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 "community based 3 sat formulas with a predefined solution"):
  Abstract: It is crucial to generate crafted SAT formulas with predefined solutions for the testing and development of SAT solvers since many SAT formulas from real-world applications have solutions. Although some generating algorithms have been proposed to generate SAT formulas with predefined solutions, community structures of SAT formulas are not considered. We propose a 3-SAT formula generating algorithm that not only guarantees the existence of a predefined solution, but also simultaneously considers community structures and clause distributions. The proposed 3-SAT formula generating algorithm controls the quality of community structures through controlling (1) the number of clauses whose variables have a common community, which we call intra-community clauses, and (2) the number of variables that only belong to one community, which we call intra-community variables. To study the combined effect of community structures and clause distributions on the hardness of SAT formulas, we measure solving runtimes of two solvers, gluHack (a leading CDCL solver) and CPSparrow (a leading SLS solver), on the generated SAT formulas under different groups of parameter settings. Through extensive experiments, we obtain some noteworthy observations on the SAT formulas generated by the proposed algorithm: (1) The community structure has little or no effects on the hardness of SAT formulas with regard to CPSparrow but a strong effect with regard to gluHack. (2) Only when the proportion of true literals in a SAT formula in terms of the predefined solution is 0.5, SAT formulas are hard-to-solve with regard to gluHack; when this proportion is below 0.5, SAT formulas are hard-to-solve with regard to CPSparrow. (3) When the ratio of the number of clauses to that of variables is around 4.25, the SAT formulas are hard-to-solve with regard to both gluHack and CPSparrow.

Includes members:
  Member "on the hardness of sat with community structure":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "g2sat learning to generate sat formulas")
  Member "hiding satisfying assignments two are better than one":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "the mutual information of ldgm codes")

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)