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 "from gap eth to fpt inapproximability clique dominating set and more"):
  Abstract: We consider questions that arise from the intersection between the areas of polynomial-time approximation algorithms, subexponential-time algorithms, and fixed-parameter tractable algorithms. The questions, which have been asked several times (e.g., [Marx08, FGMS12, DF13]), are whether there is a non-trivial FPT-approximation algorithm for the Maximum Clique (Clique) and Minimum Dominating Set (DomSet) problems parameterized by the size of the optimal solution. In particular, letting $\text{OPT}$ be the optimum and $N$ be the size of the input, is there an algorithm that runs in $t(\text{OPT})\text{poly}(N)$ time and outputs a solution of size $f(\text{OPT})$, for any functions $t$ and $f$ that are independent of $N$ (for Clique, we want $f(\text{OPT})=\omega(1)$)? #R##N#In this paper, we show that both Clique and DomSet admit no non-trivial FPT-approximation algorithm, i.e., there is no $o(\text{OPT})$-FPT-approximation algorithm for Clique and no $f(\text{OPT})$-FPT-approximation algorithm for DomSet, for any function $f$ (e.g., this holds even if $f$ is the Ackermann function). In fact, our results imply something even stronger: The best way to solve Clique and DomSet, even approximately, is to essentially enumerate all possibilities. Our results hold under the Gap Exponential Time Hypothesis (Gap-ETH) [Dinur16, MR16], which states that no $2^{o(n)}$-time algorithm can distinguish between a satisfiable 3SAT formula and one which is not even $(1 - \epsilon)$-satisfiable for some constant $\epsilon > 0$. #R##N#Besides Clique and DomSet, we also rule out non-trivial FPT-approximation for Maximum Balanced Biclique, Maximum Subgraphs with Hereditary Properties, and Maximum Induced Matching in bipartite graphs. Additionally, we rule out $k^{o(1)}$-FPT-approximation algorithm for Densest $k$-Subgraph although this ratio does not yet match the trivial $O(k)$-approximation algorithm.

Includes members:
  Member "completely inapproximable monotone and antimonotone parameterized problems":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "parameterized inapproximability for steiner orientation by gap amplification")
  Member "almost polynomial ratio eth hardness of approximating densest k subgraph":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "optimizing item and subgroup configurations for social aware vr shopping")
  Member "a birthday repetition theorem and complexity of approximating dense csps":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "parameterized inapproximability for steiner orientation by gap amplification")
  Member "how to refute a random csp":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "time space tradeoffs for distinguishing distributions and applications to security of goldreich s prg")
  Member "time approximation trade offs for inapproximable problems":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "improved in approximability bounds for d scattered set")
  Member "eth hardness for densest k subgraph with perfect completeness":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "complexity theory game theory and economics the barbados lectures")
  Member "the constant inapproximability of the parameterized dominating set problem":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "trapping problem on star type graphs with applications")
  Member "lower bounds on the size of semidefinite programming relaxations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "lifting with simple gadgets and applications to circuit and proof complexity")

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)