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 "parallelism and time in hierarchical self assembly"):
  Abstract: We study the role that parallelism plays in time complexity of Winfree's abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM), a model of molecular algorithmic self-assembly. In the "hierarchical" aTAM, two assemblies, both consisting of multiple tiles, are allowed to aggregate together, whereas in the "seeded" aTAM, tiles attach one at a time to a growing assembly. Adleman, Cheng, Goel, and Huang ("Running Time and Program Size for Self-Assembled Squares", STOC 2001) showed how to assemble an n x n square in O(n) time in the seeded aTAM using O(log n / log log n) unique tile types, where both of these parameters are optimal. They asked whether the hierarchical aTAM could allow a tile system to use the ability to form large assemblies in parallel before they attach to break the Omega(n) lower bound for assembly time. We show that there is a tile system with the optimal O(log n / log log n) tile types that assembles an n x n square using O(log^2 n) parallel "stages", which is close to the optimal Omega(log n) stages, forming the final n x n square from four n/2 x n/2 squares, which are themselves recursively formed from n/4 x n/4 squares, etc. However, despite this nearly maximal parallelism, the system requires superlinear time to assemble the square. We extend the definition of *partial order tile systems* studied by Adleman et al. in a natural way to hierarchical assembly and show that no hierarchical partial order tile system can build any shape with diameter N in less than time Omega(N), demonstrating that in this case the hierarchical model affords no speedup whatsoever over the seeded model. We strengthen the Omega(N) time lower bound for deterministic seeded systems of Adleman et al. to nondeterministic seeded systems. Finally, we show that for infinitely many n, a tile system can assemble an n x n' rectangle, with n > n', in time O(n^{4/5} log n), breaking the linear-time lower bound.

Includes members:
  Member "the two handed tile assembly model is not intrinsically universal":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "the program size complexity of self assembled paths")
  Member "two hands are better than one up to constant factors":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "the program size complexity of self assembled paths")
  Member "self assembly with geometric tiles":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "the program size complexity of self assembled paths")
  Member "the power of nondeterminism in self assembly":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "verification in staged tile self assembly")
  Member "strong fault tolerance for self assembly with fuzzy temperature":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "the program size complexity of self assembled paths")
  Member "self assembly of arbitrary shapes using rnase enzymes meeting the kolmogorov bound with small scale factor extended abstract":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "know when to fold em self assembly of shapes by folding in oritatami")
  Member "randomized self assembly for exact shapes":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "universal simulation of directed systems in the abstract tile assembly model requires undirectedness")
  Member "strict self assembly of discrete sierpinski triangles":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "geometric tiles and powers and limitations of geometric hindrance in self assembly")

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)