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: "tunable qos aware network survivability"
  Abstract: Coping with network failures has been recognized as an issue of major importance in terms of social security, stability and prosperity. It has become clear that current networking standards fall short of coping with the complex challenge of surviving failures. The need to address this challenge has become a focal point of networking research. In particular, the concept of \textbf{\emph{tunable survivability}} offers major performance improvements over traditional approaches. Indeed, while the traditional approach aims at providing full (100\%) protection against network failures through disjoint paths, it was realized that this requirement is too restrictive in practice. Tunable survivability provides a quantitative measure for specifying the desired level (0\%-100\%) of survivability and offers flexibility in the choice of the routing paths. Previous work focused on the simpler class of "bottleneck" criteria, such as bandwidth. In this study, we focus on the important and much more complex class of \emph{additive} criteria, such as delay and cost. First, we establish some (in part, counter-intuitive) properties of the optimal solution. Then, we establish efficient algorithmic schemes for optimizing the level of survivability under additive end-to-end QoS bounds. Subsequently, through extensive simulations, we show that, at the price of \emph{negligible} reduction in the level of survivability, a major improvement (up to a factor of $2$) is obtained in terms of end-to-end QoS performance. Finally, we exploit the above findings in the context of a network design problem, in which, for a given investment budget, we aim to improve the survivability of the network links.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "survivable probability of network slicing with random physical link failure"):
  with members:
    - "survivable cloud network design against multiple failures through protecting spanning trees"
    - "maximizing reliability in wdm networks through lightpath routing"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "survivable probability of sdn enabled cloud networking with random physical link failure"):
  with members:
    - "survivable cloud network design against multiple failures through protecting spanning trees"
    - "maximizing reliability in wdm networks through lightpath routing"

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.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture)