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: "expressivity of time varying graphs and the power of waiting in dynamic networks"
  Abstract: In infrastructure-less highly dynamic networks, computing and performing even basic tasks (such as routing and broadcasting) is a very challenging activity du e to the fact that connectivity does not necessarily hold, and the network may actually be disconnected at every time instant. Clearly the task of designing protocols for these networks is less difficult if t he environment allows waiting (i.e., it provides the nodes with store-carry-forward-like mechanisms such as local buffering) than if waiting is not feasible. No quantitative corroborations of this fact exis t (e.g., no answer to the question: how much easier?). In this paper, we consider these qualitative questions ab out dynamic networks, modeled as time-varying (or evolving) graphs, where edges exist only at some times. We examine the difficulty of the environment in terms of the expressivity of the corresponding time-varying graph; that is in terms of the language generated by the feasible journeys in the graph. We prove that the set of languages Lnowait when no waiting is allowed contains all computable languages. On the other end, using algebraic properties of quasi-orders, we prove that Lwait is just the family of regular languages. In other words, we prove that, when waiting is no longer forbidden, the power of the accepting automaton (difficulty of the envir onment) drops drastically from being as powerful as a Turing machine, to becoming that of a Finite-State machine. This (perhaps surprisingly large) gap is a measure of the computational power of waiting. We also study bounded waiting; that is when waiting is allowed at a node only for at most d time units. We prove the negative result that Lwait[d] = Lnowait; that is, the expressivity decreases only if the waiting is finite but unpredictable (i.e., under the co ntrol of the protocol designer and not of the environment).

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)