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: "the cost of a reductions approach to private fair optimization"
  Abstract: We examine a reductions approach to fair optimization and learning where a black-box optimizer is used to learn a fair model for classification or regression [Alabi et al., 2018, Agarwal et al., 2018] and explore the creation of such fair models that adhere to data privacy guarantees (specifically differential privacy). For this approach, we consider two suites of use cases: the first is for optimizing convex performance measures of the confusion matrix (such as $G$-mean and $H$-mean); the second is for satisfying statistical definitions of algorithmic fairness (such as equalized odds, demographic parity, and the gini index of inequality). #R##N#The reductions approach to fair optimization can be abstracted as the constrained group-objective optimization problem where we aim to optimize an objective that is a function of losses of individual groups, subject to some constraints. We present two differentially private algorithms: an $(\epsilon, 0)$ exponential sampling algorithm and an $(\epsilon, \delta)$ algorithm that uses a linear optimizer to incrementally move toward the best decision. We analyze the privacy and utility guarantees of these empirical risk minimization algorithms. Compared to a previous method for ensuring differential privacy subject to a relaxed form of the equalized odds fairness constraint, the $(\epsilon, \delta)$ differentially private algorithm we present provides asymptotically better sample complexity guarantees. The technique of using an approximate linear optimizer oracle to achieve privacy might be applicable to other problems not considered in this paper. Finally, we show an algorithm-agnostic lower bound on the accuracy of any solution to the problem of $(\epsilon, 0)$ or $(\epsilon, \delta)$ private constrained group-objective optimization.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "fair learning with private demographic data"):
  with members:
    - "differential privacy has disparate impact on model accuracy"
    - "noise tolerant fair classification"
    - "training well generalizing classifiers for fairness metrics and other data dependent constraints"
    - "differentially private fair learning"
    - "a reductions approach to fair classification"
    - "proxy fairness"
    - "equality of opportunity in supervised learning"
    - "extremal mechanisms for local differential privacy"

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.LG(Machine Learning)