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 "understanding and visualizing deep visual saliency models"):
  Abstract: Recently, data-driven deep saliency models have achieved high performance and have outperformed classical saliency models, as demonstrated by results on datasets such as the MIT300 and SALICON. Yet, there remains a large gap between the performance of these models and the inter-human baseline. Some outstanding questions include what have these models learned, how and where they fail, and how they can be improved. This article attempts to answer these questions by analyzing the representations learned by individual neurons located at the intermediate layers of deep saliency models. To this end, we follow the steps of existing deep saliency models, that is borrowing a pre-trained model of object recognition to encode the visual features and learning a decoder to infer the saliency. We consider two cases when the encoder is used as a fixed feature extractor and when it is fine-tuned, and compare the inner representations of the network. To study how the learned representations depend on the task, we fine-tune the same network using the same image set but for two different tasks: saliency prediction versus scene classification. Our analyses reveal that: 1) some visual regions (e.g. head, text, symbol, vehicle) are already encoded within various layers of the network pre-trained for object recognition, 2) using modern datasets, we find that fine-tuning pre-trained models for saliency prediction makes them favor some categories (e.g. head) over some others (e.g. text), 3) although deep models of saliency outperform classical models on natural images, the converse is true for synthetic stimuli (e.g. pop-out search arrays), an evidence of significant difference between human and data-driven saliency models, and 4) we confirm that, after-fine tuning, the change in inner-representations is mostly due to the task and not the domain shift in the data.

Includes members:
  Member "deep visual attention prediction":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "see more know more unsupervised video object segmentation with co attention siamese networks")
  Member "predicting human eye fixations via an lstm based saliency attentive model":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "how much position information do convolutional neural networks encode")
  Member "saliency prediction in the deep learning era an empirical investigation":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "unified image and video saliency modeling")
  Member "end to end saliency mapping via probability distribution prediction":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "stavis spatio temporal audiovisual saliency network")
  Member "network dissection quantifying interpretability of deep visual representations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "grad cam visual explanations from deep networks via gradient based localization")
  Member "saliency revisited analysis of mouse movements versus fixations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "dna deeply supervised nonlinear aggregation for salient object detection")
  Member "salgan visual saliency prediction with generative adversarial networks":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "generative adversarial networks in computer vision a survey and taxonomy")
  Member "a deep spatial contextual long term recurrent convolutional network for saliency detection":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "spatiotemporal knowledge distillation for efficient estimation of aerial video saliency")

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.CV(Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)