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: "outlier detection in default logics the tractability intractability frontier"
  Abstract: In default theories, outliers denote sets of literals featuring unexpected properties. In previous papers, we have defined outliers in default logics and investigated their formal properties. Specifically, we have looked into the computational complexity of outlier detection problems and proved that while they are generally intractable, interesting tractable cases can be singled out. Following those results, we study here the tractability frontier in outlier detection problems, by analyzing it with respect to (i) the considered outlier detection problem, (ii) the reference default logic fragment, and (iii) the adopted notion of outlier. As for point (i), we shall consider three problems of increasing complexity, called Outlier-Witness Recognition, Outlier Recognition and Outlier Existence, respectively. As for point (ii), as we look for conditions under which outlier detection can be done efficiently, attention will be limited to subsets of Disjunction-free propositional default theories. As for point (iii), we shall refer to both the notion of outlier of [ABP08] and a new and more restrictive one, called strong outlier. After complexity results, we present a polynomial time algorithm for enumerating all strong outliers of bounded size in an quasi-acyclic normal unary default theory. Some of our tractability results rely on the Incremental Lemma that provides conditions for a deafult logic fragment to have a monotonic behavior. Finally, in order to show that the simple fragments of DL we deal with are still rich enough to solve interesting problems and, therefore, the tractability results that we prove are interesting not only on the mere theoretical side, insights into the expressive capabilities of these fragments are provided, by showing that normal unary theories express all NL queries, hereby indirectly answering a question raised by Kautz and Selman.

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.AI(Artificial Intelligence)