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: "field of interest proposal for augmented mitotic cell count comparison of two convolutional networks"
  Abstract: Most tumor grading systems for human as for veterinary histopathology are based upon the absolute count of mitotic figures in a certain reference area of a histology slide. Since time for prognostication is limited in a diagnostic setting, the pathologist will often almost arbitrarily choose a certain field of interest assumed to have the highest mitotic activity. However, as mitotic figures are commonly very sparse on the slide and often have a patchy distribution, this poses a sampling problem which is known to be able to influence the tumor prognostication. On the other hand, automatic detection of mitotic figures can't yet be considered reliable enough for clinical application. In order to aid the work of the human expert and at the same time reduce variance in tumor grading, it is beneficial to assess the whole slide image (WSI) for the highest mitotic activity and use this as a reference region for human counting. For this task, we compare two methods for region of interest proposal, both based on convolutional neural networks (CNN). For both approaches, the CNN performs a segmentation of the WSI to assess mitotic activity. The first method performs a segmentation at the original image resolution, while the second approach performs a segmentation operation at a significantly reduced resolution, cutting down on processing complexity. We evaluate the approach using a dataset of 32 completely annotated whole slide images of canine mast cell tumors, where 22 were used for training of the network and 10 for test. Our results indicate that, while the overall correlation to the ground truth mitotic activity is considerably higher (0.94 vs. 0.83) for the approach based upon the fine resolution network, the field of interest choices are only marginally better. Both approaches propose fields of interest that contain a mitotic count in the upper quartile of respective slides.

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.CV(Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)