aiqbench analysis
This research critically examines how biases in protein-protein interaction datasets cause machine learning models to learn technical shortcuts rather than genuine biological signals. By analyzing major databases like HIPPIE and STRING, the authors demonstrate that standard data splitting methods often introduce topological artifacts that degrade model performance. The study provides an open-source pipeline using optimization-based negative sampling to detect and mitigate these biases, offering a robust framework for improving the reliability of AI in computational biology.
Are You Learning Biological Signal or Shortcuts? Auditing and Mitigating Bias in Protein-Protein Interaction Datasets
arXiv:2609.10193v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Protein-protein interaction (PPI) databases do not faithfully reflect biological realities. Instead, they are influenced by study and technical biases that distort certain protein and interaction attributes. Machine learning models can exploit these as learning shortcuts if the negative dataset is not constructed with care. So far, the shortcuts introduced during PPI dataset construction have only been examined in isolation. Here, we systematically characterize both reported and, to our knowledge, previously unreported biases in PPI datasets that lead machine learning models to learn shortcuts instead of biological signal. We analyze HIPPIE, IntAct, and STRING, dedicated PPI databases, as well as two datasets derived from 3D-structural information in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). We show that random data splitting introduces strong topological shortcuts. When train-test protein overlap is removed, the resulting datasets still retain usable shortcuts stemming from self-interactions, taxonomic identity, and functional relatedness, whose prevalence interestingly depends on the data source. We further show that sampling negatives from a set of high-confidence non-interactors, an intuitively appealing choice, can amplify the shortcut stemming from functional relatedness. To detect and mitigate these biases, we provide an open Nextflow pipeline that combines similarity-aware, data-loss-minimizing dataset splitting with bias-minimizing negative sampling, both formulated as integer linear programs. Its key concept of quantifying biases to minimize them through optimization-based negative sampling can, in principle, be extended to any machine learning problem where the pool of negative candidates is much larger than the positives and is thus of interest also beyond PPI prediction.
Title:Are You Learning Biological Signal or Shortcuts? Auditing and Mitigating Bias in Protein-Protein Interaction Datasets
Abstract:Protein-protein interaction (PPI) databases do not faithfully reflect biological realities. Instead, they are influenced by study and technical biases that distort certain protein and interaction attributes. Machine learning models can exploit these as learning shortcuts if the negative dataset is not constructed with care. So far, the shortcuts introduced during PPI dataset construction have only been examined in isolation. Here, we systematically characterize both reported and, to our knowledge, previously unreported biases in PPI datasets that lead machine learning models to learn shortcuts instead of biological signal. We analyze HIPPIE, IntAct, and STRING, dedicated PPI databases, as well as two datasets derived from 3D-structural information in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). We show that random data splitting introduces strong topological shortcuts. When train-test protein overlap is removed, the resulting datasets still retain usable shortcuts stemming from self-interactions, taxonomic identity, and functional relatedness, whose prevalence interestingly depends on the data source. We further show that sampling negatives from a set of high-confidence non-interactors, an intuitively appealing choice, can amplify the shortcut stemming from functional relatedness. To detect and mitigate these biases, we provide an open Nextflow pipeline that combines similarity-aware, data-loss-minimizing dataset splitting with bias-minimizing negative sampling, both formulated as integer linear programs. Its key concept of quantifying biases to minimize them through optimization-based negative sampling can, in principle, be extended to any machine learning problem where the pool of negative candidates is much larger than the positives and is thus of interest also beyond PPI prediction.
Molecular Networks (q-bio.MN); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.10193 [q-bio.MN]
(or arXiv:2609.10193v1 [q-bio.MN] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.10193 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 358 words
Related coverage

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jun 7, 2026

AI in healthcare: applications and best practices
Databricks · Jul 24, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

Why You Shouldn’t Always Trust LLMs as Judges: Understanding Bias in Automated Evaluation
Analytics Vidhya · Aug 12, 2026