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: "sequential solutions in machine scheduling games"
  Abstract: We consider the classical machine scheduling, where n jobs need to be scheduled on m machines, with the goal of minimizing the makespan, i.e., the maximum load of any machine in the schedule. We study inefficiency of schedules that are obtained when jobs arrive sequentially one by one, and choose themselves the machine on which they will be scheduled. Every job is only interested to be on a machine with a small load (and does not care about the loads of other machines). We measure the inefficiency of a schedule as the ratio of the makespan obtained in the worst-case equilibrium schedule, and of the optimum makespan. This ratio is known as the sequential price of anarchy. We also introduce alternative inefficiency measures, which allow for a favorable choice of the order in which the jobs make their decisions. We first disprove the conjecture of Hassin and Yovel (OR Letters, 2015) claiming that for unrelated machines, i.e., for the setting where every job can have a different processing time on every machine, the sequential price of anarchy for m = 2 machines is at most 3. We provide an answer for the setting with m = 2 and show that the sequential price of anarchy grows at least linearly with the number of players. Furthermore, we show that for a certain order of the jobs, the resulting makespan is at most linearly larger than the optimum makespan. Furthermore, we show that if an authority can change the order of the jobs adaptively to the decisions made by the jobs so far (but cannot influence the decisions of the jobs), then there exists an adaptive ordering in which the jobs end up in an optimum schedule. To the end we consider identical machines, i.e., the setting where every job has the same processing time on every machine, and provide matching lower bound examples to the existing upper bounds on the sequential price of anarchy.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "selfish jobs with favorite machines price of anarchy vs strong price of anarchy"):
  with members:
    - "online scheduling of jobs with favorite machines"
    - "approximate strong equilibrium in job scheduling games"

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.GT(Computer Science and Game Theory)