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: "performance evaluation of big data processing strategies for neuroimaging"
  Abstract: Neuroimaging datasets are rapidly growing in size as a result of advancements in image acquisition methods, open-science and data sharing. However, the adoption of Big Data processing strategies by neuroimaging processing engines remains limited. Here, we evaluate three Big Data processing strategies (in-memory computing, data locality and lazy evaluation) on typical neuroimaging use cases, represented by the BigBrain dataset. We contrast these various strategies using Apache Spark and Nipype as our representative Big Data and neuroimaging processing engines, on Dell EMC's Top-500 cluster. Big Data thresholds were modelled by comparing the data-write rate of the application to the filesystem bandwidth and number of concurrent processes. This model acknowledges the fact that page caching provided by the Linux kernel is critical to the performance of Big Data applications. Results show that in-memory computing alone speeds-up executions by a factor of up to 1.6, whereas when combined with data locality, this factor reaches 5.3. Lazy evaluation strategies were found to increase the likelihood of cache hits, further improving processing time. Such important speed-up values are likely to be observed on typical image processing operations performed on images of size larger than 75GB. A ballpark speculation from our model showed that in-memory computing alone will not speed-up current functional MRI analyses unless coupled with data locality and processing around 280 subjects concurrently. Furthermore, we observe that emulating in-memory computing using in-memory file systems (tmpfs) does not reach the performance of an in-memory engine, presumably due to swapping to disk and the lack of data cleanup. We conclude that Big Data processing strategies are worth developing for neuroimaging applications.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "a performance comparison of dask and apache spark for data intensive neuroimaging pipelines"):
  with members:
    - "comparative evaluation of big data systems on scientific image analytics workloads"

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)