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: "dynamic non bayesian decision making"
  Abstract: The model of a non-Bayesian agent who faces a repeated game with incomplete information against Nature is an appropriate tool for modeling general agent-environment interactions. In such a model the environment state (controlled by Nature) may change arbitrarily, and the feedback/reward function is initially unknown. The agent is not Bayesian, that is he does not form a prior probability neither on the state selection strategy of Nature, nor on his reward function. A policy for the agent is a function which assigns an action to every history of observations and actions. Two basic feedback structures are considered. In one of them -- the perfect monitoring case -- the agent is able to observe the previous environment state as part of his feedback, while in the other -- the imperfect monitoring case -- all that is available to the agent is the reward obtained. Both of these settings refer to partially observable processes, where the current environment state is unknown. Our main result refers to the competitive ratio criterion in the perfect monitoring case. We prove the existence of an efficient stochastic policy that ensures that the competitive ratio is obtained at almost all stages with an arbitrarily high probability, where efficiency is measured in terms of rate of convergence. It is further shown that such an optimal policy does not exist in the imperfect monitoring case. Moreover, it is proved that in the perfect monitoring case there does not exist a deterministic policy that satisfies our long run optimality criterion. In addition, we discuss the maxmin criterion and prove that a deterministic efficient optimal strategy does exist in the imperfect monitoring case under this criterion. Finally we show that our approach to long-run optimality can be viewed as qualitative, which distinguishes it from previous work in this area.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "bl wolf a framework for loss bounded learnability in zero sum games"):
  with members:
    - "complexity results about nash equilibria"

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.AI(Artificial Intelligence)