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: "a survey on routing in anonymous communication protocols"
  Abstract: The Internet has undergone dramatic changes in the past 15 years, and now forms a global communication platform that billions of users rely on for their daily activities. While this transformation has brought tremendous benefits to society, it has also created new threats to online privacy, ranging from profiling of users for monetizing personal information to nearly omnipotent governmental surveillance. As a result, public interest in systems for anonymous communication has drastically increased. Several such systems have been proposed in the literature, each of which offers anonymity guarantees in different scenarios and under different assumptions, reflecting the plurality of approaches for how messages can be anonymously routed to their destination. Understanding this space of competing approaches with their different guarantees and assumptions is vital for users to understand the consequences of different design options. #R##N#In this work, we survey previous research on designing, developing, and deploying systems for anonymous communication. To this end, we provide a taxonomy for clustering all prevalently considered approaches (including Mixnets, DC-nets, onion routing, and DHT-based protocols) with respect to their unique routing characteristics, deployability, and performance. This, in particular, encompasses the topological structure of the underlying network; the routing information that has to be made available to the initiator of the conversation; the underlying communication model; and performance-related indicators such as latency and communication layer. Our taxonomy and comparative assessment provide important insights about the differences between the existing classes of anonymous communication protocols, and it also helps to clarify the relationship between the routing characteristics of these protocols, and their performance and scalability.

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)