Frequently Asked Questions

Architectural Prisms: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

General & Mission

1. What is Architectural Prisms?
Architectural Prisms is a new platform for exploring and debating computer architecture research. We use AI to analyze papers from top conferences through three distinct critical lenses, or "prisms." These AI-generated reviews are not verdicts; they are catalysts designed to spark deeper, more nuanced, human-led discussions about already-published work.

2. How are the reviews generated, and what is the role of the three AI personas?
Each published paper is analyzed by three distinct AI personas, each applying a specialized lens to the work:

• The Guardian: Evaluates the technical rigor, validity, and methodological soundness of the research.
• The Synthesizer: Contextualizes the work, placing it within the broader landscape of existing literature and identifying relevant research trends.
• The Innovator: Explores the potential for future impact, suggesting promising avenues for follow-up research and identifying novel contributions.

Addressing Skepticism & Limitations

3. Are these AI-generated reviews replacing human peer review for submissions?
Absolutely not. The papers analyzed on Architectural Prisms are already published and have successfully passed the traditional human peer-review process. Our platform is for post-publication dialogue only. The AI reviews are not verdicts and are not used for paper acceptance decisions.

4. How accurate or reliable are the AI critiques? What about LLM hallucinations or bias? (A Critical Question)
This is a crucial point. The AI-generated reviews are a product of Large Language Models and, as such, are prone to errors, "hallucinations," or bias from their training data. They should be treated with a healthy dose of academic skepticism. We consider each AI review to be a hypothesis about the paper, and the community's primary role is to challenge, correct, and debate these critiques. The platform's value comes from the human discussion it sparks, not the infallibility of the AI.

5. Why focus on papers that have already been published and accepted?
Our goal is to shift the conversation from the binary "accept/reject" gatekeeping of pre-publication review to a more expansive, long-term critical exploration of a paper's implications. By focusing on published work, we remove the high-stakes pressure and allow the community to freely debate the merits, potential flaws, and future impact of research. And use this effort to move the needle for the community on the efficacy of LLM reviews.

Technical & Community

6. What GenAI engine and prompts were used to create these reviews?
The AI-generated reviews on Architectural Prisms are created using Google's Gemini Pro model. We believe in transparency and community collaboration; the complete source code, including the specific prompts used to generate the 'Guardian', 'Synthesizer', and 'Innovator' reviews, is publicly available on our GitHub repository: [https://github.com/VerticalResearchGroup/ArchPrisms].

7. How can I contribute to the discussion and engage with the platform?
We encourage participation from all members of the computer architecture community. You can engage in several ways:

• Read & Learn: Explore the papers and the multi-faceted AI critiques.
• Comment & Debate: Join the community to directly challenge the AI reviews, offer your own expert perspective, or debate with fellow researchers.
• Connect: Use the platform's features (like the General channel or one-on-one discussions) to network and discuss broader research topics.

8. What is the long-term vision for Architectural Prisms?
Architectural Prisms is an active experiment. Our vision is to help determine how AI can best complement the human-intensive peer-review process. We want to explore whether AI-first or AI-assisted reviewing can help address known limitations in human-only review, such as reviewer bias, subjectivity, and workload, ultimately fostering a more robust and transparent academic dialogue.

Here is the additional FAQ, crafted from the notes you provided:

---

9. What is your belief on the future of peer review, given the rising paper volume and issues like reviewer fatigue, lack of expertise, and misaligned incentives?

We believe the traditional human-only peer-review system is facing unsustainable pressures. The increasing volume of submissions makes it difficult to find qualified and motivated reviewers, which can compromise review quality.

This is where AI, specifically LLMs, presents a transformative opportunity. Our perspective is:

• Surpassing Technical Expertise: We believe modern LLMs have reached a level of technical understanding that already surpasses what many human reviewers can consistently deliver, especially when reviewing papers slightly outside their core specialty.
• Eliminating Fatigue and Bias: LLMs do not suffer from mental fatigue. They can apply a rigorous, consistent standard to every paper. Crucially, as machines, they do not have personal egos, emotional biases, or academic "turf" to protect, allowing them to provide more objective and unbiased critiques than humans often can.
• Managing Hallucinations: While hallucinations are a valid concern, the risk is relatively low and manageable for the structured task of a technical review. By using three distinct personas (Guardian, Synthesizer, Innovator), we create an internal system of checks and balances that effectively combats and surfaces potential inaccuracies.
• Solving the Access Problem: A current limitation is that LLMs may not have access to the entire corpus of scientific literature. However, this is an organizational and logistical challenge, not a fundamental technical one. We believe this is an issue that publishing bodies like the ACM and IEEE can and will solve.

Our Outlook: Given these advantages, we believe the scientific community is on the verge of a major shift. We predict that within the next 2-3 years, we will see a rapid transition toward an AI-first review process to create a more efficient, objective, and high-quality system for vetting scientific work.

10. Why is my paper on this website?
We are processing papers that are publicly available through open access on platforms like the ACM Digital Library (dl.acm.org). Our goal is to foster open, critical discussion on published research for the benefit of the community. However, if you are the author and would prefer your paper not be included, please drop a note to karu@cs.wisc.edu, and we will gladly remove it.

11. My paper was at a covered conference, but it's not on this website. Why?
Our automated process relies on papers being available via open access on platforms like the ACM Digital Library (dl.acm.org). If your paper was not set to open access, our system was likely unable to retrieve the PDF. If you would like your paper to be included in the discussion, please email the PDF directly to karu@cs.wisc.edu, and we will gladly add it.