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: "non interference and local correctness in transactional memory"
  Abstract: Transactional memory promises to make concurrent programming tractable and efficient by allowing the user to assemble sequences of actions in atomic transactions with all-or-nothing semantics. It is believed that, by its very virtue, transactional memory must ensure that all committed transactions constitute a serial execution respecting the real-time order. In contrast, aborted or incomplete transactions should not "take effect." But what does "not taking effect" mean exactly? #R##N#It seems natural to expect that aborted or incomplete transactions do not appear in the global serial execution, and, thus, no committed transaction can be affected by them. We investigate another, less obvious, feature of "not taking effect" called non-interference: aborted or incomplete transactions should not force any other transaction to abort. In the strongest form of non-interference that we explore in this paper, by removing a subset of aborted or incomplete transactions from the history, we should not be able to turn an aborted transaction into a committed one without violating the correctness criterion. #R##N#We show that non-interference is, in a strict sense, not implementable with respect to the popular criterion of opacity that requires all transactions (be they committed, aborted or incomplete) to witness the same global serial execution. In contrast, when we only require local correctness, non-interference is implementable. Informally, a correctness criterion is local if it only requires that every transaction can be serialized along with (a subset of) the transactions committed before its last event (aborted or incomplete transactions ignored). We give a few examples of local correctness properties, including the recently proposed criterion of virtual world consistency, and present a simple though efficient implementation that satisfies non-interference and local opacity.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "achieving greater concurrency in execution of smart contracts using object semantics"):
  with members:
    - "an empirical study of speculative concurrency in ethereum smart contracts"
    - "hyperledger fabric a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains"
    - "an efficient framework for optimistic concurrent execution of smart contracts"
    - "a concurrent perspective on smart contracts"
    - "adding concurrency to smart contracts"
    - "an innovative approach to achieve compositionality efficiently using multi version object based transactional systems"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "achieving starvation freedom with greater concurrency in multi version object based transactional memory systems"):
  with members:
    - "obtaining progress guarantee and greaterconcurrency in multi version object semantics"
    - "achieving starvation freedom in multi version transactional memory systems"
    - "an innovative approach to achieve compositionality efficiently using multi version object based transactional systems"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "obtaining progress guarantee and greaterconcurrency in multi version object semantics"):
  with members:
    - "achieving starvation freedom in multi version transactional memory systems"
    - "an innovative approach to achieve compositionality efficiently using multi version object based transactional systems"
    - "on the cost of concurrency in transactional memory"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "an efficient approach to achieve compositionality using optimized multi version object based transactional systems"):
  with members:
    - "an innovative approach to achieve compositionality efficiently using multi version object based transactional systems"
    - "on the cost of concurrency in transactional memory"

Connected through hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "an efficient framework for optimistic concurrent execution of smart contracts"):
  with members:
    - "a concurrent perspective on smart contracts"

Connected through hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "an innovative approach to achieve compositionality efficiently using multi version object based transactional systems"):
  with members:
    - "on the cost of concurrency in transactional memory"

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.DC(Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing)