human: Given a node-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where nodes represent papers and hyperedges represent sets of papers co-cited by a source paper.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center node: "exploring how component factors and their uncertainty affect judgements of risk in cyber security"
  Abstract: Subjective judgements from experts provide essential information when assessing and modelling threats in respect to cyber-physical systems. For example, the vulnerability of individual system components can be described using multiple factors, such as complexity, technological maturity, and the availability of tools to aid an attack. Such information is useful for determining attack risk, but much of it is challenging to acquire automatically and instead must be collected through expert assessments. However, most experts inherently carry some degree of uncertainty in their assessments. For example, it is impossible to be certain precisely how many tools are available to aid an attack. Traditional methods of capturing subjective judgements through choices such as \emph{high}, \emph{medium} or \emph{low} do not enable experts to quantify their uncertainty. However, it is important to measure the range of uncertainty surrounding responses in order to appropriately inform system vulnerability analysis. We use a recently introduced interval-valued response-format to capture uncertainty in experts' judgements and employ inferential statistical approaches to analyse the data. We identify key attributes that contribute to hop vulnerability in cyber-systems and demonstrate the value of capturing the uncertainty around these attributes. We find that this uncertainty is not only predictive of uncertainty in the overall vulnerability of a given system component, but also significantly informs ratings of overall component vulnerability itself. We propose that these methods and associated insights can be employed in real world situations, including vulnerability assessments of cyber-physical systems, which are becoming increasingly complex and integrated into society, making them particularly susceptible to uncertainty in assessment.

Question: Please tell me which class the center node 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.CR(Cryptography and Security)