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 "the program size complexity of self assembled paths"):
  Abstract: We prove a Pumping Lemma for the noncooperative abstract Tile Assembly Model, a model central to the theory of algorithmic self-assembly since the beginning of the field. This theory suggests, and our result proves, that small differences in the nature of adhesive bindings between abstract square molecules gives rise to vastly different expressive capabilities. #R##N#In the cooperative abstract Tile Assembly Model, square tiles attach to each other using multi-sided cooperation of one, two or more sides. This precise control of tile binding is directly exploited for algorithmic tasks including growth of specified shapes using very few tile types, as well as simulation of Turing machines and even self-simulation of self-assembly systems. But are cooperative bindings required for these computational tasks? The definitionally simpler noncooperative (or Temperature 1) model has poor control over local binding events: tiles stick if they bind on at least one side. This has led to the conjecture that it is impossible for it to exhibit precisely controlled growth of computationally-defined shapes. #R##N#Here, we prove such an impossibility result. We show that any planar noncooperative system that attempts to grow large algorithmically-controlled tile-efficient assemblies must also grow infinite non-algorithmic (pumped) structures with a simple closed-form description, or else suffer blocking of intended algorithmic structures. Our result holds for both directed and nondirected systems, and gives an explicit upper bound of $(8|T|)^{4|T|+1}(5|\sigma| + 6)$, where $|T|$ is the size of the tileset and $|\sigma|$ is the size of the seed assembly, beyond which any path of tiles is pumpable or blockable.

Includes members:
  Member "new bounds on the tile complexity of thin rectangles at temperature 1":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "the non cooperative tile assembly model is not intrinsically universal or capable of bounded turing machine simulation":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "non cooperatively assembling large structures a 2d pumping lemma cannot be as powerful as its 1d counterpart")
  Member "flipping tiles concentration independent coin flips in tile self assembly":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "concentration independent random number generation in tile self assembly")
  Member "optimal self assembly of finite shapes at temperature 1 in 3d":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "new bounds on the tile complexity of thin rectangles at temperature 1")
  Member "computing in continuous space with self assembling polygonal tiles":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "non cooperatively assembling large structures a 2d pumping lemma cannot be as powerful as its 1d counterpart")
  Member "universal computation with arbitrary polyomino tiles in non cooperative self assembly":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "non cooperatively assembling large structures a 2d pumping lemma cannot be as powerful as its 1d counterpart")
  Member "the power of duples in self assembly it s not so hip to be square":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "non cooperatively assembling large structures a 2d pumping lemma cannot be as powerful as its 1d counterpart")
  Member "a pumping lemma for non cooperative self assembly":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "non cooperatively assembling large structures a 2d pumping lemma cannot be as powerful as its 1d counterpart")

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.CC(Computational Complexity)