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: "flow and context sensitive points to analysis using generalized points to graphs"
  Abstract: Computing precise (fully flow-sensitive and context-sensitive) and exhaustive points-to information is computationally expensive. Many practical tools approximate the points-to information trading precision for efficiency. This has adverse impact on computationally intensive analyses such as model checking. Past explorations in top-down approaches of fully flow- and context-sensitive points-to analysis (FCPA) have not scaled. We explore the alternative of bottom-up interprocedural approach which constructs summary flow functions for procedures to represent the effect of their calls. This approach has been effectively used for many analyses. However, it is computationally expensive for FCPA which requires modelling unknown locations accessed indirectly through pointers. Such accesses are commonly handled by using placeholders to explicate unknown locations or by using multiple call-specific summary flow functions. #R##N#We generalize the concept of points-to relations by using the counts of indirection levels leaving the unknown locations implicit. This allows us to create summary flow functions in the form of generalized points-to graphs (GPGs) without the need of placeholders. By design, GPGs represent both memory (in terms of classical points-to facts) and memory transformers (in terms of generalized points-to facts). We perform FCPA by progressively reducing generalized points-to facts to classical points-to facts. GPGs distinguish between may and must pointer updates thereby facilitating strong updates within calling contexts. #R##N#The size of GPG is linearly bounded by the number of variables and is independent of the number of statements in the procedure. Empirical measurements on SPEC benchmarks show that GPGs are indeed compact in spite of large procedure sizes. This allows us to scale FCPA to 158 kLoC using GPGs (compared to 35 kLoC reported by liveness-based FCPA).

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "generalized points to graphs a new abstraction of memory in the presence of pointers"):
  with members:
    - "heap abstractions for static analysis"
    - "interprocedural data flow analysis in soot using value contexts"

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.PL(Programming Languages)