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: "spoofing detection goes noisy an analysis of synthetic speech detection in the presence of additive noise"
  Abstract: Automatic speaker verification (ASV) technology is recently finding its way to end-user applications for secure access to personal data, smart services or physical facilities. Similar to other biometric technologies, speaker verification is vulnerable to spoofing attacks where an attacker masquerades as a particular target speaker via impersonation, replay, text-to-speech (TTS) or voice conversion (VC) techniques to gain illegitimate access to the system. We focus on TTS and VC that represent the most flexible, high-end spoofing attacks. Most of the prior studies on synthesized or converted speech detection report their findings using high-quality clean recordings. Meanwhile, the performance of spoofing detectors in the presence of additive noise, an important consideration in practical ASV implementations, remains largely unknown. To this end, we analyze the suitability of state-of-the-art synthetic speech detectors under additive noise with a special focus on front-end features. Our comparison includes eight acoustic feature sets, five related to spectral magnitude and three to spectral phase information. Our extensive experiments on ASVSpoof 2015 corpus reveal several important findings. Firstly, all the countermeasures break down even at relatively high signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and fail to generalize to noisy conditions. Secondly, speech enhancement is not found helpful. Thirdly, GMM back-end generally outperforms the more involved i-vector back-end. Fourthly, concerning the compared features, the Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) and subband spectral centroid magnitude coefficients (SCMCs) perform the best on average though the winner method depends on SNR and noise type. Finally, a study with two score fusion strategies shows that combining different feature based systems improves recognition accuracy for known and unknown attacks in both clean and noisy conditions.

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.SD(Sound)