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: "on the utility of context or the lack thereof for object detection"
  Abstract: The recurring context in which objects appear holds valuable information that can be employed to predict their existence. This intuitive observation indeed led many researchers to endow appearance-based detectors with explicit reasoning about context. The underlying thesis suggests that with stronger contextual relations, the better improvement in detection capacity one can expect from such a combined approach. In practice, however, the observed improvement in many case is modest at best, and often only marginal. In this work we seek to understand this phenomenon better, in part by pursuing an opposite approach. Instead of going from context to detection score, we formulate the score as a function of standard detector results and contextual relations, an approach that allows to treat the utility of context as an optimization problem in order to obtain the largest gain possible from considering context in the first place. Analyzing different contextual relations reveals the most helpful ones and shows that in many cases including context can help while in other cases a significant improvement is simply impossible or impractical. To better understand these results we then analyze the ability of context to handle different types of false detections, revealing that contextual information cannot ameliorate localization errors, which in turn also diminish the observed improvement obtained by correcting other types of errors. These insights provide further explanations and better understanding regarding the success or failure of utilizing context for object detection.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "on the importance of visual context for data augmentation in scene understanding"):
  with members:
    - "rendering synthetic objects into legacy photographs"
    - "weakly supervised instance segmentation using class peak response"
    - "semantic foggy scene understanding with synthetic data"
    - "modeling visual context is key to augmenting object detection datasets"
    - "synthetic data augmentation using gan for improved liver lesion classification"
    - "improved part segmentation performance by optimising realism of synthetic images using cycle generative adversarial networks"
    - "random erasing data augmentation"
    - "focal loss for dense object detection"

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)