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: "evaluating the complementarity of taxonomic relation extraction methods across different languages"
  Abstract: Modern information systems are changing the idea of "data processing" to the idea of "concept processing", meaning that instead of processing words, such systems process semantic concepts which carry meaning and share contexts with other concepts. Ontology is commonly used as a structure that captures the knowledge about a certain area via providing concepts and relations between them. Traditionally, concept hierarchies have been built manually by knowledge engineers or domain experts. However, the manual construction of a concept hierarchy suffers from several limitations such as its coverage and the enormous costs of its extension and maintenance. Ontology learning, usually referred to the (semi-)automatic support in ontology development, is usually divided into steps, going from concepts identification, passing through hierarchy and non-hierarchy relations detection and, seldom, axiom extraction. It is reasonable to say that among these steps the current frontier is in the establishment of concept hierarchies, since this is the backbone of ontologies and, therefore, a good concept hierarchy is already a valuable resource for many ontology applications. The automatic construction of concept hierarchies from texts is a complex task and much work have been proposing approaches to better extract relations between concepts. These different proposals have never been contrasted against each other on the same set of data and across different languages. Such comparison is important to see whether they are complementary or incremental. Also, we can see whether they present different tendencies towards recall and precision. This paper evaluates these different methods on the basis of hierarchy metrics such as density and depth, and evaluation metrics such as Recall and Precision. Results shed light over the comprehensive set of methods according to the literature in the area.

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.CL(Computation and Language)