human: Given a hyperedge-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where the center hyperedge is induced by one source paper and its member nodes are the cited papers.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center hyperedge (induced by source paper "on building an automated responding system for app reviews what are the characteristics of reviews and their responses"):
  Abstract: Recent studies showed that the dialogs between app developers and app users on app stores are important to increase user satisfaction and app's overall ratings. However, the large volume of reviews and the limitation of resources discourage app developers from engaging with customers through this channel. One solution to this problem is to develop an Automated Responding System for developers to respond to app reviews in a manner that is most similar to a human response. Toward designing such system, we have conducted an empirical study of the characteristics of mobile apps' reviews and their human-written responses. We found that an app reviews can have multiple fragments at sentence level with different topics and intentions. Similarly, a response also can be divided into multiple fragments with unique intentions to answer certain parts of their review (e.g., complaints, requests, or information seeking). We have also identified several characteristics of review (rating, topics, intentions, quantitative text feature) that can be used to rank review by their priority of need for response. In addition, we identified the degree of re-usability of past responses is based on their context (single app, apps of the same category, and their common features). Last but not least, a responses can be reused in another review if some parts of it can be replaced by a placeholder that is either a named-entity or a hyperlink. Based on those findings, we discuss the implications of developing an Automated Responding System to help mobile apps' developers write the responses for users reviews more effectively.

Includes members:
  Member "topics of concern identifying user issues in reviews of iot apps and devices":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "mining user opinions in mobile app reviews a keyword based approach":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "automating app review response generation")

Question: Please tell me which class the source paper belongs to. The 40 classes are: cs.NA(Numerical Analysis), cs.MM(Multimedia), cs.LO(Logic in Computer Science), cs.CY(Computers and Society), cs.CR(Cryptography and Security), cs.DC(Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing), cs.HC(Human-Computer Interaction), cs.CE(Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science), cs.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture), cs.CC(Computational Complexity), cs.AI(Artificial Intelligence), cs.MA(Multiagent Systems), cs.GL(General Literature), cs.NE(Neural and Evolutionary Computing), cs.SC(Symbolic Computation), cs.AR(Hardware Architecture), cs.CV(Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition), cs.GR(Graphics), cs.ET(Emerging Technologies), cs.SY(Systems and Control), cs.CG(Computational Geometry), cs.OH(Other Computer Science), cs.PL(Programming Languages), cs.SE(Software Engineering), cs.LG(Machine Learning), cs.SD(Sound), cs.SI(Social and Information Networks), cs.RO(Robotics), cs.IT(Information Theory), cs.PF(Performance), cs.CL(Computation and Language), cs.IR(Information Retrieval), cs.MS(Mathematical Software), cs.FL(Formal Languages and Automata Theory), cs.DS(Data Structures and Algorithms), cs.OS(Operating Systems), cs.GT(Computer Science and Game Theory), cs.DB(Databases), cs.DL(Digital Libraries), cs.DM(Discrete Mathematics). Directly output the class name.

gpt: cs.SE(Software Engineering)