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: "beyond free riding quality of indicators for assessing participation in information sharing for threat intelligence"
  Abstract: Threat intelligence sharing has become a growing concept, whereby entities can exchange patterns of threats with each other, in the form of indicators, to a community of trust for threat analysis and incident response. However, sharing threat-related information have posed various risks to an organization that pertains to its security, privacy, and competitiveness. Given the coinciding benefits and risks of threat information sharing, some entities have adopted an elusive behavior of "free-riding" so that they can acquire the benefits of sharing without contributing much to the community. So far, understanding the effectiveness of sharing has been viewed from the perspective of the amount of information exchanged as opposed to its quality. In this paper, we introduce the notion of quality of indicators (\qoi) for the assessment of the level of contribution by participants in information sharing for threat intelligence. We exemplify this notion through various metrics, including correctness, relevance, utility, and uniqueness of indicators. In order to realize the notion of \qoi, we conducted an empirical study and taken a benchmark approach to define quality metrics, then we obtained a reference dataset and utilized tools from the machine learning literature for quality assessment. We compared these results against a model that only considers the volume of information as a metric for contribution, and unveiled various interesting observations, including the ability to spot low quality contributions that are synonym to free riding in threat information sharing.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "how good is your data investigating the quality of data generated during security incident response investigations"):
  with members:
    - "are you ready towards the engineering of forensic ready systems"
    - "security incident response criteria a practitioner s perspective"
    - "rethinking security incident response the integration of agile principles"

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.CR(Cryptography and Security)