We are very grateful to the three reviewers for their careful reading of our paper and for their insightful comments and

Our responses are below with the reviewers' comments in italics. "The paper needs more details on the experiments..." "Give a clearer motivation for how embeddings were constrained in 4.1...the authors do not show why this We make no claim that this particular solution subset is optimal (or even at all good). "Fig 2 (a,b), the red lines do not match when "Fig 3, results for upper triangular ...have better performance than diagonal ones...[Intuition?]...What are red's craving in answering the "meta question" of why embeddings work. To our knowledge we are the first to do this. "Previous methodologies...implicity address [non-identifiability] already, as they place implicit constraints (like But U and V are non-square so cannot be symmetric.