human: Given a hyperedge-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where the center hyperedge is induced by one source paper and its member nodes are the cited papers.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center hyperedge (induced by source paper "a 2 categorical analysis of complementary families quantum key distribution and the mean king problem"):
  Abstract: This paper explores the use of 2-categorical technology for describing and reasoning about complex quantum procedures. We give syntactic definitions of a famil y of complementary measurements, and of quantum key distribution, and show that they are equivalent. We then show abstractly that either structure gives a solution to the Mean King problem, which we also formulate 2-categorically. The 2-categorical approach to quantum information is now well-developed in its basic aspects [4, 12, 14]. The central aim is to use the structure of a symmetric monoidal 2-category to describe quantum procedures in an abstract way, such that the ordinary versions of these procedures are recovered when we apply the formalism in 2Hilb, the symmetric monoidal 2-category of 2-Hilbert spaces [3]. This builds on the highly successful categorical quantum mechanics research programme of Abramsky, Coecke and collaborators [1, 2], in which quantum procedures are axiomatized in terms of monoidal 1-categories. The key advantage of the 2-categorical setup is that many important structures, such as teleportation, dense coding and complementary observables, can be defined b y single 2-categorical equations. These typically have direct physical interpretations, with the d efining equation for a structure following immediately from a careful physical description of its required properties. A computer algebra system TwoVect [10, 11] allows these equations to be directly evaluated computationally. In this paper, we show that the formalism can be applied successfully to more sophisticated quantum procedures: measurements in a complementary family of bases, quantum key distribution (QKD), and the Mean King problem. For each scenario, we write down a 2-categorical equation that defines the entire procedure in a precise way. For example, here is the defining diagram for BB84 QKD:

Includes members:
  Member "groupoid semantics for thermal computing":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "bicategorical semantics for nondeterministic computation":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)

Question: Please tell me which class the source paper 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.LO(Logic in Computer Science)