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 "when locally repairable codes meet regenerating codes what if some helpers are unavailable"):
  Abstract: Locally repairable codes (LRCs) are ingeniously designed distributed storage codes with a (usually small) bounded number of helper nodes participating in repair. Since most existing LRCs assume exact repair and allow full exchange of the stored data ($\beta=\alpha$), they can be viewed as a generalization of the traditional erasure codes (ECs) with a much desired feature of local repair. However, it also means that they lack the features of functional repair and partial information-exchange ($\beta<\alpha$) in the original regenerating codes (RCs). Motivated by the significant bandwidth (BW) reduction of RCs over ECs, existing works by Ahmad et al and by Hollmann studied "locally repairable regenerating codes (LRRCs)" that simultaneously admit all three features: local repair, partial information-exchange, and functional repair. Significant BW reduction was observed. #R##N#One important issue for any local repair schemes (including both LRCs and LRRCs) is that sometimes designated helper nodes may be temporarily unavailable, the result of multiple failures, degraded reads, or other network dynamics. Under the setting of LRRCs with temporary node unavailability, this work studies the impact of different helper selection methods. It proves, for the first time in the literature, that with node unavailability, all existing methods of helper selection, including those used in RCs and LRCs, are strictly repair-BW suboptimal. For some scenarios, it is necessary to combine LRRCs with a new helper selection method, termed dynamic helper selection, to achieve optimal BW. This work also compares the performance of different helper selection methods and answers the following fundamental question: whether one method of helper selection is intrinsically better than the other? for various different scenarios.

Includes members:
  Member "when can helper node selection improve regenerating codes part ii an explicit exact repair code construction":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "explicit constructions of optimal access mds codes with nearly optimal sub packetization")
  Member "when can helper node selection improve regenerating codes part i graph based analysis":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "explicit constructions of optimal access mds codes with nearly optimal sub packetization")
  Member "when and by how much can helper node selection improve regenerating codes":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "a connection between locally repairable codes and exact regenerating codes")
  Member "optimal locally repairable and secure codes for distributed storage systems":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "on optimal locally repairable codes and generalized sector disk codes")
  Member "characterizing the rate region of the 4 3 3 exact repair regenerating codes":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "towards practical private information retrieval from mds array codes")
  Member "replication based storage systems with local repair":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "bounds on fractional repetition codes using hypergraphs")
  Member "locally repairable codes with multiple repair alternatives":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "array codes for functional pir and batch codes")
  Member "explicit mbr all symbol locality codes":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "the complete hierarchical locality of the punctured simplex code")

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.IT(Information Theory)