human: Given a hyperedge-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where the center hyperedge is induced by one source paper and its member nodes are the cited papers.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center hyperedge (induced by source paper "complexity results for preference aggregation over m cp nets pareto and majority voting"):
  Abstract: Abstract   Aggregating preferences over combinatorial domains has many applications in artificial intelligence (AI). Given the inherent exponential nature of preferences over combinatorial domains, compact representation languages are needed to represent them, and ( m )CP-nets are among the most studied ones. Sequential and global voting are two different ways of aggregating preferences represented via CP-nets. In sequential voting, agents' preferences are aggregated feature-by-feature. For this reason, sequential voting may exhibit voting paradoxes, i.e., the possibility to select sub-optimal outcomes when preferences have specific feature dependencies. To avoid paradoxes in sequential voting, one has often assumed the (quite) restrictive constraint of    O   -legality, which imposes a shared common topological order among all the agents' CP-nets. On the contrary, in global voting, CP-nets are considered as a whole during the preference aggregation process. For this reason, global voting is immune from the voting paradoxes of sequential voting, and hence there is no need to impose restrictions over the CP-nets' structure when preferences are aggregated via global voting. Sequential voting over    O   -legal CP-nets received much attention, and    O   -legality of CP-nets has often been required in other studies. On the other hand, global voting over non-   O   -legal CP-nets has not carefully been analyzed, despite it was explicitly stated in the literature that a theoretical comparison between global and sequential voting was highly promising and a precise complexity analysis for global voting has been asked for multiple times. In quite a few works, only very partial results on the complexity of global voting over CP-nets have been given. In this paper, we start to fill this gap by carrying out a thorough computational complexity analysis of global voting tasks, for Pareto and majority voting, over not necessarily    O   -legal acyclic binary polynomially connected ( m )CP-nets. We show that all these problems belong to various levels of the polynomial hierarchy, and some of them are even in P or LOGSPACE. Our results are a notable achievement, given that the previously known upper bound for most of these problems was the complexity class EXPTIME. We provide various exact complexity results showing tight lower bounds and matching upper bounds for problems that (up to now) did not have any explicit non-obvious lower bound.

Includes members:
  Member "achieving new upper bounds for the hypergraph duality problem through logic":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "quasi polynomial algorithms for list coloring of nearly intersecting hypergraphs")
  Member "on the complexity of core kernel and bargaining set":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "cooperative games with bounded dependency degree")
  Member "non transferable utility coalitional games via mixed integer linear constraints":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "on the complexity of core kernel and bargaining set")
  Member "the computational complexity of dominance and consistency in cp nets":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "cpdist deep siamese networks for learning distances between structured preferences")
  Member "planning with preferences using logic programming":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "logical fuzzy optimization")
  Member "cp nets a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "on validating repairing and refining heuristic ml explanations")

Question: Please tell me which class the source paper 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.AI(Artificial Intelligence)