On the variability of generative artificial intelligence methods in conceptual modeling: an experimental evaluation on combining causal maps

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support time-consuming conceptual modeling tasks such as building or combining models from text. In this context, causal maps are labeled, directed graphs that represent causal relationships (edges) between selected factors (nodes) in a problem domain. Modelers control the output through the LLM's prompt and decoding parameters such as temperature, and recent studies either use a default temperature or minimize it by expecting that it supports replicability. However, evidence about this expectation remains limited, as does our understanding of how different LLMs and decoding or prompting strategies shape results. We assess the extent to which findings are an artifact of the LLM or its variability rather than a reflection of the modeler's controls. We focus on the common conceptual modeling task of combining models, exemplified through three algorithms that reflect a variety of prompting techniques. We use five LLMs (DeepSeek, Gemini, GPT, Qwen, Ministral) and different versions to account for the potential impact of the architectures. Using the Design of Experiments approach of factorial analyses (supplemented by paired tests and confidence interval checks), our results show that outcomes differ significantly across LLMs and versions. Depending on the algorithm, randomness from the LLM can be the dominating factor, responsible for up to 96% of the variation in results. This happens even if we directly control the decoding, as evidenced by our comparison of greedy, beam-search, and contrastive decoding. We find that prompt effects are systematic but metric-dependent, while decoding affects performance but there is no universally best strategy. Since our findings suggest that replicability of conceptual modeling studies using LLMs may be limited, future studies may report the distribution of performance measures alongside exact model, decoding, replication, and baseline-normalization settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361281
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

On the variability of generative artificial intelligence methods in conceptual modeling: an experimental evaluation on combining causal maps

Philippe J. Giabbanelli, Noé Yves Jean-Pierre Flandre, C. Daumas
3 links
PLoS ONE
Topic Modeling
article

On the variability of generative artificial intelligence methods in conceptual modeling: an experimental evaluation on combining causal maps

Philippe J. Giabbanelli, Noé Yves Jean-Pierre Flandre, C. Daumas
article en

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support time-consuming conceptual modeling tasks such as building or combining models from text. In this context, causal maps are labeled, directed graphs that represent causal relationships (edges) between selected factors (nodes) in a problem domain. Modelers control the output through the LLM's prompt and decoding parameters such as temperature, and recent studies either use a default temperature or minimize it by expecting that it supports replicability. However, evidence about this expectation remains limited, as does our understanding of how different LLMs and decoding or prompting strategies shape results. We assess the extent to which findings are an artifact of the LLM or its variability rather than a reflection of the modeler's controls. We focus on the common conceptual modeling task of combining models, exemplified through three algorithms that reflect a variety of prompting techniques. We use five LLMs (DeepSeek, Gemini, GPT, Qwen, Ministral) and different versions to account for the potential impact of the architectures. Using the Design of Experiments approach of factorial analyses (supplemented by paired tests and confidence interval checks), our results show that outcomes differ significantly across LLMs and versions. Depending on the algorithm, randomness from the LLM can be the dominating factor, responsible for up to 96% of the variation in results. This happens even if we directly control the decoding, as evidenced by our comparison of greedy, beam-search, and contrastive decoding. We find that prompt effects are systematic but metric-dependent, while decoding affects performance but there is no universally best strategy. Since our findings suggest that replicability of conceptual modeling studies using LLMs may be limited, future studies may report the distribution of performance measures alongside exact model, decoding, replication, and baseline-normalization settings.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(10)
IMT Mines Alès (FR), Old Dominion University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Topic Modeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon