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 "bounties in open source development on github a case study of bountysource bounties"):
  Abstract: Due to the voluntary nature of open source software, it can be hard to find a developer to work on a particular task. For example, some issue reports may be too cumbersome and unexciting for someone to volunteer to do them, yet these issue reports may be of high priority to the success of a project. To provide an incentive for implementing such issue reports, one can propose a monetary reward, i.e., a bounty, to the developer who completes that particular task. In this paper, we study bounties in open source projects on GitHub to better understand how bounties can be leveraged to evolve such projects in terms of addressing issue reports. We investigated 5,445 bounties for GitHub projects. These bounties were proposed through the Bountysource platform with a total bounty value of $406,425. We find that 1) in general, the timing of proposing bounties and the bounty-usage frequency are the most important factors that impact the likelihood of an issue being addressed. More specifically, issue reports are more likely to be addressed if they are for projects in which bounties are used more frequently and if they are proposed earlier. 2) The bounty value that an issue report has is the most important factor that impacts the issue-addressing likelihood in the projects in which no bounties were used before. Backers in such projects proposed higher bounty values to get issues addressed. 3) There is a risk of wasting money for backers who invest money on long-standing issue reports.

Includes members:
  Member "given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow revisiting eric raymond with bug bounty programs":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "closing the ai accountability gap defining an end to end framework for internal algorithmic auditing")
  Member "understanding the heterogeneity of contributors in bug bounty programs":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "a bug bounty perspective on the disclosure of web vulnerabilities")

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)