human: Given a node-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where nodes represent papers and hyperedges represent sets of papers co-cited by a source paper.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center node: "deterministic leader election in anonymous radio networks"
  Abstract: We consider leader election in anonymous radio networks modeled as simple undirected connected graphs. Nodes communicate in synchronous rounds. Nodes are anonymous and execute the same deterministic algorithm, so symmetry can be broken only in one way: by different wake-up times of the nodes. In which situations is it possible to break symmetry and elect a leader using time as symmetry breaker? To answer this question, we consider configurations. A configuration is the underlying graph with nodes tagged by non-negative integers with the following meaning. A node can either wake up spontaneously in the round shown on its tag, according to some global clock, or can be woken up hearing a message sent by one of its already awoken neighbours. The local clock of a node starts at its wakeup and nodes do not have access to the global clock determining their tags. A configuration is feasible if there exists a distributed algorithm that elects a leader for this configuration. #R##N#Our main result is a complete algorithmic characterization of feasible configurations: we design a centralized decision algorithm, working in polynomial time, whose input is a configuration and which decides if the configuration is feasible. We also provide a dedicated deterministic distributed leader election algorithm for each feasible configuration that elects a leader for this configuration in time $O(n^2\sigma)$, where $n$ is the number of nodes and $\sigma$ is the difference between the largest and smallest tag of the configuration. We then prove that there cannot exist a universal deterministic distributed algorithm electing a leader for all feasible configurations. In fact, we show that such a universal algorithm cannot exist even for the class of 4-node feasible configurations. We also prove that a distributed version of our decision algorithm cannot exist.

Question: Please tell me which class the center node 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)