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 "to phrase or not to phrase impact of user versus system term dependence upon retrieval"):
  Abstract: When submitting queries to information retrieval (IR) systems, users often have the option of specifying which, if any, of the query terms are heavily dependent on each other and should be treated as a fixed phrase, for instance by placing them between quotes. In addition to such cases where users specify term dependence, automatic ways also exist for IR systems to detect dependent terms in queries. Most IR systems use both user and algorithmic approaches. It is not however clear whether and to what extent user-defined term dependence agrees with algorithmic estimates of term dependence, nor which of the two may fetch higher performance gains. Simply put, is it better to trust users or the system to detect term dependence in queries? To answer this question, we experiment with 101 crowdsourced search engine users and 334 queries (52 train and 282 test TREC queries) and we record 10 assessments per query. We find that (i) user assessments of term dependence differ significantly from algorithmic assessments of term dependence (their overlap is approximately 30%); (ii) there is little agreement among users about term dependence in queries, and this disagreement increases as queries become longer; (iii) the potential retrieval gain that can be fetched by treating term dependence (both user- and system-defined) over a bag of words baseline is reserved to a small subset (approxi-mately 8%) of the queries, and is much higher for low-depth than deep preci-sion measures. Points (ii) and (iii) constitute novel insights into term dependence.

Includes members:
  Member "a study of metrics of distance and correlation between ranked lists for compositionality detection":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "web data mining for public health purposes")
  Member "non compositional term dependence for information retrieval":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "on the compositionality prediction of noun phrases using poincar e embeddings")
  Member "an ir based evaluation framework for web search query segmentation":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)

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.IR(Information Retrieval)