Dear authors, I have been reading this paper these days, and I really admire your pioneering work in the field of heterogeneous graph.
My question is: Does the function or effect of Wϕ(e) and µ<s,e,t> overlap? The explanation of Wϕ(e) in paper is "capture different semantic relations even between the same node type pairs", but in my understanding, µ<s,e,t> also serve this purpose. For example, given two meta relations<s,e1,t> and <s,e2,t>, Wϕ(e) can distinguish between e1 and e2 while µ can between distinguish <s,e1,t> and <s,e2,t>, but doesn't distinguishing between <s,e1,t> and <s,e2,t> mean that you also distinguish between e1 and e2 at same time? So I hope you can explain the difference between Wϕ(e) and µ according to my confusion. In addition, I would like to know whether you have done relevant experiments to verify that Wϕ(e) and µ are both indispensable? if not, I'd like to try to do this, such as just keeping one of them.
I would appreciate your response!
Dear authors, I have been reading this paper these days, and I really admire your pioneering work in the field of heterogeneous graph.
My question is: Does the function or effect of Wϕ(e) and µ<s,e,t> overlap? The explanation of Wϕ(e) in paper is "capture different semantic relations even between the same node type pairs", but in my understanding, µ<s,e,t> also serve this purpose. For example, given two meta relations<s,e1,t> and <s,e2,t>, Wϕ(e) can distinguish between e1 and e2 while µ can between distinguish <s,e1,t> and <s,e2,t>, but doesn't distinguishing between <s,e1,t> and <s,e2,t> mean that you also distinguish between e1 and e2 at same time? So I hope you can explain the difference between Wϕ(e) and µ according to my confusion. In addition, I would like to know whether you have done relevant experiments to verify that Wϕ(e) and µ are both indispensable? if not, I'd like to try to do this, such as just keeping one of them.
I would appreciate your response!