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: "reviewing and improving the gaussian mechanism for differential privacy"
  Abstract: Differential privacy provides a rigorous framework to quantify data privacy, and has received considerable interest recently. A randomized mechanism satisfying $(\epsilon, \delta)$-differential privacy (DP) roughly means that, except with a small probability $\delta$, altering a record in a dataset cannot change the probability that an output is seen by more than a multiplicative factor $e^{\epsilon} $. A well-known solution to $(\epsilon, \delta)$-DP is the Gaussian mechanism initiated by Dwork et al. [1] in 2006 with an improvement by Dwork and Roth [2] in 2014, where a Gaussian noise amount $\sqrt{2\ln \frac{2}{\delta}} \times \frac{\Delta}{\epsilon}$ of [1] or $\sqrt{2\ln \frac{1.25}{\delta}} \times \frac{\Delta}{\epsilon}$ of [2] is added independently to each dimension of the query result, for a query with $\ell_2$-sensitivity $\Delta$. Although both classical Gaussian mechanisms [1,2] assume $0 < \epsilon \leq 1$, our review finds that many studies in the literature have used the classical Gaussian mechanisms under values of $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ where the added noise amounts of [1,2] do not achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP. We obtain such result by analyzing the optimal noise amount $\sigma_{DP-OPT}$ for $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP and identifying $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ where the noise amounts of classical mechanisms are even less than $\sigma_{DP-OPT}$. #R##N#Since $\sigma_{DP-OPT}$ has no closed-form expression and needs to be approximated in an iterative manner, we propose Gaussian mechanisms by deriving closed-form upper bounds for $\sigma_{DP-OPT}$. Our mechanisms achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for any $\epsilon$, while the classical mechanisms [1,2] do not achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for large $\epsilon$ given $\delta$. Moreover, the utilities of our mechanisms improve those of [1,2] and are close to that of the optimal yet more computationally expensive Gaussian mechanism.

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.CR(Cryptography and Security)