Divide-and-Conquer: Towards Generalizable Amortized Bayesian Inference for the Drift Diffusion Model

The drift diffusion model (DDM) is a cornerstone of cognitive decision-making research. Although numerous estimation methods exist, researchers continue to seek inference approaches that are both fast and flexible across diverse study designs. Amortized Bayesian inference (ABI) can provide nearly instantaneous inference for complex stochastic models like the DDM, but neural networks trained for one study design cannot generalize to others. In this paper, we propose a divide-and-conquer framework that address this limitation. The core idea is that the DDM's independence assumption allows the full dataset to be decomposed into pairwise shards, each sharing a common structure that a single neural network can learn. Inference is performed on each shard separately and the resulting posteriors are combined via consensus MCMC to approximate the full posterior. Using simulated datasets, we evaluate the accuracy and uncertainty of this method. Our results show that the proposed divide-and-conquer approach achieves accuracy and uncertainty comparable to MCMC while reducing computational cost by several orders of magnitude. This work not only advances DDM estimation but also demonstrates a general strategy for improving the scalability and generalizability of ABI methods across diverse applications.

CausalSteward: An Agentic Divide-Conquer-Combine Copilot for Causal Discovery

Learning causal models from high-dimensional data is a significant challenge, particularly in real-world settings where violations of core assumptions lead to causal identifiability issues. Although massive amounts of prior knowledge are available, and contain valuable causal information, effectively integrating this knowledge into the causal discovery process remains an open problem. We introduce CausalSTeward (CAST), a novel human-in-the-loop framework for interactively assembling large causal models. CausalSteward is a multi-agent collaborative system that tackles high-dimensional causality through a divide-and-conquer approach where large clusters of variables are iteratively partitioned and then separately analyzed. Our framework fuses prior knowledge with a data-driven approach by using tailored tools such as retrieval augmented generation and conditional independence tests. Finally, we use this work to examine the capabilities and limitations of causal reasoning in multi-agent frameworks, and how the human-in-the-loop can contribute to accurate and trustworthy results.

Divide-and-Conquer Modeling for the CTF-4-Science Lorenz Benchmark

This submission documents the divide-and-conquer modeling strategy developed for the CTF-4-Science Lorenz Chaotic Systems Challenge at AI-DEEDS 2026. The challenge uses the CTF-4-Science Lorenz benchmark to evaluate chaotic-system prediction across twelve hidden scores and five scenario families: clean forecasting, noisy reconstruction, noisy-input forecasting, few-shot learning, and parametric generalization. Rather than forcing one model class to handle all regimes, the final system matched each prediction block to the evaluation behavior of its task group. The main contributions are: smoothing-based reconstruction for noisy full-trajectory denoising; NG-RC/NVAR models tuned for noisy long-time attractor forecasting; a fitted Lorenz transition correction restricted to the sensitive clean short-time prefix; and a parametric prefix blend for the interpolation task. The resulting system with final public score of 79.63 shows that bounded, scenario-specific updates can outperform broad model replacement on mixed chaotic forecasting benchmarks.

Splitting Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established formalism for modelling and reasoning over debates, with a wide range of applications. However, the high computational complexity of core reasoning tasks in ABA poses a significant challenge for its applicability. This issue is further aggravated when ABA frameworks (ABAFs) are instantiated into graph-based argumentation formalisms, such as Dung's Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs). In knowledge representation and reasoning, a key strategy to address computational intractability is to optimise reasoning over a given knowledge base through divide-and-conquer algorithms. A paradigmatic example of this approach is splitting, where extensions of a given framework are computed incrementally, by restricting the search space to sub-frameworks only, and then combining the obtained results. This approach has been successfully applied to AFs, for which also a parametrised version has been introduced under stable semantics. However, the exponential growth produced by the instantiation might undermine the usefulness of splitting on the argument graphs induced by ABAFs. To address this issue, our work investigates the concept of splitting on the knowledge base rather than on its graph-based instantiation. Furthermore, we generalise splitting to its parametrised version for ABAFs.