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: "verifying policy enforcers"
  Abstract: Policy enforcers are sophisticated runtime components that can prevent failures by enforcing the correct behavior of the software. While a single enforcer can be easily designed focusing only on the behavior of the application that must be monitored, the effect of multiple enforcers that enforce different policies might be hard to predict. So far, mechanisms to resolve interferences between enforcers have been based on priority mechanisms and heuristics. Although these methods provide a mechanism to take decisions when multiple enforcers try to affect the execution at a same time, they do not guarantee the lack of interference on the global behavior of the system. In this paper we present a verification strategy that can be exploited to discover interferences between sets of enforcers and thus safely identify a-priori the enforcers that can co-exist at run-time. In our evaluation, we experimented our verification method with several policy enforcers for Android and discovered some incompatibilities.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "controlling interactions with libraries in android apps through runtime enforcement"):
  with members:
    - "a benchmark of data loss bugs for android apps"
    - "increasing the reusability of enforcers with lifecycle events"
    - "in the field monitoring of interactive applications"
    - "policy enforcement with proactive libraries"
    - "healing data loss problems in android apps"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "a benchmark of data loss bugs for android apps"):
  with members:
    - "ghera a repository of android app vulnerability benchmarks"
    - "policy enforcement with proactive libraries"
    - "healing data loss problems in android apps"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "identifying software components from object oriented apis based on dynamic analysis"):
  with members:
    - "policy enforcement with proactive libraries"
    - "mining software components from object oriented apis"
    - "recovering architectural variability of a family of product variants"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "increasing the reusability of enforcers with lifecycle events"):
  with members:
    - "policy enforcement with proactive libraries"
    - "healing data loss problems in android apps"

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.SE(Software Engineering)