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: "a note on the undercut procedure"
  Abstract: The undercut procedure was presented by Brams et al. [2] as a procedure for identifying an envy-free allocation when agents have preferences over sets of objects. They assumed that agents have strict preferences over objects and their preferences are extended over to sets of objects via the responsive set extension. We point out some shortcomings of the undercut procedure. We then simplify the undercut procedure of Brams et al. [2] and show that it works under a more general condition where agents may express indifference between objects and they may not necessarily have responsive preferences over sets of objects. Finally, we show that the procedure works even if agents have unequal claims.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "fair allocation based on diminishing differences"):
  with members:
    - "flexible level 1 consensus ensuring stable social choice analysis and algorithms"
    - "competitive equilibrium for almost all incomes"
    - "optimal reallocation under additive and ordinal preferences"
    - "fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences"
    - "a social welfare optimal sequential allocation procedure"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "assigning a small agreeable set of indivisible items to multiple players"):
  with members:
    - "fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "possible and necessary allocations via sequential mechanisms"):
  with members:
    - "fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences"
    - "a social welfare optimal sequential allocation procedure"
    - "the computational complexity of random serial dictatorship"
    - "how to make the most of a shared meal plan the last bite first"
    - "determining possible and necessary winners under common voting rules given partial orders"
    - "taking the final step to a full dichotomy of the possible winner problem in pure scoring rules"
    - "towards a dichotomy for the possible winner problem in elections based on scoring rules"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "a generalization of the al method for fair allocation of indivisible objects"):
  with members:
    - "fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences"

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)