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: "pan private algorithms when memory does not help"
  Abstract: Consider updates arriving online in which the $t$th input is $(i_t,d_t)$, where $i_t$'s are thought of as IDs of users. Informally, a randomized function $f$ is {\em differentially private} with respect to the IDs if the probability distribution induced by $f$ is not much different from that induced by it on an input in which occurrences of an ID $j$ are replaced with some other ID $k$ Recently, this notion was extended to {\em pan-privacy} where the computation of $f$ retains differential privacy, even if the internal memory of the algorithm is exposed to the adversary (say by a malicious break-in or by fiat by the government). This is a strong notion of privacy, and surprisingly, for basic counting tasks such as distinct counts, heavy hitters and others, Dwork et al~\cite{dwork-pan} present pan-private algorithms with reasonable accuracy. The pan-private algorithms are nontrivial, and rely on sampling. We reexamine these basic counting tasks and show improved bounds. In particular, we estimate the distinct count $\Dt$ to within $(1\pm \eps)\Dt \pm O(\polylog m)$, where $m$ is the number of elements in the universe. This uses suitably noisy statistics on sketches known in the streaming literature. We also present the first known lower bounds for pan-privacy with respect to a single intrusion. Our lower bounds show that, even if allowed to work with unbounded memory, pan-private algorithms for distinct counts can not be significantly more accurate than our algorithms. Our lower bound uses noisy decoding. For heavy hitter counts, we present a pan private streaming algorithm that is accurate to within $O(k)$ in worst case; previously known bound for this problem is arbitrarily worse. An interesting aspect of our pan-private algorithms is that, they deliberately use very small (polylogarithmic) space and tend to be streaming algorithms, even though using more space is not forbidden.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "differential privacy for multi armed bandits what is it and what is its cost"):
  with members:
    - "an information theoretic approach to minimax regret in partial monitoring"
    - "differentially private contextual linear bandits"
    - "achieving privacy in the adversarial multi armed bandit"
    - "corrupt bandits for preserving local 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.CR(Cryptography and Security)