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 "doing agile versus being agile empirical results from 250 projects"):
  Abstract: In numerous occasions Agile practitioners have warned about the negative aspects of adopting Agile tools and techniques, without implementing the primary practices of Agile. They have coined this observation as "doing" Agile, but not "being" Agile. However such warnings are opinion-based, as Agile practitioners have provided little to no empirical evidence that supports their recommendations. We mine 150 open source software (OSS) and 123 proprietary projects to investigate if empirical evidence exists for the phenomenon: "doing" Agile, but not "being" Agile. In particular, we investigate if the Agile technique of continuous integration (CI) influences bug and issue resolution, as well as commit patterns. According to our empirical analysis, for OSS projects, we observe the expected benefits after CI adoption, i.e., more bugs are resolved, and more issues are resolved. However, for the proprietary projects, we cannot make similar observations. Furthermore, we observe proprietary projects to "do" Agile, but not "be" Agile, as these projects use CI tools, without implementing the primary Agile practices for example, making frequent commits. We recommend practitioners not to use Agile techniques such as CI, without adopting the necessary practices.

Includes members:
  Member "we don t need another hero the impact of heroes on software development":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "the changing nature of computational science software")
  Member "on the naturalness of buggy code":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "big code big vocabulary open vocabulary models for source code")
  Member "categorizing bugs with social networks a case study on four open source software communities":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "assessing the quality of the steps to reproduce in bug reports")

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)