A more detailed breakdown of the correlations into the different scaffolds (Figure ) shows that the highest 𝑅 2 of 0.82 is obtained for dicyclopenta[a,e]cyclooctene, while the lowest is obtained for bowtiene with 0.07. For recall, the corresponding range is 0.92 for zurlene to 0.01 for phenazulene. The wide range in 𝑅 and recall further reinforces that the method struggles with some particular compounds classes despite its favorable global performance. Also, there seems to be no clear performance difference between alternant and non-alternant molecules, as we speculated above based on the results for azaphenalenes and azaazulenes. Despite these problems, the method is able to capture inverted molecules in 15 out of the 15 scaffolds where they occur. Even for the azulenes included in this screening set at least some candidates are found, in contrast to the findings above for the azaazulenes. The per-scaffold oscillator strengths are arguably sufficiently good to allow for local screening in some cases (Figure ). The per-scaffold S 1 and T 1 excitation energies can be found in Figure and Figure , respectively. Notable failures are seen for cyclobuta-1,3-diene with 𝑅 2 of 0.29 and 0.27, respectively. Additionally, phenazulene and dicyclopenta[a,c]cyclooctene show some negative T 1 excitation energies, indicating restricted-unrestricted instabilities. A closer inspection of the dataset reveals that 145 out of 68690 calculated compounds show negative triplet excitation energies (0.21%, see Table ). This can be compared to 0.78% for the azaphenalenes and 0.00% for the azulenes (Figure and Table ). Broken down over scaffolds, the results indicate that some of the outliers in the calculated Δ𝐸 ST might be explained this way (Figure ), although the absolute numbers are very small compared to the total number of compounds.