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 "humans and deep networks largely agree on which kinds of variation make object recognition harder"):
  Abstract: View-invariant object recognition is a challenging problem that has attracted much attention among the psychology, neuroscience, and computer vision communities. Humans are notoriously good at it, even if some variations are presumably more difficult to handle than others (e.g. 3D rotations). Humans are thought to solve the problem through hierarchical processing along the ventral stream, which progressively extracts more and more invariant visual features. This feed-forward architecture has inspired a new generation of bio-inspired computer vision systems called deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN), which are currently the best models for object recognition in natural images. Here, for the first time, we systematically compared human feed-forward vision and DCNNs at view-invariant object recognition task using the same set of images and controlling the kinds of transformation (position, scale, rotation in plane, and rotation in depth) as well as their magnitude, which we call "variation level". We used four object categories: car, ship, motorcycle, and animal. In total, 89 human subjects participated in 10 experiments in which they had to discriminate between two or four categories after rapid presentation with backward masking. We also tested two recent DCNNs (proposed respectively by Hinton's group and Zisserman's group) on the same tasks. We found that humans and DCNNs largely agreed on the relative difficulties of each kind of variation: rotation in depth is by far the hardest transformation to handle, followed by scale, then rotation in plane, and finally position (much easier). This suggests that DCNNs would be reasonable models of human feed-forward vision. In addition, our results show that the variation levels in rotation in depth and scale strongly modulate both humans' and DCNNs' recognition performances. We thus argue that these variations should be controlled in the image datasets used in vision research.

Includes members:
  Member "bio inspired unsupervised learning of visual features leads to robust invariant object recognition":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "a deep unsupervised feature learning spiking neural network with binarized classification layers for emnist classification")
  Member "deep networks can resemble human feed forward vision in invariant object recognition":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "deep learning in spiking neural networks")
  Member "deep learning in neural networks":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "π nets deep polynomial neural networks")
  Member "deep neural networks are easily fooled high confidence predictions for unrecognizable images":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "sam the sensitivity of attribution methods to hyperparameters")
  Member "very deep convolutional networks for large scale image recognition":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "discrimination aware network pruning for deep model compression")
  Member "caffe convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "object detection in optical remote sensing images a survey and a new benchmark")
  Member "the neural representation benchmark and its evaluation on brain and machine":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "psyphy a psychophysics driven evaluation framework for visual recognition")

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)