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: "decentralized list scheduling"
  Abstract: Classical list scheduling is a very popular and efficient technique for scheduling jobs in parallel and distributed platforms. It is inherently centralized. However, with the increasing number of processors, the cost for managing a single centralized list becomes too prohibitive. A suitable approach to reduce the contention is to distribute the list among the computational units: each processor has only a local view of the work to execute. Thus, the scheduler is no longer greedy and standard performance guarantees are lost. #R##N#The objective of this work is to study the extra cost that must be paid when the list is distributed among the computational units. We first present a general methodology for computing the expected makespan based on the analysis of an adequate potential function which represents the load unbalance between the local lists. We obtain an equation on the evolution of the potential by computing its expected decrease in one step of the schedule. Our main theorem shows how to solve such equations to bound the makespan. Then, we apply this method to several scheduling problems, namely, for unit independent tasks, for weighted independent tasks and for tasks with precendence constraints. More precisely, we prove that the time for scheduling a global workload W composed of independent unit tasks on m processors is equal to W/m plus an additional term proportional to log_2 W. We provide a lower bound which shows that this is optimal up to a constant. This result is extended to the case of weighted independent tasks. In the last setting, precedence task graphs, our analysis leads to an improvement on the bound of Arora et al. We finally provide some experiments using a simulator. The distribution of the makespan is shown to fit existing probability laws. The additive term is shown by simulation to be around 3 \log_2 W confirming the tightness of our analysis.

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)