We compared the standard correction and the 110% PBE correction to results from the r2SCAN exchange-correlation functional. r2SCAN is believed to be more accurate than PBE, but it is five times as computationally expensive. We fit our linear method with a correction for each of the Hubbard U elements (discussed in more detail in the supplemental information, called the 110% PBE method) to the experimental data. Then, we applied both the 110% PBE method and the standard correction method to the r2SCAN data. Figure shows that the 110% PBE model outperforms the standard correction method by about a factor of two with respect to the mean absolute difference (MAD). Furthermore, the 110% PBE method compares to experiment only marginally worse than the much more expensive r2SCAN. The MAD between r2SCAN and experiment is 0.082 eV/atom, and the MAD between the 110% PBE model and experiment is 0.096 eV/atom. So, for use cases where computational expense is a factor, applying our correction to PBE may be preferable to using r2SCAN. It seems possible that the biggest benefit of SCAN is that the slope is closer to one, which avoids the need for additive corrections. Work by Kingsbury et. al. discusses the value of being able to mix results from PBE and r2SCAN . We suggest that applying the 110% PBE correction method to the PBE data is a good first step toward this end goal.