Confused about ablation table in the paper

[ulupo]

Hi, cool work! I was reading your paper carefully and became extremely confused at the interpretation of your ablation results. I paste the table from Biorxiv below for convenience:

Normally, an ablation study means "remove one component, keep everything else the same". Under this interpretation, removing e.g. the focal loss does not have the largest negative impact, unless maybe you are only looking at the CAAR metric for all CDR predictions. But this is what is claimed in the text. Similar other commentary in section 3.5 does not line up with the numbers reported in the table. Clearly I am not interpreting the table correctly. Then, what is the intended interpretation? Thank you in advance!

[benyaminjami]

Thank you for noting this issue, and excuse me for the delayed response. You’re absolutely right—there was a discrepancy as we hadn't updated the explanation to match the latest results in the ablation study. I recently revised the manuscript to correct this and ensure that the commentary now accurately reflects the data. I appreciate your careful reading and bringing this to our attention!