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 "why is differential evolution better than grid search for tuning defect predictors"):
  Abstract: Context: One of the black arts of data mining is learning the magic parameters which control the learners. In software analytics, at least for defect prediction, several methods, like grid search and differential evolution (DE), have been proposed to learn these parameters, which has been proved to be able to improve the performance scores of learners. #R##N#Objective: We want to evaluate which method can find better parameters in terms of performance score and runtime cost. #R##N#Methods: This paper compares grid search to differential evolution, which is an evolutionary algorithm that makes extensive use of stochastic jumps around the search space. #R##N#Results: We find that the seemingly complete approach of grid search does no better, and sometimes worse, than the stochastic search. When repeated 20 times to check for conclusion validity, DE was over 210 times faster than grid search to tune Random Forests on 17 testing data sets with F-Measure #R##N#Conclusions: These results are puzzling: why does a quick partial search be just as effective as a much slower, and much more, extensive search? To answer that question, we turned to the theoretical optimization literature. Bergstra and Bengio conjecture that grid search is not more effective than more randomized searchers if the underlying search space is inherently low dimensional. This is significant since recent results show that defect prediction exhibits very low intrinsic dimensionality-- an observation that explains why a fast method like DE may work as well as a seemingly more thorough grid search. This suggests, as a future research direction, that it might be possible to peek at data sets before doing any optimization in order to match the optimization algorithm to the problem at hand.

Includes members:
  Member "what is wrong with topic modeling and how to fix it using search based software engineering":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "argulens anatomy of community opinions on usability issues using argumentation models")
  Member "tuning for software analytics":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "how to improve ai tools by adding in se knowledge experiments with the timelime defect reduction tool")

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)