We thank Chikina, Frieze, and Pegden for their reply to our article. We offer just a short clarification rejoinder. In particular, we would like to be clear that we are not challenging the CFP test as a partisan gerrymandering test. We also do not “cast doubt” on the CFP paper. We have clearly stated that “we take no issues with the mathematics behind the CFP theorem or its proof.” In addition, we do not “prefer” one partisan gerrymandering test over another or advocate a single test. We firmly believe that there is plenty of room for multiple partisan gerrymandering tests. In this space, one test need not be “worse” than another. At the same time, it is indisputable that whether the CFP test would constitute a legal test for partisan gerrymandering is a legal question for the courts to decide. Legal questions cannot be decided by mathematicians. Mathematicians may make proposals, but judges decide whether to accept those proposals. Our point is simply that judges must clearly understand the mathematical concepts (even if not the mathematical details) in order to make a reasoned judgment. However, when the science is unclear, we have only miscommunication, from which no one benefits.

中文翻译：

---

重新加入“了解我们的马尔可夫链重要性检验”

我们感谢Chikina，Frieze和Pegden对我们的文章的答复。我们仅提供简短的澄清说明。特别要指出的是，我们并没有挑战CFP测试作为游击队游击队员测试。我们也不会在CFP文件上“怀疑”。我们已经明确指出：“对于CFP定理或其证明背后的数学，我们不存在任何疑问。” 此外，我们不会“偏爱”一个游击队游击队员测试，而不是主张一个游击队员测试。我们坚信，有足够的空间进行多个游击队格调测试。在这种情况下，一个测试不必比另一个测试“更糟糕”。同时，毋庸置疑的是，CFP测试是否将构成对党派共舞的法律测试，这是法院决定的法律问题。法律问题不能由数学家决定。数学家可能会提出建议，但法官会决定是否接受那些建议。我们的观点仅仅是，法官必须清楚地理解数学概念（即使不是数学细节），才能做出合理的判断。但是，当科学不清楚时，我们只会出现沟通不畅的情况，没有人会从中受益。