Dear Reviewers,

We sincerely thank both reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive feedback throughout the review process. We are grateful that the revised version has been positively received.

Response to Reviewer #1:
We appreciate your recognition that the revised manuscript has more clearly positioned the paper as a first-step benchmark framework aimed at promoting reproducibility, extensibility, and systematic evaluation. We are encouraged that you now consider the paper acceptable in its current form. Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which helped us improve the clarity and framing of the work.

Response to Reviewer #2:
Thank you for your positive assessment and for acknowledging that your previous comments were adequately addressed. We are especially grateful for your recognition that, while the benchmark is currently limited, it represents an original and important first step that is worth publishing.

We also appreciate your effort to test the code and your note regarding the dependency issue on your M1 Mac environment, specifically the conflict involving torch 2.11.0 and setuptools 82.0.1. Thank you for pointing this out and for sharing the ancillary error information. We are glad that the setup process was nevertheless improved by the installation changes made during revision, including the scipy-related fixes. We will continue working to improve the robustness and portability of the codebase in future updates.

Once again, we thank both reviewers for their valuable feedback and support. Their comments have significantly strengthened the paper.

Sincerely,
The Authors
