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: "lift project systems performing on the partial vertex cover polytope"
  Abstract: We study integrality gap (IG) lower bounds on strong LP and SDP relaxations derived by the Sherali-Adams (SA), Lovasz-Schrijver-SDP (LS+), and Sherali-Adams-SDP (SA+) lift-and-project (L&P) systems for the t-Partial-Vertex-Cover (t-PVC) problem, a variation of the classic Vertex-Cover problem in which only t edges need to be covered. t-PVC admits a 2-approximation using various algorithmic techniques, all relying on a natural LP relaxation. Starting from this LP relaxation, our main results assert that for every epsilon > 0, level-Theta(n) LPs or SDPs derived by all known L&P systems that have been used for positive algorithmic results (but the Lasserre hierarchy) have IGs at least (1-epsilon)n/t, where n is the number of vertices of the input graph. Our lower bounds are nearly tight. #R##N#Our results show that restricted yet powerful models of computation derived by many L&P systems fail to witness c-approximate solutions to t-PVC for any constant c, and for t = O(n). This is one of the very few known examples of an intractable combinatorial optimization problem for which LP-based algorithms induce a constant approximation ratio, still lift-and-project LP and SDP tightenings of the same LP have unbounded IGs. #R##N#We also show that the SDP that has given the best algorithm known for t-PVC has integrality gap n/t on instances that can be solved by the level-1 LP relaxation derived by the LS system. This constitutes another rare phenomenon where (even in specific instances) a static LP outperforms an SDP that has been used for the best approximation guarantee for the problem at hand. Finally, one of our main contributions is that we make explicit of a new and simple methodology of constructing solutions to LP relaxations that almost trivially satisfy constraints derived by all SDP L&P systems known to be useful for algorithmic positive results (except the La system).

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.DS(Data Structures and Algorithms)