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: "robust exponential worst cases for divide et impera algorithms for parity games"
  Abstract: The McNaughton-Zielonka divide et impera algorithm is the simplest and most flexible approach available in the literature for determining the winner in a parity game. Despite its theoretical worst-case complexity and the negative reputation as a poorly effective algorithm in practice, it has been shown to rank among the best techniques for the solution of such games. Also, it proved to be resistant to a lower bound attack, even more than the strategy improvements approaches, and only recently a family of games on which the algorithm requires exponential time has been provided by Friedmann. An easy analysis of this family shows that a simple memoization technique can help the algorithm solve the family in polynomial time. The same result can also be achieved by exploiting an approach based on the dominion-decomposition techniques proposed in the literature. These observations raise the question whether a suitable combination of dynamic programming and game-decomposition techniques can improve on the exponential worst case of the original algorithm. In this paper we answer this question negatively, by providing a robustly exponential worst case, showing that no intertwining of the above mentioned techniques can help mitigating the exponential nature of the divide et impera approaches.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "parity games zielonka s algorithm in quasi polynomial time"):
  with members:
    - "oink an implementation and evaluation of modern parity game solvers"
    - "universal trees grow inside separating automata quasi polynomial lower bounds for parity games"
    - "efficient parallel strategy improvement for parity games"
    - "a short proof of correctness of the quasi polynomial time algorithm for parity games"
    - "an ordered approach to solving parity games in quasi polynomial time and quasi linear space"
    - "exponential lower bounds for policy iteration"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "register games"):
  with members:
    - "alternating weak automata from universal trees"
    - "universal trees grow inside separating automata quasi polynomial lower bounds for parity games"
    - "succinct progress measures for solving parity games"
    - "taming past ltl and flat counter systems"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "a parity game tale of two counters"):
  with members:
    - "simple fixpoint iteration to solve parity games"
    - "solving parity games using an automata based algorithm"
    - "parity games zielonka s algorithm in quasi polynomial time"
    - "oink an implementation and evaluation of modern parity game solvers"
    - "attracting tangles to solve parity games"
    - "efficient parallel strategy improvement for parity games"
    - "succinct progress measures for solving parity games"
    - "a delayed promotion policy for parity games"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "attracting tangles to solve parity games"):
  with members:
    - "oink an implementation and evaluation of modern parity game solvers"
    - "efficient parallel strategy improvement for parity games"
    - "an ordered approach to solving parity games in quasi polynomial time and quasi linear space"
    - "a delayed promotion policy for parity games"
    - "improvement in small progress measures"
    - "benchmarks for parity games"
    - "non oblivious strategy improvement"

Connected through hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "a delayed promotion policy for parity games"):
  with members:
    - "oink an implementation and evaluation of modern parity game solvers"
    - "attracting tangles to solve parity games"
    - "an ordered approach to solving parity games in quasi polynomial time and quasi linear space"
    - "succinct progress measures for solving parity games"
    - "reasoning about strategies on the satisfiability problem"
    - "symmetric strategy improvement"
    - "optimal strategy synthesis for request response games"
    - "reasoning about strategies on the model checking problem"

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.LO(Logic in Computer Science)