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: "expected improvement versus predicted value in surrogate based optimization"
  Abstract: Surrogate-based optimization relies on so-called infill criteria (acquisition functions) to decide which point to evaluate next. When Kriging is used as the surrogate model of choice (also called Bayesian optimization), then one of the most frequently chosen criteria is expected improvement. Yet, we argue that the popularity of expected improvement largely relies on its theoretical properties rather than empirically validated performance. A few select results from the literature show evidence, that under certain conditions, expected improvement may perform worse than something as simple as the predicted value of a surrogate model. #R##N#Both infill criteria are benchmarked in an extensive empirical study on the `BBOB' function set. Importantly, this investigation includes a detailed study of the impact of problem dimensionality on algorithm performance. The results support the hypothesis that exploration loses importance with increasing problem dimensionality. A statistical analysis reveals that the purely exploitative search with the predicted value criterion performs better on most problems of five or more dimensions. Possible reasons for these results are discussed. We give an in-depth guide for choosing between both infill criteria based on a priori knowledge about a given problem, its dimensionality, and the available evaluation budget.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "epsilon shotgun epsilon greedy batch bayesian optimisation"):
  with members:
    - "sampling acquisition functions for batch bayesian optimization"
    - "greed is good exploration and exploitation trade offs in bayesian optimisation"
    - "efficient nonmyopic bayesian optimization and quadrature"
    - "bayesian optimization in alphago"
    - "active model learning and diverse action sampling for task and motion planning"
    - "parallel predictive entropy search for batch global optimization of expensive objective functions"

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.NE(Neural and Evolutionary Computing)