Beyond Scaffold Splits: Structural-Frontier Evaluation Reveals Hidden Failures in ADMET Models

Abstract

Molecular property models are commonly evaluated by holding out Bemis-Murcko scaffolds, yet a scaffold identifier is only one notion of chemical unfamiliarity. We introduce a label-free structural-frontier split that reserves the sparsest and most physicochemically remote scaffold groups, and evaluate it on six public experimental or curated ADMET tasks. Against a 70/10/20 scaffold control with identical acyclic grouping, the frontier inflates equally weighted primary error with a taskwise median of 87.0% and a skew-sensitive mean of 130.3% (descriptive task/seed bootstrap interval, 52.1-246.0%). The mean falls to 75.9% once BBB is removed; that endpoint is the one whose score ranking inverts at the frontier. A message-passing graph-network control still shows a large gap (mean 82.8% over four tasks) and does not invert, so a low-capacity head does not explain the effect. We also test Multi-View Frontier Risk Extrapolation (MV-FREX), a count-adjusted tail-risk penalty over four molecular views, and treat it as a falsifiable probe. It changes normalized frontier error by only 0.16% relative to empirical risk minimization for the perceptron head (interval, -0.43-0.84%) and by -1.9% for the graph network; three fixed robust-penalty controls are likewise inconclusive. Against the published Lo-Hi and DataSAIL splitters, the frontier inflates error more on average, though no split is uniformly hardest. An audit of 31,561 marine natural products further shows that OOD status and agreement with legacy ADMET predictions depend on the molecular view, endpoint, and teacher coverage. Split construction and label provenance are important evaluation constraints in their own right, and the tested training penalties do not resolve the frontier failures we observe.