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: "parallel linear search with no coordination for a randomly placed treasure"
  Abstract: In STOC'16, Fraigniaud et al. consider the problem of finding a treasure hidden in one of many boxes that are ordered by importance. That is, if a treasure is in a more important box, then one would like to find it faster. Assuming there are many searchers, the authors suggest that using an algorithm that requires no coordination between searchers can be highly beneficial. Indeed, besides saving the need for a communication and coordination mechanism, such algorithms enjoy inherent robustness. The authors proceed to solve this linear search problem in the case of countably many boxes and an adversary placed treasure, and prove that the best speed-up possible by $k$ non-coordinating searchers is precisely $\frac{k}{4}(1+1/k)^2$. In particular, this means that asymptotically, the speed-up is four times worse compared to the case of full coordination. #R##N#We suggest an important variant of the problem, where the treasure is placed uniformly at random in one of a finite, large, number of boxes. We devise non-coordinating algorithms that achieve a speed-up of $6/5$ for two searchers, a speed-up of $3/2$ for three searchers, and in general, a speed-up of $k(k+1)/(3k-1)$ for any $k \geq 1$ searchers. Thus, as $k$ grows to infinity, the speed-up approaches three times worse compared to the case of full coordination. Moreover, these bounds are tight in a strong sense as no non-coordinating search algorithm for $k$ searchers can achieve better speed-ups. We also devise non-coordinating algorithms that use only logarithmic memory in the size of the search domain, and yet, asymptotically, achieve the optimal speed-up. Finally, we note that all our algorithms are extremely simple and hence applicable.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "the ants problem"):
  with members:
    - "parallel exhaustive search without coordination"
    - "trade offs between selection complexity and performance when searching the plane without communication"
    - "toward more localized local algorithms removing assumptions concerning global knowledge"
    - "memory lower bounds for randomized collaborative search and applications to biology"
    - "collaborative search on the plane without communication"
    - "beeping a maximal independent set"
    - "physarum can compute shortest paths"
    - "online searching with turn cost"

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)