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: "using dissortative mating genetic algorithms to track the extrema of dynamic deceptive functions"
  Abstract: Traditional Genetic Algorithms (GAs) mating schemes select individuals for crossover independently of their genotypic or phenotypic similarities. In Nature, this behaviour is known as random mating. However, non-random schemes - in which individuals mate according to their kinship or likeness - are more common in natural systems. Previous studies indicate that, when applied to GAs, negative assortative mating (a specific type of non-random mating, also known as dissortative mating) may improve their performance (on both speed and reliability) in a wide range of problems. Dissortative mating maintains the genetic diversity at a higher level during the run, and that fact is frequently observed as an explanation for dissortative GAs ability to escape local optima traps. Dynamic problems, due to their specificities, demand special care when tuning a GA, because diversity plays an even more crucial role than it does when tackling static ones. This paper investigates the behaviour of dissortative mating GAs, namely the recently proposed Adaptive Dissortative Mating GA (ADMGA), on dynamic trap functions. ADMGA selects parents according to their Hamming distance, via a self-adjustable threshold value. The method, by keeping population diversity during the run, provides an effective means to deal with dynamic problems. Tests conducted with deceptive and nearly deceptive trap functions indicate that ADMGA is able to outperform other GAs, some specifically designed for tracking moving extrema, on a wide range of tests, being particularly effective when speed of change is not very fast. When comparing the algorithm to a previously proposed dissortative GA, results show that performance is equivalent on the majority of the experiments, but ADMGA performs better when solving the hardest instances of the test set.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "modeling browser based distributed evolutionary computation systems"):
  with members:
    - "increasing gp computing power via volunteer computing"

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)