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: "knowledge induced learning with adaptive sampling variational autoencoders for open set fault diagnostics"
  Abstract: The recent increase in the availability of system condition monitoring data has lead to increases in the use of data-driven approaches for fault diagnostics. The accuracy of the fault detection and classification using these approaches is generally good when abundant labelled data on healthy and faulty system conditions exists and the diagnosis problem is formulated as a supervised learning task, i.e. supervised fault diagnosis. It is, however, relatively common in real situations that only a small fraction of the system condition monitoring data are labeled as healthy and the rest is unlabeled due to the uncertainty of the number and type of faults that may occur. In this case, supervised fault diagnosis performs poorly. Fault diagnosis with an unknown number and nature of faults is an open set learning problem where the knowledge of the faulty system is incomplete during training and the number and extent of the faults, of different types, can evolve during testing. In this paper, we propose to formulate the open set diagnostics problem as a semi-supervised learning problem and we demonstrate how it can be solved using a knowledge-induced learning approach with adaptive sampling variational autoencoders (KIL-AdaVAE) in combination with a one-class classifier. The fault detection and segmentation capability of the proposed method is demonstrated on a simulated case study using the Advanced Geared Turbofan 30000 (AGTF30) dynamical model under real flight conditions and induced faults of 17 fault types. The performance of the method is compared to the different learning strategies (supervised learning, supervised learning with embedding and semi-supervised learning) and deep learning algorithms. The results demonstrate that the proposed method is able to significantly outperform all other tested methods in terms of fault detection and fault segmentation.

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.LG(Machine Learning)