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: "power of the interactive proof systems with verifiers modeled by semi quantum two way finite automata"
  Abstract: Interactive proof systems (IP) are very powerful - languages they can accept form exactly PSPACE. They represent also one of the very fundamental concepts of theoretical computing and a model of computation by interactions. One of the key players in IP is verifier. In the original model of IP whose power is that of PSPACE, the only restriction on verifiers is that they work in randomized polynomial time. Because of such key importance of IP, it is of large interest to find out how powerful will IP be when verifiers are more restricted. So far this was explored for the case that verifiers are two-way probabilistic finite automata (Dwork and Stockmeyer, 1990) and one-way quantum finite automata as well as two-way quantum finite automata (Nishimura and Yamakami, 2009). IP in which verifiers use public randomization is called Arthur-Merlin proof systems (AM). AM with verifiers modeled by Turing Machines augmented with a fixed-size quantum register (qAM) were studied also by Yakaryilmaz (2012). He proved, for example, that an NP-complete language L knapsack , representing the 0-1 knapsack problem, can be recognized by a qAM whose verifier is a two-way finite automaton working on quantum mixed states using superoperators.In this paper we explore the power of AM for the case that verifiers are two-way finite automata with quantum and classical states (2QCFA) - introduced by Ambainis and Watrous in 2002 - and the communications are classical. It is of interest to consider AM with such "semi-quantum" verifiers because they use only limited quantum resources. Our main result is that such Quantum Arthur-Merlin proof systems (QAM(2QCFA)) with polynomial expected running time are more powerful than the models in which the verifiers are two-way probabilistic finite automata (AM(2PFA)) with polynomial expected running time. Moreover, we prove that there is a language which can be recognized by an exponential expected running time QAM(2QCFA), but cannot be recognized by any AM(2PFA), and that the NP-complete language L knapsack can also be recognized by a QAM(2QCFA) working only on quantum pure states using unitary operators.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "classically time controlled quantum automata definition and properties"):
  with members:
    - "quantum finite automata a modern introduction"
    - "quipper a scalable quantum programming language"
    - "a lambda calculus for quantum computation with classical control"
    - "theory of one tape linear time turing machines"
    - "two way finite automata with quantum and classical states"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "quantum finite automata survey status and research directions"):
  with members:
    - "unary probabilistic and quantum automata on promise problems"
    - "promise problems solved by quantum and classical finite automata"
    - "magic coins are useful for small space quantum machines"
    - "debates with small transparent quantum verifiers"
    - "from quantum query complexity to state complexity"
    - "classical and quantum realtime alternating automata"
    - "quantum finite automata a modern introduction"
    - "on the state complexity of semi quantum finite automata"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "potential of quantum finite automata with exact acceptance"):
  with members:
    - "very narrow quantum obdds and width hierarchies for classical obdds"
    - "from quantum query complexity to state complexity"
    - "exact quantum algorithms have advantage for almost all boolean functions"
    - "classical automata on promise problems"
    - "on the state complexity of semi quantum finite automata"
    - "superiority of exact quantum automata for promise problems"
    - "unbounded error quantum computation with small space bounds"
    - "succinctness of two way probabilistic and quantum finite automata"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "promise problems solved by quantum and classical finite automata"):
  with members:
    - "on hybrid models of quantum finite automata"
    - "potential of quantum finite automata with exact acceptance"
    - "from quantum query complexity to state complexity"
    - "classical automata on promise problems"
    - "on the state complexity of semi quantum finite automata"
    - "superiority of exact quantum automata for promise problems"
    - "succinctness of two way probabilistic and quantum finite automata"
    - "hierarchy and equivalence of multi letter quantum finite automata"

Connected through hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "from quantum query complexity to state complexity"):
  with members:
    - "potential of quantum finite automata with exact acceptance"
    - "exact quantum algorithms have advantage for almost all boolean functions"
    - "on the state complexity of semi quantum finite automata"
    - "superiority of exact quantum automata for promise problems"
    - "unbounded error quantum computation with small space bounds"
    - "succinctness of two way probabilistic and quantum finite automata"
    - "two way finite automata with quantum and classical states"

Connected through hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "on the state complexity of semi quantum finite automata"):
  with members:
    - "communication complexity of promise problems and their applications to finite automata"
    - "superiority of exact quantum automata for promise problems"
    - "unbounded error quantum computation with small space bounds"
    - "succinctness of two way probabilistic and quantum finite automata"
    - "two way finite automata with quantum and classical states"

Connected through hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "debates with small transparent quantum verifiers"):
  with members:
    - "quantum finite automata a modern introduction"
    - "unbounded error quantum computation with small space bounds"
    - "succinctness of two way probabilistic and quantum finite automata"
    - "two way finite automata with quantum and classical states"

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.CC(Computational Complexity)