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 "the human body is a black box supporting clinical decision making with deep learning"):
  Abstract: Machine learning technologies are increasingly developed for use in healthcare. While research communities have focused on creating state-of-the-art models, there has been less focus on real world implementation and the associated challenges to accuracy, fairness, accountability, and transparency that come from actual, situated use. Serious questions remain under examined regarding how to ethically build models, interpret and explain model output, recognize and account for biases, and minimize disruptions to professional expertise and work cultures. We address this gap in the literature and provide a detailed case study covering the development, implementation, and evaluation of Sepsis Watch, a machine learning-driven tool that assists hospital clinicians in the early diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. We, the team that developed and evaluated the tool, discuss our conceptualization of the tool not as a model deployed in the world but instead as a socio-technical system requiring integration into existing social and professional contexts. Rather than focusing on model interpretability to ensure a fair and accountable machine learning, we point toward four key values and practices that should be considered when developing machine learning to support clinical decision-making: rigorously define the problem in context, build relationships with stakeholders, respect professional discretion, and create ongoing feedback loops with stakeholders. Our work has significant implications for future research regarding mechanisms of institutional accountability and considerations for designing machine learning systems. Our work underscores the limits of model interpretability as a solution to ensure transparency, accuracy, and accountability in practice. Instead, our work demonstrates other means and goals to achieve FATML values in design and in practice.

Includes members:
  Member "tutorial safe and reliable machine learning":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "data invariants on trust in data driven systems")
  Member "model cards for model reporting":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "explainability fact sheets a framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches")
  Member "explaining explanations in ai":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "exploratory not explanatory counterfactual analysis of saliency maps for deep reinforcement learning")
  Member "problem formulation and fairness":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "no computation without representation avoiding data and algorithm biases through diversity")
  Member "variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs a cross sectional study":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "right for the wrong scientific reasons revising deep networks by interacting with their explanations")
  Member "explanation in artificial intelligence insights from the social sciences":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "causal interpretability for machine learning problems methods and evaluation")
  Member "modeling missing data in clinical time series with rnns":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "why not to use zero imputation correcting sparsity bias in training neural networks")
  Member "the mythos of model interpretability":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "causal interpretability for machine learning problems methods and evaluation")

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.CY(Computers and Society)