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: "te eth lower bounds for qbfs of bounded treewidth"
  Abstract: The problem of deciding the validity (QSAT) of quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) is a vivid research area in both theory and practice. In the field of parameterized algorithmics, the well-studied graph measure treewidth turned out to be a successful parameter. A well-known result by Chen in parameterized complexity is that QSAT when parameterized by the treewidth of the primal graph of the input formula together with the quantifier depth of the formula is fixed-parameter tractable. More precisely, the runtime of such an algorithm is polynomial in the formula size and exponential in the treewidth, where the exponential function in the treewidth is a tower, whose height is the quantifier depth. A natural question is whether one can significantly improve these results and decrease the tower while assuming the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH). In the last years, there has been a growing interest in the quest of establishing lower bounds under ETH, showing mostly problem-specific lower bounds up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Still, an important question is to settle this as general as possible and to cover the whole polynomial hierarchy. In this work, we show lower bounds based on the ETH for arbitrary QBFs parameterized by treewidth (and quantifier depth). More formally, we establish lower bounds for QSAT and treewidth, namely, that under ETH there cannot be an algorithm that solves QSAT of quantifier depth i in runtime significantly better than i-fold exponential in the treewidth and polynomial in the input size. In doing so, we provide a versatile reduction technique to compress treewidth that encodes the essence of dynamic programming on arbitrary tree decompositions. Further, we describe a general methodology for a more fine-grained analysis of problems parameterized by treewidth that are at higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "structural decompositions of epistemic logic programs"):
  with members:
    - "epistemic logic programs a different world view"
    - "treewidth and counting projected answer sets"
    - "splitting epistemic logic programs"
    - "answer set solving with bounded treewidth revisited"
    - "the power of non ground rules in answer set programming"
    - "combining treewidth and backdoors for csp"
    - "clique width and directed width measures for answer set programming"
    - "backdoors to tractable answer set programming"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "answer set solving exploiting treewidth and its limits"):
  with members:
    - "asp core 2 input language format"
    - "exploiting treewidth for projected model counting and its limits"
    - "counting complexity for reasoning in abstract argumentation"
    - "slightly superexponential parameterized problems"
    - "dynasp2 5 dynamic programming on tree decompositions in action"
    - "answer set solving with bounded treewidth revisited"
    - "default logic and bounded treewidth"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "treewidth and counting projected answer sets"):
  with members:
    - "exploiting treewidth for projected model counting and its limits"
    - "slightly superexponential parameterized problems"
    - "answer set solving with bounded treewidth revisited"
    - "tractable answer set programming with weight constraints bounded treewidth is not enough"
    - "even faster integer multiplication"

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.CC(Computational Complexity)