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 "communication complexity of byzantine agreement revisited"):
  Abstract: With decentralized cryptocurrencies, an increasingly important problem is how to design communication-efficient Byzantine Agreement (BA) protocols: in this paper, communication efficiency means that the number of pairwise messages necessary for reaching agreement is subquadratic in the total number of players $n$ (or alternatively, only sublinear number of nodes need to multicast messages to all other nodes). A few existing works have shown how to achieve subquadratic BA under an {\it adaptive} adversary, including the breakthrough result by King and Saia (PODC'10), the celebrated Nakamoto consensus protocol, and a few proof-of-stake protocols such as Algorand. #R##N#Intriguingly, all these subquadratic protocols coincidentally make a common relaxation about the adaptivity of the attacker, that is, if an honest node sends a message $\msg$ in some round $r$, the attacker may adaptively corrupt the node and make the now-corrupt node send additional messages in the same round, but it {\it cannot erase the message $\msg$ that was already sent} --- henceforth we say that such an adversary cannot perform ``after-the-fact removal''. By contrast, most natural (super-)quadratic BA protocols in the literature can be proven secure under a strongly adaptive adversary capable of after-the-fact removal. Besides the above relaxation, all known subquadratic protocols make additional strong assumptions such as plain or proof-of-work random oracles and/or the ability of honest nodes to erase secrets from memory (henceforth called the ``memory-erasure'' model). In this paper, we first prove that in fact, disallowing after-the-fact removal is necessary for achieving subquadratic-communication BA. Moreover, this lower bound holds in a very strong sense, even when allowing setup assumptions such as PKI, random oracles, or memory-erasures.

Includes members:
  Member "algorand the efficient and democratic ledger":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "consistency of proof of stake blockchains with concurrent honest slot leaders")
  Member "breaking the o n 2 bit barrier scalable byzantine agreement with an adaptive adversary":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "in search for a linear byzantine agreement")

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.DC(Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing)