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: "how good is bargained routing"
  Abstract: In the context of networking, research has focused on non-cooperative games, where the selfish agents cannot reach a binding agreement on the way they would share the infrastructure. Many approaches have been proposed for mitigating the typically inefficient operating points. However, in a growing number of networking scenarios selfish agents are able to communicate and reach an agreement. Hence, the degradation of performance should be considered at an operating point of a cooperative game. Accordingly, our goal is to lay foundations for the application of cooperative game theory to fundamental problems in networking. We explain our choice of the Nash Bargaining Scheme (NBS) as the solution concept, and introduce the Price of Selfishness (PoS), which considers the degradation of performance at the worst NBS. We focus on the fundamental load balancing game of routing over parallel links. First, we consider agents with identical performance objectives. We show that, while the PoA here can be large, through bargaining, all agents, and the system, strictly improve their performance. Interestingly, in a two-agent system or when all agents have identical demands, we establish that they reach social optimality. We then consider agents with different performance objectives and demonstrate that the PoS and PoA can be unbounded, yet we explain why both measures are unsuitable. Accordingly, we introduce the Price of Heterogeneity (PoH), as an extension of the PoA. We establish an upper-bound on the PoH and indicate its further motivation for bargaining. Finally, we discuss network design guidelines that follow from our findings

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "coalitions in routing games a worst case perspective"):
  with members:
    - "coalitions in nonatomic network congestion games"
    - "the effect of malice on the social optimum in linear load balancing games"
    - "coalitional games for distributed collaborative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "network non neutrality through preferential signaling"):
  with members:
    - "net neutrality and quality of service"

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.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture)