Response to Reviewer Comments on Fairness of Numerical Comparisons

///'Thank you for your insightful review and for pointing out the issue of unfair comparisons in our numerical tests. We appreciate your attention to detail and agree that the chosen auxiliary parameters for different regularization methods can significantly impact the results. //n//nWe selected different ///'//u03b2///' values for each method (Fig. 5 (c) and Fig. 5 (d)) to ensure a fair comparison by optimizing the performance of each method under its specific parameter settings. While this approach allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the methods, we recognize that it may lead to seemingly unfair comparisons due to varying parameters. //n//nYou are correct that the choice of auxiliary parameters can have a substantial impact on the inversion results, and we acknowledge this in our manuscript by emphasizing the importance of parameter selection and discussing the potential influence on experimental results. //n//nWe appreciate your feedback and recognize the need for more controlled comparisons. In the revised manuscript, we will address your concerns by either re-evaluating the methods using a consistent set of auxiliary parameters or conducting additional experiments to explicitly demonstrate the impact of parameter variation on the results. We believe this will enhance the clarity and robustness of our findings. //n//nWe are committed to addressing your concerns and ensuring a fair and rigorous evaluation of our methods. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.///