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 "election score can be harder than winner"):
  Abstract: Election systems based on scores generally determine the winner by computing the score of each candidate and the winner is the candidate with the best score. It would be natural to expect that computing the winner of an election is at least as hard as computing the score of a candidate. We show that this is not always the case. In particular, we show that for Young elections for dichotomous preferences the winner problem is easy, while determining the score of a candidate is hard. This complexity behavior has not been seen before and is unusual. For example, a common slight variant of Young has a hard winner problem for dichotomous preferences, and natural versions of Dodgson and Kemeny for dichotomous preferences have easy score and winner problems.

Includes members:
  Member "very hard electoral control problems":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "robustness among multiwinner voting rules")
  Member "cycles and intractability in a large class of aggregation rules":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "complexity of manipulative actions when voting with ties":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "incomplete preferences in single peaked electorates")
  Member "clone structures in voters preferences":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "incomplete preferences in single peaked electorates")
  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)