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: "correctness and fairness of tendermint core blockchains"
  Abstract: Tendermint-core blockchains (e.g. Cosmos) are considered today one of the most viable alternatives for the highly energy consuming proof-of-work blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. Their particularity is that they aim at offering strong consistency (no forks) in an open system combining two ingredients (i) a set of validators that generate blocks via a variant of Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerant (PBFT) consensus protocol and (ii) a selection strategy that dynamically selects nodes to be validators for the next block via a proof-of-stake mechanism. However,#R##N#the exact assumptions on the system model under which Tendermint underlying algorithms are correct and the exact properties Tendermint verifies have never been formally analyzed. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, while formalizing Tendermint algorithms we precisely characterize the system model and the exact problem solved by Tendermint. We prove that in eventual synchronous systems a modified version of Tendermint solves (i) under additional assumptions, a variant of one-shot consensus for the validation of one single block and (ii) a variant of the repeated consensus problem for multiple blocks. These results hold even if the set of validators is hit by Byzantine failures, provided that for each one-shot consensus instance less than one third of the validators is Byzantine. Our second contribution relates to the fairness of the rewarding mechanism. It is common knowledge that in permisionless blockchain systems the main threat is the tragedy of commons that may yield the system to collapse if the rewarding mechanism is not adequate. Ad minimum the rewarding mechanism must be fair, i.e.#R##N#distributing the rewards in proportion to the merit of participants. We prove, for the first time in blockchain systems, that in repeated-consensus based blockchains there exists an (eventual) fair rewarding mechanism if and only if the system is (eventual) synchronous. We also show that the original Tendermint rewarding is not fair, however, a modification of the original protocol makes it eventually fair.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "a survey of distributed consensus protocols for blockchain networks"):
  with members:
    - "deconstructing blockchains a comprehensive survey on consensus membership and structure"
    - "a survey on consensus mechanisms and mining strategy management in blockchain networks"
    - "scalable bft consensus mechanism through aggregated signature gossip"
    - "asymmetric distributed trust"
    - "decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks"
    - "hyperledger fabric a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains"
    - "scaling nakamoto consensus to thousands of transactions per second"
    - "blockchains consensus protocols in the wild"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "formal verification of blockchain byzantine fault tolerance"):
  with members:
    - "on the correctness of egalitarian paxos"
    - "correctness analysis of ibft"
    - "the consensus number of a cryptocurrency"
    - "dissecting tendermint"
    - "the latest gossip on bft consensus"
    - "analysis of the xrp ledger consensus protocol"
    - "evaluating the red belly blockchain"
    - "sbft a scalable decentralized trust infrastructure for blockchains"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "dissecting tendermint"):
  with members:
    - "the latest gossip on bft consensus"
    - "blockchain abstract data type"
    - "hyperledger fabric a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains"
    - "dbft efficient byzantine consensus with a weak coordinator and its application to consortium blockchains"
    - "leader randomization signature free byzantine consensus for consortium blockchains"
    - "enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing"
    - "bitcoin meets strong consistency"

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)