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 "dichotomy for voting systems"):
  Abstract: Scoring protocols are a broad class of voting systems. Each is defined by a vector $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...,\alpha_m)$, $\alpha_1 \geq \alpha_2 \geq >... \geq \alpha_m$, of integers such that each voter contributes $\alpha_1$ points to his/her first choice, $\alpha_2$ points to his/her second choice, and so on, and any candidate receiving the most points is a winner. #R##N#What is it about scoring-protocol election systems that makes some have the desirable property of being NP-complete to manipulate, while others can be manipulated in polynomial time? We find the complete, dichotomizing answer: Diversity of dislike. Every scoring-protocol election system having two or more point values assigned to candidates other than the favorite--i.e., having $||\{\alpha_i \condition 2 \leq i \leq m\}||\geq 2$--is NP-complete to manipulate. Every other scoring-protocol election system can be manipulated in polynomial time. In effect, we show that--other than trivial systems (where all candidates alway tie), plurality voting, and plurality voting's transparently disguised translations--\emph{every} scoring-protocol election system is NP-complete to manipulate.

Includes members:
  Member "universal voting protocol tweaks to make manipulation hard":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "secure voting protocols with perfect ballot secrecy")
  Member "how many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "towards computing victory margins in stv elections")
  Member "complexity of manipulating elections with few candidates":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "often harder than in the constructive case destructive bribery in cp nets")
  Member "exact complexity of the winner problem for young elections":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "incomplete preferences in single peaked electorates")
  Member "exact analysis of dodgson elections lewis carroll s 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to np":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "incomplete preferences in single peaked electorates")

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.GT(Computer Science and Game Theory)