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: "analysing the degree of meshing in medium voltage target grids an automated technical and economical impact assessment"
  Abstract: There are different MV grid concepts with regard to mode of operation and protection system layout. The increasing installation of DG raises the question if the currently used concepts are still optimal for future power systems. We present a methodology that allows the automated calculation and comparison of target grids within different concepts. Specifically, we consider radial grids, closed ring grids and grids with switching stations. A target grid structure is optimized for each of those grid concepts based on geographical information. To model a realistic planning process, compliance with technical constraints for normal operation, contingency behaviour and reliability figures are ensured in all grid concepts. We present a multiphase approach to solve the optimization problem based on an iterated local search meta-heuristic. We then economically compare the grids with regards to CAPEX and OPEX for primary and secondary equipment, to analyse which concept leads to the most overall cost-efficient target grids. Since the methodology allows an automated evaluation of a large number of grids, it can be used to draw general conclusions about the cost-efficiency of specific concepts. The methodology is applied to 44 real MV grids spanning about 4800km of lines, for which the results show that a radial grid structure is overall cost efficient compared to grid topologies with switching stations or closed rings even in grid areas with a large DG penetration. The contribution of this paper is threefold: first, a comprehensive methodology to compile automated target grid plans under realistic premises is presented. Second, the practical applicability of the approach is demonstrated with a large scale case study with a high degree of automation. And third, the results of the case study allow to draw conclusions about the techno-economical differences of different MV grid concepts.

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.CE(Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science)