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 "depth first search in the semi streaming model"):
  Abstract: Depth first search (DFS) tree is a fundamental data structure for solving various graph problems. The classical DFS algorithm requires $O(m+n)$ time for a graph having $n$ vertices and $m$ edges. In the streaming model, an algorithm is allowed several passes (preferably single) over the input graph having a restriction on the size of local space used. #R##N#Trivially, a DFS tree can be computed using a single pass using $O(m)$ space. In the semi-streaming model allowing $O(n)$ space, it can be computed in $O(n)$ passes, where each pass adds one vertex to the DFS tree. However, it remains an open problem to compute a DFS tree using $o(n)$ passes using $o(m)$ space even in any relaxed streaming environment. #R##N#We present the first semi-streaming algorithms that compute a DFS tree of an undirected graph in $o(n)$ passes using $o(m)$ space. We first describe an extremely simple algorithm that requires at most $\lceil n/k\rceil$ passes using $O(nk)$ space, where $k$ is any positive integer. We then improve this algorithm by using more involved techniques to reduce the number of passes to $\lceil h/k\rceil$ under similar space constraints, where $h$ is the height of the computed DFS tree. In particular, this algorithm improves the bounds for the case where the computed DFS tree is shallow (having $o(n)$ height). Moreover, this algorithm is presented as a framework that allows the flexibility of using any algorithm to maintain a DFS tree of a stored sparser subgraph as a black box, which may be of independent interest. Both these algorithms essentially demonstrate the existence of a trade-off between the space and number of passes required for computing a DFS tree. Furthermore, we evaluate these algorithms experimentally which reveals their exceptional performance in practice. For both random and real graphs, they require merely a few passes even when allowed just $O(n)$ space.

Includes members:
  Member "incremental dfs algorithms a theoretical and experimental study":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "fault tolerant and fully dynamic dfs in undirected graphs simple yet efficient")
  Member "distributed exact shortest paths in sublinear time":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "distributed edge connectivity in sublinear time")
  Member "near optimal parallel algorithms for dynamic dfs in undirected graphs":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "parallel batch dynamic graph connectivity")
  Member "dynamic dfs in undirected graphs breaking the o m barrier":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "generic single edge fault tolerant exact distance oracle")
  Member "real time monitoring of undirected networks articulation points bridges and connected and biconnected components":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "better bounds for matchings in the streaming model":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "two player hidden pointer chasing and multi pass lower bounds in turnstile streams")
  Member "defining and evaluating network communities based on ground truth":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "certified robustness of community detection against adversarial structural perturbation via randomized smoothing")
  Member "superlinear lower bounds for multipass graph processing":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "two player hidden pointer chasing and multi pass lower bounds in turnstile streams")

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.DS(Data Structures and Algorithms)