However, we stress that here we achieved this comparable performance without excluding any cases, whereas previously the errors were only for the better active spaces. Without excluding poor active spaces, our previous scheme returns a tPBE0 mean absolute error of error of 0.40 eV, more than twice as large as for the subset. We next evaluate the usefulness of variational selection with tPBE for the problem of comparing active spaces of vastly different sizes. To do this, we use the publicly available SA-CASSCF wave functions of our previous benchmark study, but here not excluding Although we have emphasized the excitation energies calculated by tPBE0, examination of the above results shows that tPBE excitation energies are -on average -only slightly worse. Another conclusion that can be drawn from the above comparisons is that tPBE and tPBE0 excitation energy calculations are not overly sensitive to the nature of the multiconfigurational wave functions. We obtain good results both with the selection among four DMRG wave functions and with the selection among five trial wave functions, although in the latter case the DMRG wave function is not usually the one chosen. Therefore, for the great majority of the excitations, we get good results with MC-PDFT and HMC-PDFT with quite different kinds of multiconfigurational wave functions.