Back

Auditing Protein-Protein Interaction Signals with Sparse Autoencoder Fingerprints

Zhu, W.; Wang, S.; Liu, X.; Xue, Y.; Shen, H.-B.; Chen, B.; Pan, X.

2026-10-02 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.09.27.754758 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Protein language models have become a dominant foundation for sequence-based protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction, but their generalization remains limited under stringent evaluation, and benchmark accuracy alone cannot reveal whether a PPI predictor learns partner-specific biological signals or exploits contextual shortcuts. Here we introduce AuditPPI, an interpretable framework that transforms sparse-autoencoder (SAE) features from a frozen protein language model into order-invariant pair fingerprints, recasting PPI prediction as an auditable tabular-learning problem. AuditPPI achieves competitive predictive performance across diverse PPI benchmarks while enabling multiscale auditing of the information supporting its predictions. Protein-level audits show that partner-independent participation signals remain substantial in conventional benchmarks, including protein-disjoint benchmark, but are largely insufficient for pair-level discrimination in topology- and degree-controlled benchmark. Pair-level analyses further show that removing protein identity overlap does not eliminate contextual structure: protein-disjoint benchmarking retains strong subcellular co-localization signals and benchmark-dependent feature matching captured by SAE co-activation and absolute-difference. Structural analyses, however, provide little evidence that these predictive signals are specifically grounded in PPI interfaces: feature enrichment at interfaces for protein-disjoint benchmark was no longer detectable after controlling for surface exposure, and contact-specific enrichment was observed for only a small fraction of testable SAE feature pairs. AuditPPI therefore separates predictive success from mechanistic fidelity and provides a practical framework for evaluating whether sequence-based PPI predictors capture partner-specific biological signals instead of contextual shortcuts.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.