We speculate that the relatively poor performance of the model is due to the lack of Q 3 sites in the training data combined with the significant increase in structural diversity compared to the Q 4 and Q 0 sites. Furthermore, the structures with anomalous Q 3 sites trends as outliers in the training set as well and are not well sampled, which results in poor learning of their structural correlations. In some cases the formula of the material was not seen in the training set nor were there any similar formulas seen which resulted in a poor extrapolation by the MatTEN model. In other cases, the same formula was seen but with minor structural variation, which led to an unfortunate case of MatTEN memorizing the solution poorly.