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: "subjective annotation for a frame interpolation benchmark using artifact amplification"
  Abstract: Current benchmarks for optical flow algorithms evaluate the estimation either directly by comparing the predicted flow fields with the ground truth or indirectly by using the predicted flow fields for frame interpolation and then comparing the interpolated frames with the actual frames. In the latter case, objective quality measures such as the mean squared error are typically employed. However, it is well known that for image quality assessment, the actual quality experienced by the user cannot be fully deduced from such simple measures. Hence, we conducted a subjective quality assessment crowdscouring study for the interpolated frames provided by one of the optical flow benchmarks, the Middlebury benchmark. It contains interpolated frames from 155 methods applied to each of 8 contents. We collected forced choice paired comparisons between interpolated images and corresponding ground truth. To increase the sensitivity of observers when judging minute difference in paired comparisons we introduced a new method to the field of full-reference quality assessment, called artifact amplification. From the crowdsourcing data we reconstructed absolute quality scale values according to Thurstone's model. As a result, we obtained a re-ranking of the 155 participating algorithms w.r.t. the visual quality of the interpolated frames. This re-ranking not only shows the necessity of visual quality assessment as another evaluation metric for optical flow and frame interpolation benchmarks, the results also provide the ground truth for designing novel image quality assessment (IQA) methods dedicated to perceptual quality of interpolated images. As a first step, we proposed such a new full-reference method, called WAE-IQA. By weighing the local differences between an interpolated image and its ground truth WAE-IQA performed slightly better than the currently best FR-IQA approach from the literature.

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.CV(Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)