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: "techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation some nondominated points are better than others"
  Abstract: The research area of evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) is reaching better understandings of the properties and capabilities of EMO algorithms, and accumulating much evidence of their worth in practical scenarios. An urgent emerging issue is that the favoured EMO algorithms scale poorly when problems have many (e.g. five or more) objectives. One of the chief reasons for this is believed to be that, in many-objective EMO search, populations are likely to be largely composed of nondominated solutions. In turn, this means that the commonly-used algorithms cannot distinguish between these for selective purposes. However, there are methods that can be used validly to rank points in a nondominated set, and may therefore usefully underpin selection in EMO search. Here we discuss and compare several such methods. Our main finding is that simple variants of the often-overlooked Average Ranking strategy usually outperform other methods tested, covering problems with 5-20 objectives and differing amounts of inter-objective correlation.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "locating the boundaries of pareto fronts a many objective evolutionary algorithm based on corner solution search"):
  with members:
    - "platemo a matlab platform for evolutionary multi objective optimization"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "a many objective evolutionary algorithm with angle based selection and shift based density estimation"):
  with members:
    - "platemo a matlab platform for evolutionary multi objective optimization"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "can we reach pareto optimal outcomes using bottom up approaches"):
  with members:
    - "unanimously acceptable agreements for negotiation teams in unpredictable domains"
    - "tasks for agent based negotiation teams analysis review and challenges"
    - "studying the impact of negotiation environments on negotiation teams performance"
    - "evolutionary aided negotiation model for bilateral bargaining in ambient intelligence domains with complex utility functions"
    - "achieving fully proportional representation is easy in practice"
    - "reaching unanimous agreements within agent based negotiation teams with linear and monotonic utility 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)