Reply to comments on "Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection"

TL;DR

This paper responds to critiques of their previous work, clarifying that their original conclusions about the suboptimality of weak value amplification hold even when considering complex weak values and addressing logical fallacies in the comments.

Contribution

The authors defend their original analysis by showing it remains valid with complex weak values and clarify misunderstandings in the comments.

Findings

Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection.

Follow-up work confirms the original conclusion with complex weak values.

Comments contain logical fallacies that do not undermine the original results.

Abstract

Kedem's Comment [arXiv:1402.1352] on our Letter [PRL 112, 040406 (2014)] contains only the criticism that we did not consider complex weak values. We point out follow-up work which uses the same analysis as in our Letter, includes any type of weak values and draws the same conclusion. Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1402.0199] on our Letter can be deconstructed in to two distinct logical fallacies.