Readit NewsI could not follow where the leaf_hash is used carefully enough to figure out exactly how dangerous this is in the broader context and taking future evolution into account. But it's clearly safe as it is used now because all expected inputs have the same length.
> Note: Update on April 18: Step 9 of the algorithm contains a bug, which I don’t know how to fix. See Section 3.5.9 (Page 37) for details. I sincerely thank Hongxun Wu and (independently) Thomas Vidick for finding the bug today. Now the claim of showing a polynomial time quantum algorithm for solving LWE with polynomial modulus-noise ratios does not hold. I leave the rest of the paper as it is (added a clarification of an operation in Step 8) as a hope that ideas like Complex Gaussian and windowed QFT may find other applications in quantum computation, or tackle LWE in other ways.
When you write your paper you say exactly this in the introductory context. Here is what other people have done, here is a problem not yet solved in this area, we solve it. It saves the reader an enormous amount of time by not having to do a literature review themselves to see how the paper fits into the larger thrust of the field, and what the novelty is.
How can you justify the novelty other than by comparing to other people's work?
Which claim do you disagree with? The claim that the trend I describe exists, or the fact that it is bad?
Note that what you describe is what I advocate: you explain that the question exists and hasn't been answered. This is not an argument that is based on the volume of work that exists.
It is also an argument you cannot (as an author) be trusted to make. Even if you cite everything that has been published that is tangentially related to your claimed contribution, there is no way a reviewer will know all of it, and no way a reviewer will be able to go and read all of it. So they can't determine whether your claim of novelty is correct unless they already know the entire field. The only defense against this is to encourage crisp and clear descriptions of claimed contributions (to knowledge or practice) and violently reject any overinflated claims. It is not to include an entire survey paper in the introduction of every piece of work that pushes the state of the art forward.
It does mean that the average paper is less accessible to the non-expert. It also encourages the regular publication of surveys whose role is solely to critically and exhaustively compare recent advances, and of textbooks whose role is to describe historic developments and their context. This is not something every paper should be doing.
So while I agree that generally citations are a statement of claim and the reference given allows people to see if that statement of claim is actually supported, within the paper itself good authors also explicitly weigh the "truth value of a proposition".
This shows the authors are familiar with the field, avoids inadvertent plagiarism, allows them to make it clear precisely how their contribution contributes to knowledge, shows people from funding bodies that this is a cutting edge and important field of research, and points readers in the right direction if they want to see earlier ideas, or ideas in a more applied context.
If among those 92 citations should be a few papers from your boss and your colleagues, nobody will see that as unusual - as long as they're at least marginally relevant.
I would in fact argue that the trend, in "applied" fields, of justifying the importance of a piece of work by pointing out that a lot of people are doing similar work is in fact self-fulfilling. That makes it somewhat useless as a measure of importance.
Scientific context should be critical, not just descriptive.
Where are blockchains widely used nowadays, pray tell?
That's all I can think of, though.