Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Temporal knowledge graph forecasting aims to infer future relational facts from the temporal structure of observed events. Existing forecasters mainly summarize history through entity states, relation states, paths, or exact recurrence. These views often miss pair-specific transition evidence, that is, the way prior relations between the query actor and a candidate change the odds of the target relation. We introduce BridgeMem, which estimates this quantity as a residual added to the log scores of a frozen full-vocabulary forecaster. For each candidate, BridgeMem retrieves the pair's events that strictly precede t, encodes their relations, directions, and lags, and converts them into a likelihood-ratio correction. A support-adaptive empirical-Bayes reader trusts exact transition counts where they are abundant and backs off to a learned attention estimator where they are sparse. The backbone's own uncertainty gates the correction, so confident queries and candidates without dyadic history are left unchanged. On five benchmarks, BridgeMem improves on the strongest of nine baselines from 2021--2026 in all 20 filtered MRR and Hits@{1,3,10} comparisons, with MRR gains of 0.0213, 0.0164, 0.0216, 0.0112, and 0.0028 over the best prior result. These results show the value of explicit dyadic transition modeling.