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 "cascades a view from audience"):
  Abstract: Cascades on social and information networks have been a tremendously popular subject of study in the past decade, and there is a considerable literature on phenomena such as diffusion mechanisms, virality, cascade prediction, and peer network effects. Against the backdrop of this research, a basic question has received comparatively little attention: how desirable are cascades on a social media platform from the point of view of users' While versions of this question have been considered from the perspective of the producers of cascades, any answer to this question must also take into account the effect of cascades on their audience --- the viewers of the cascade who do not directly participate in generating the content that launched it. In this work, we seek to fill this gap by providing a consumer perspective of information cascades.#R##N##R##N#Users on social and information networks play the dual role of producers and consumers, and our work focuses on how users perceive cascades as consumers. Starting from this perspective, we perform an empirical study of the interaction of Twitter users with retweet cascades. We measure how often users observe retweets in their home timeline, and observe a phenomenon that we term the Impressions Paradox: the share of impressions for cascades of size k decays much more slowly than frequency of cascades of size k. Thus, the audience for cascades can be quite large even for rare large cascades. We also measure audience engagement with retweet cascades in comparison to non-retweeted or organic content. Our results show that cascades often rival or exceed organic content in engagement received per impression. This result is perhaps surprising in that consumers didn't opt in to see tweets from these authors. Furthermore, although cascading content is widely popular, one would expect it to eventually reach parts of the audience that may not be interested in the content. Motivated by the tension in these empirical findings, we posit a simple theoretical model that focuses on the effect of cascades on the audience (rather than the cascade producers). Our results on this model highlight the balance between retweeting as a high-quality content selection mechanism and the role of network users in filtering irrelevant content. In particular, the results suggest that together these two effects enable the audience to consume a high quality stream of content in the presence of cascades.

Includes members:
  Member "bieber blast bieberblast early prediction of popular hashtag compounds":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "competing topic naming conventions in quora predicting appropriate topic merges and winning topics from millions of topic pairs")
  Member "can cascades be predicted":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "deep collaborative embedding for information cascade prediction")
  Member "bigbirds never die understanding social dynamics of emergent hashtag":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "language in our time an empirical analysis of hashtags")
  Member "you had me at hello how phrasing affects memorability":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "movie plot analysis via turning point identification")
  Member "on the interplay between social and topical structure":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "modeling information diffusion in online social networks with partial differential equations")

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.SI(Social and Information Networks)