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: "cyber physical specification mismatches"
  Abstract: Embedded systems use increasingly complex software and are evolving into cyber-physical systems (CPS) with sophisticated interaction and coupling between physical and computational processes. Many CPS operate in safety-critical environments and have stringent certification, reliability, and correctness requirements. These systems undergo changes throughout their lifetimes, where either the software or physical hardware is updated in subsequent design iterations. One source of failure in safety-critical CPS is when there are unstated assumptions in either the physical or cyber parts of the system, and new components do not match those assumptions. In this work, we present an automated method towards identifying unstated assumptions in CPS. Dynamic specifications in the form of candidate invariants of both the software and physical components are identified using dynamic analysis (executing and/or simulating the system implementation or model thereof). A prototype tool called Hynger (for HYbrid iNvariant GEneratoR) was developed that instruments Simulink/Stateflow (SLSF) model diagrams to generate traces in the input format compatible with the Daikon invariant inference tool, which has been extensively applied to software systems. Hynger, in conjunction with Daikon, is able to detect candidate invariants of several CPS case studies. We use the running example of a DC-to-DC power converter, and demonstrate that Hynger can detect a specification mismatch where a tolerance assumed by the software is violated due to a plant change. Another case study of an automotive control system is also introduced to illustrate the power of Hynger and Daikon in automatically identifying cyber-physical specification mismatches.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "automatic failure explanation in cps models"):
  with members:
    - "parameter optimization in control software using statistical fault localization techniques"

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.SY(Systems and Control)