysis or ground truth comparisons.
domain assumption Interactive 3D VR simulations reproduce the original complexity of structures and give a more accurate understanding than 2D representations.
Section 4 claims 2D depictions are 'incomplete and potentially misleading' and that 3D simulations improve understanding, citing [11] but offering no empirical test.
domain assumption The BIM model of the theater, despite simplifications, is a sufficiently accurate basis for a VR reconstruction of the original building.
Section 1 admits the model intentionally simplified some details and has varying confidence levels per element, yet Section 4 treats the resulting VR environment as 'accurately represent[ing]' the lost heritage.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Archiverse: an Approach for Immersive Cultural Heritage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUSK6ZU7

@misc{pith2026250719376,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Archiverse: an Approach for Immersive Cultural Heritage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUSK6ZU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19376}
}

read the original abstract

Digital technologies and tools have transformed the way we can study cultural heritage and the way we can recreate it digitally. Techniques such as laser scanning, photogrammetry, and a variety of Mixed Reality solutions have enabled researchers to examine cultural objects and artifacts more precisely and from new perspectives. In this part of the panel, we explore how Virtual Reality (VR) and eXtended Reality (XR) can serve as tools to recreate and visualize the remains of historical cultural heritage and experience it in simulations of its original complexity, which means immersive and interactive. Visualization of material culture exemplified by archaeological sites and architecture can be particularly useful when only ruins or archaeological remains survive. However, these advancements also bring significant challenges, especially in the area of transdisciplinary cooperation between specialists from many, often distant, fields, and the dissemination of virtual immersive environments among both professionals and the general public.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19376 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Roman theater in Volterra - point cloud based on laser scan (source: own [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Roman theater in Volterra - graybox prototype (source: own elaboration) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Roman theater in Volterra - immersive visualisation (source: own elabo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[11]

In: Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage, pp

Sanders, D.H.: More than pretty pictures of the past: An american perspective on virtual heritage1. In: Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage, pp. 37–56. Routledge (2016)

work page 2016
[1]

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit` a (s VIII), 114–150 (1955)

Fiumi, E., De Agostino, A.: Volterra.–scavi nell’area del teatro romano degli anni 1950-1953. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit` a (s VIII), 114–150 (1955)

work page 1955
[2]

Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 547–569 (2019)

Fuchs, W.: The geometric language of roman theater design, part 1. Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 547–569 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 571–590 (2019)

Fuchs, W.: The geometric language of roman theater design, part 2. Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 571–590 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Giorgio Bretschneider Rome, Italy (2021)

Fuchs, W.: A study of the geometric and architectural composition of the Roman theater in Volterra. Giorgio Bretschneider Rome, Italy (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

rilevazioni, caratteristiche architet- toniche e problemi di sistemazione

Inghirami, P.: Il teatro romano di volterra. rilevazioni, caratteristiche architet- toniche e problemi di sistemazione. Rassegna Volterrana (1977)

work page 1977
[6]

In: Digital Interaction and Machine Intelligence

Karpowicz, B., Mas lyk, R., Skorupska, K., Jab lo´ nski, D., Kalinowski, K., Kobyli´ nski, P., Pochwatko, G., Kornacka, M., Kope´ c, W.: Intergenerational interac- tion with avatars in vr: An exploratory study towards an xr research framework. In: Digital Interaction and Machine Intelligence. pp. 229–238. Springer, Cham (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer In- teraction

Kope´ c, W., Kornacka, M., Pochwatko, G., Biele, C., Jaskulska, A., Skorupska, K., Barnes, S., Grzeszczuk, M., Nilsson, T., Fuchs, W., et al.: Co-designing immer- sive virtual and extended reality systems for remote and unsupervised interaction, intervention, training and research. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer In- teraction. pp. 610–615. Springer (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 12 references

[8]

In: Machine Intelligence and Digital Interaction Conference

Kope´ c, W., Pochwatko, G., Kornacka, M., Stawski, W., Grzeszczuk, M., Skorupska, K., Karpowicz, B., Mas lyk, R., Zinevych, P., Knapi´ nski, S., et al.: Human factors in space exploration: Opportunities for international and interdisciplinary collab- oration. In: Machine Intel...

2023
[9]

In: 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct)

Pochwatko, G., Kopec, W., Jedrzejewski, Z., Jaskulska, A., Skorupska, K.H., Kar- powicz, B., Mas lyk, R., Barnes, S., Grzeszczuk, M., Lazarek, J., Swidrak, J.: The invisible – experienced: Developing and verifying a vr application for understand- ing air pollution perception a...

2023
[10]

In: 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR)

Pochwatko, G., Kopec, W., Swidrak, J., Jaskulska, A., Skorupska, K.H., Karpow- icz, B., Mas lyk, R., Grzeszczuk, M., Barnes, S., Borkiewicz, P., et al.: Well-being in isolation: Exploring artistic immersive virtual environments in a simulated lunar habitat to alleviate astheni...

2023
[12]

In: 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Ad- junct (ISMAR-Adjunct) (2023)

Schudy, A., Pochwatko, G., Kope´ c, W., Karpowicz, B., Skorupska, K., Grzeszczuk, M., Okruszek, L.: A revised and extended paradigm for social and non-social stress elicitation in psychological research - a feasibility study in virtual reality. In: 2023 IEEE International Symp...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

In: Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage, pp

Sanders, D.H.: More than pretty pictures of the past: An american perspective on virtual heritage1. In: Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage, pp. 37–56. Routledge (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [1]

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit` a (s VIII), 114–150 (1955)

Fiumi, E., De Agostino, A.: Volterra.–scavi nell’area del teatro romano degli anni 1950-1953. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit` a (s VIII), 114–150 (1955)

work page 1955

[3] [2]

Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 547–569 (2019)

Fuchs, W.: The geometric language of roman theater design, part 1. Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 547–569 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [3]

Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 571–590 (2019)

Fuchs, W.: The geometric language of roman theater design, part 2. Nexus Network Journal 21(3), 571–590 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [4]

Giorgio Bretschneider Rome, Italy (2021)

Fuchs, W.: A study of the geometric and architectural composition of the Roman theater in Volterra. Giorgio Bretschneider Rome, Italy (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [5]

rilevazioni, caratteristiche architet- toniche e problemi di sistemazione

Inghirami, P.: Il teatro romano di volterra. rilevazioni, caratteristiche architet- toniche e problemi di sistemazione. Rassegna Volterrana (1977)

work page 1977

[7] [6]

In: Digital Interaction and Machine Intelligence

Karpowicz, B., Mas lyk, R., Skorupska, K., Jab lo´ nski, D., Kalinowski, K., Kobyli´ nski, P., Pochwatko, G., Kornacka, M., Kope´ c, W.: Intergenerational interac- tion with avatars in vr: An exploratory study towards an xr research framework. In: Digital Interaction and Machine Intelligence. pp. 229–238. Springer, Cham (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [7]

In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer In- teraction

Kope´ c, W., Kornacka, M., Pochwatko, G., Biele, C., Jaskulska, A., Skorupska, K., Barnes, S., Grzeszczuk, M., Nilsson, T., Fuchs, W., et al.: Co-designing immer- sive virtual and extended reality systems for remote and unsupervised interaction, intervention, training and research. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer In- teraction. pp. 610–615. Springer (2023)

work page 2023