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 "how good are popular matchings"):
  Abstract: In this paper, we consider the Hospital Residents problem (HR) and the Hospital Residents problem with Lower Quotas (HRLQ). In this model with two sided preferences, stability is a well accepted notion of optimality. However, in the presence of lower quotas, a stable and feasible matching need not exist. For the HRLQ problem, our goal therefore is to output a good feasible matching assuming that a feasible matching exists. Computing matchings with minimum number of blocking pairs (MinBP) and minimum number of blocking residents (MinBR) are known to be NP-Complete. The only approximation algorithms for these problems work under severe restrictions on the preference lists. We present an algorithm which circumvents this restriction and computes a popular matching in the HRLQ instance. We show that on data-sets generated using various generators, our algorithm performs very well in terms of blocking pairs and blocking residents. Yokoi (ISAAC 2017) recently studied envy-free matchings for the HRLQ problem. We propose a simple modification to Yokoi's algorithm to output a maximal envy-free matching. We observe that popular matchings outperform envy-free matchings on several parameters of practical importance, like size, number of blocking pairs, number of blocking residents. #R##N#In the absence of lower quotas, that is, in the Hospital Residents (HR) problem, stable matchings are guaranteed to exist. Even in this case, we show that popularity is a practical alternative to stability. For instance, on synthetic data-sets generated using a particular model, as well as on real world data-sets, a popular matching is on an average 8-10% larger in size, matches more number of residents to their top-choice, and more residents prefer the popular matching as compared to a stable matching. Our comprehensive study reveals the practical appeal of popular matchings for the HR and HRLQ problems.

Includes members:
  Member "envy free matchings with lower quotas":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "maximum size envy free matchings")
  Member "popular matching with lower quotas":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "maximum size envy free matchings")
  Member "popularity in the generalized hospital residents setting":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "popular matchings with multiple partners")
  Member "popular matchings with multiple partners":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "max size popular matchings and extensions")
  Member "almost stable matchings in the hospitals residents problem with couples":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "mathematical models for stable matching problems with ties and incomplete lists")
  Member "popular edges and dominant matchings":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "understanding popular matchings via stable matchings")

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)