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: "verifying linearizability a comparative survey"
  Abstract: Linearizability is a key correctness criterion for concurrent data structures, ensuring that each history of the concurrent object under consideration is consistent with respect to a history of the corresponding abstract data structure. Linearizability allows concurrent (i.e., overlapping) operation calls take effect in any order, but requires the real-time order of non-overlapping to be preserved. The sophisticated nature of concurrent objects means that linearizability is difficult to judge, and hence, over the years, numerous techniques for verifying linearizability have been developed using a variety of formal foundations such as data refinement, shape analysis, reduction, etc. However, because the underlying framework, nomenclature and terminology for each method is different, it has become difficult for practitioners to evaluate the differences between each approach, and hence, evaluate the methodology most appropriate for verifying the data structure at hand. In this paper, we compare the major of methods for verifying linearizability, describe the main contribution of each method, and compare their advantages and limitations.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "decoupling lock free data structures from memory reclamation for static analysis"):
  with members:
    - "verification of tree based hierarchical read copy update in the linux kernel"
    - "reclaiming memory for lock free data structures there has to be a better way"
    - "proving linearizability using forward simulations"
    - "verifying concurrent stacks by divergence sensitive bisimulation"
    - "effect summaries for thread modular analysis"
    - "concurrent data structures linked in time"
    - "pointer race freedom"
    - "faster linearizability checking via p compositionality"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "proving linearizability using partial orders extended version"):
  with members:
    - "linearizability with ownership transfer"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "a generic logic for proving linearizability extended version"):
  with members:
    - "specifying and verifying concurrent algorithms with histories and subjectivity"
    - "linearizability with ownership transfer"

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.LO(Logic in Computer Science)