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: "probabilistic bounds on the trapping redundancy of linear codes"
  Abstract: The trapping redundancy of a linear code is the number of rows of a smallest parity-check matrix such that no submatrix forms an (a, b)-trapping set. This concept was first introduced in the context of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes in an attempt to estimate the number of redundant rows in a parity-check matrix suitable for iterative decoding. Essentially the same concepts appear in other contexts as well such as robust syndrome extraction for quantum error correction. Among the known upper bounds on the trapping redundancy, the strongest one was proposed by employing a powerful tool in probabilistic combinatorics, called the Lovasz Local Lemma. Unfortunately, the proposed proof invoked this tool in a situation where an assumption made in the lemma does not necessarily hold. Hence, although we do not doubt that nonetheless the proposed bound actually holds, for it to be a mathematical theorem, a more rigorous proof is desired. Another disadvantage of the proposed bound is that it is only applicable to (a, b)-trapping sets with rather small a. Here, we give a more general and sharper upper bound on trapping redundancy by making mathematically more rigorous use of probabilistic combinatorics without relying on the lemma. Our bound is applicable to all potentially avoidable (a, b)-trapping sets with a smaller than the minimum distance of a given linear code, while being generally much sharper than the bound through the Lovasz Local Lemma. In fact, our upper bound is sharp enough to exactly determine the trapping redundancy for many cases, thereby providing precise knowledge in the form of a more general bound with mathematical rigor.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "bounds on separating redundancy of linear codes and rates of x codes"):
  with members:
    - "on generic erasure correcting sets and related problems"
    - "a combinatorial approach to x tolerant compaction circuits"
    - "the trapping redundancy of linear block codes"
    - "on parity check collections for iterative erasure decoding that correct all correctable erasure patterns of a given size"
    - "results on parity check matrices with optimal stopping and or dead end set enumerators"
    - "on the stopping distance and the stopping redundancy of codes"
    - "improved upper bounds on stopping redundancy"

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.IT(Information Theory)