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 "fixminer mining relevant fix patterns for automated program repair"):
  Abstract: Code comprehension is critical in software maintenance. Towards providing tools and approaches to support maintenance tasks, researchers have investigated various research lines related to how software code can be described in an abstract form. So far, studies on change pattern mining, code clone detection, or semantic patch inference have mainly adopted text-, token- and tree-based representations as the basis for computing similarity among code fragments. Although, in general, existing techniques form clusters of "similar" code, our experience in patch mining has revealed that clusters of patches formed by such techniques do not usually carry explainable semantics that can be associated to bug-fixing patterns. In this paper, we propose a novel, automated approach for mining semantically-relevant fix patterns based on an iterative, three-fold, clustering strategy. Our technique, FixMiner, leverages different tree representations for each round of clustering: the Abstract syntax tree, the edit actions tree, and the code context tree. We have evaluated FixMiner on thousands of software patches collected from open source projects. Preliminary results show that we are able to mine accurate patterns, efficiently exploiting change information in AST diff trees. Eventually, FixMiner yields patterns which can be associated to the semantics of the bugs that the associated patches address. We further leverage the mined patterns to implement an automated program repair pipeline with which we are able to correctly fix 25 bugs from the Defects4J benchmark. Beyond this quantitative performance, we show that the mined fix patterns are sufficiently relevant to produce patches with a high probability of correctness: 80% of FixMiner's generated plausible patches are correct, while the closest related works, namely HDRepair and SimFix, achieve respectively 26% and 70% of correctness.

Includes members:
  Member "d c a divide and conquer approach to ir based bug localization":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "ifixr bug report driven program repair")
  Member "tbar revisiting template based automated program repair":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "ifixr bug report driven program repair")
  Member "ifixr bug report driven program repair":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "avatar fixing semantic bugs with fix patterns of static analysis violations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "ifixr bug report driven program repair")
  Member "automatic software repair a bibliography":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "a recurrent neural network based patch recommender for linux kernel bugs")
  Member "automatic repair of real bugs in java a large scale experiment on the defects4j dataset":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "e apr mapping the effectiveness of automated program repair")
  Member "ultra large repair search space with automatically mined templates the cardumen mode of astor":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "e apr mapping the effectiveness of automated program repair")
  Member "you cannot fix what you cannot find an investigation of fault localization bias in benchmarking automated program repair systems":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "explaining deep neural networks using spectrum based fault localization")

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)