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 risk utility tradeoff for ip address truncation"
  Abstract: Network operators are reluctant to share traffic data due to security and privacy concerns. Consequently, there is a lack of publicly available traces for validating and generalizing the latest results in network and security research. Anonymization is a possible solution in this context; however, it is unclear how the sanitization of data preserves characteristics important for traffic analysis. In addition, the privacy-preserving property of state-of-the-art IP address anonymization techniques has come into question by recent attacks that successfully identified a large number of hosts in anonymized traces. #R##N#In this paper, we examine the tradeoff between data utility for anomaly detection and the risk of host identification for IP address truncation. Specifically, we analyze three weeks of unsampled and non-anonymized network traces from a medium-sized backbone network to assess data utility. The risk of de-anonymizing individual IP addresses is formally evaluated, using a metric based on conditional entropy. #R##N#Our results indicate that truncation effectively prevents host identification but degrades the utility of data for anomaly detection. However, the degree of degradation depends on the metric used and whether network-internal or external addresses are considered. Entropy metrics are more resistant to truncation than unique counts and the detection quality of anomalies degrades much faster in internal addresses than in external addresses. In particular, the usefulness of internal address counts is lost even for truncation of only 4 bits whereas utility of external address entropy is virtually unchanged even for truncation of 20 bits.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "preserving both privacy and utility in network trace anonymization"):
  with members:
    - "differentially private mimo filtering for event streams and spatio temporal monitoring"
    - "calibrating data to sensitivity in private data analysis"
    - "flaim a multi level anonymization framework for computer and network logs"

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.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture)