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 "new competitiveness bounds for the shared memory switch"):
  Abstract: We consider one of the simplest and best known buffer management architectures: the shared memory switch with multiple output queues and uniform packets. It was one of the first models studied by competitive analysis, with the Longest Queue Drop (LQD) buffer management policy shown to be at least $\sqrt{2}$- and at most $2$-competitive; a general lower bound of $4/3$ has been proven for all deterministic online algorithms. Closing the gap between $\sqrt{2}$ and $2$ has remained an open problem in competitive analysis for more than a decade, with only marginal success in reducing the upper bound of $2$. In this work, we first present a simplified proof for the $\sqrt{2}$ lower bound for LQD and then, using a reduction to the continuous case, improve the general lower bound for all deterministic online algorithms from $\frac 43$ to $\sqrt{2}$. Then, we proceed to improve the lower bound of $\sqrt{2}$ specifically for LQD, showing that LQD is at least $1.44546086$-competitive. We are able to prove the bound by presenting an explicit construction of the optimal clairvoyant algorithm which then allows for two different ways to prove lower bounds: by direct computer simulations and by proving lower bounds via linear programming. The linear programming approach yields a lower bound for LQD of $1.4427902$ (still larger than $\sqrt{2}$).

Includes members:
  Member "fifo queueing policies for packets with heterogeneous processing":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "measuring the impact of adversarial errors on packet scheduling strategies")
  Member "tight analysis of priority queuing policy for egress traffic":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)

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.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture)