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: "safety of deferred update in transactional memory"
  Abstract: Transactional memory allows the user to declare sequences of instructions as speculative \emph{transactions} that can either \emph{commit} or \emph{abort}. If a transaction commits, it appears to be executed sequentially, so that the committed transactions constitute a correct sequential execution. If a transaction aborts, none of its instructions can affect other transactions. #R##N#The popular criterion of \emph{opacity} requires that the views of aborted transactions must also be consistent with the global sequential order constituted by committed ones. This is believed to be important, since inconsistencies observed by an aborted transaction may cause a fatal irrecoverable error or waste of the system in an infinite loop. Intuitively, an opaque implementation must ensure that no intermediate view a transaction obtains before it commits or aborts can be affected by a transaction that has not started committing yet, so called \emph{deferred-update} semantics. #R##N#In this paper, we intend to grasp this intuition formally. We propose a variant of opacity that explicitly requires the sequential order to respect the deferred-update semantics. We show that our criterion is a safety property, i.e., it is prefix- and limit-closed. Unlike opacity, our property also ensures that a serialization of a history implies serializations of its prefixes. Finally, we show that our property is equivalent to opacity if we assume that no two transactions commit identical values on the same variable, and present a counter-example for scenarios when the "unique-write" assumption does not hold.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "on the cost of concurrency in hybrid transactional memory"):
  with members:
    - "progressive transactional memory in time and space"
    - "inherent limitations of hybrid transactional memory"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "why transactional memory should not be obstruction free"):
  with members:
    - "on the cost of concurrency in transactional memory"
    - "on partial wait freedom in transactional memory"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "inherent limitations of hybrid transactional memory"):
  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)