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: "an atypical survey of typical case heuristic algorithms"
  Abstract: Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "discovering archipelagos of tractability for constraint satisfaction and counting"):
  with members:
    - "backdoors into heterogeneous classes of sat and csp"
    - "on backdoors to tractable constraint languages"
    - "the complexity of conservative valued csps"
    - "strong backdoors to bounded treewidth sat"
    - "almost 2 sat is fixed parameter tractable"
    - "the connectivity of boolean satisfiability computational and structural dichotomies"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "more natural models of electoral control by partition"):
  with members:
    - "elections with few voters candidate control can be easy"
    - "combinatorial voter control in elections"
    - "weighted electoral control"
    - "search versus decision for election manipulation problems"
    - "normalized range voting broadly resists control"
    - "where are the hard manipulation problems"
    - "sincere strategy preference based approval voting fully resists constructive control and broadly resists destructive control"
    - "anyone but him the complexity of precluding an alternative"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "weighted electoral control"):
  with members:
    - "a control dichotomy for pure scoring rules"
    - "possible winners in noisy elections"
    - "control in the presence of manipulators cooperative and competitive cases"
    - "schulze and ranked pairs voting are fixed parameter tractable to bribe manipulate and control"
    - "how many vote operations are needed to manipulate a voting system"
    - "control complexity in bucklin fallback and plurality voting an experimental approach"
    - "new candidates welcome possible winners with respect to the addition of new candidates"
    - "the complexity of manipulative attacks in nearly single peaked electorates"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "control in the presence of manipulators cooperative and competitive cases"):
  with members:
    - "x then x manipulation of same system runoff elections"
    - "online voter control in sequential elections"
    - "the complexity of online manipulation of sequential elections"
    - "new candidates welcome possible winners with respect to the addition of new candidates"
    - "multimode control attacks on elections"
    - "normalized range voting broadly resists control"
    - "control complexity in fallback voting"
    - "where are the really hard manipulation problems the phase transition in manipulating the veto rule"

Connected through hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "x then x manipulation of same system runoff elections"):
  with members:
    - "search versus decision for election manipulation problems"
    - "eliminating the weakest link making manipulation intractable"
    - "where are the really hard manipulation problems the phase transition in manipulating the veto rule"
    - "a richer understanding of the complexity of election systems"
    - "dichotomy for voting systems"
    - "anyone but him the complexity of precluding an alternative"
    - "universal voting protocol tweaks to make manipulation hard"

Connected through hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "the complexity of online voter control in sequential elections"):
  with members:
    - "control in the presence of manipulators cooperative and competitive cases"
    - "the complexity of controlling candidate sequential elections"
    - "online voter control in sequential elections"
    - "the complexity of online manipulation of sequential elections"
    - "the complexity of manipulative attacks in nearly single peaked electorates"
    - "equilibria of plurality voting with abstentions"
    - "sincere strategy preference based approval voting fully resists constructive control and broadly resists destructive control"
    - "hybrid elections broaden complexity theoretic resistance to control"

Connected through hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "the complexity of online manipulation of sequential elections"):
  with members:
    - "online voter control in sequential elections"
    - "new candidates welcome possible winners with respect to the addition of new candidates"
    - "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"
    - "equilibria of plurality voting with abstentions"
    - "towards a dichotomy of finding possible winners in elections based on scoring rules"
    - "a richer understanding of the complexity of election systems"

Connected through hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "the complexity of manipulative attacks in nearly single peaked electorates"):
  with members:
    - "are there any nicely structured preference profiles nearby"
    - "weighted electoral control"
    - "schulze and ranked pairs voting are fixed parameter tractable to bribe manipulate and control"
    - "search versus decision for election manipulation problems"
    - "clone structures in voters preferences"
    - "cloning in elections finding the possible winners"
    - "multimode control attacks on elections"
    - "bucklin voting is broadly resistant to control"

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)