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 "ranking on arbitrary graphs rematch via continuous lp with monotone and boundary condition constraints"):
  Abstract: Motivated by online advertisement and exchange settings, greedy randomized algorithms for the maximum matching problem have been studied, in which the algorithm makes (random) decisions that are essentially oblivious to the input graph. Any greedy algorithm can achieve performance ratio 0.5, which is the expected number of matched nodes to the number of nodes in a maximum matching. #R##N#Since Aronson, Dyer, Frieze and Suen proved that the Modified Randomized Greedy (MRG) algorithm achieves performance ratio 0.5 + \epsilon (where \epsilon = frac{1}{400000}) on arbitrary graphs in the mid-nineties, no further attempts in the literature have been made to improve this theoretical ratio for arbitrary graphs until two papers were published in FOCS 2012. Poloczek and Szegedy also analyzed the MRG algorithm to give ratio 0.5039, while Goel and Tripathi used experimental techniques to analyze the Ranking algorithm to give ratio 0.56. However, we could not reproduce the experimental results of Goel and Tripathi. #R##N#In this paper, we revisit the Ranking algorithm using the LP framework. Special care is given to analyze the structural properties of the Ranking algorithm in order to derive the LP constraints, of which one known as the \emph{boundary} constraint requires totally new analysis and is crucial to the success of our LP. #R##N#We use continuous LP relaxation to analyze the limiting behavior as the finite LP grows. Of particular interest are new duality and complementary slackness characterizations that can handle the monotone and the boundary constraints in continuous LP. We believe our work achieves the currently best theoretical performance ratio of \frac{2(5-\sqrt{7})}{9} \approx 0.523 on arbitrary graphs. Moreover, experiments suggest that Ranking cannot perform better than 0.724 in general.

Includes members:
  Member "matching with our eyes closed":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "towards a better understanding of randomized greedy matching")
  Member "online vertex weighted bipartite matching and single bid budgeted allocations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "online graph matching problems with a worst case reassignment budget")

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.DS(Data Structures and Algorithms)