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

Christopher Ferrie; Joshua Combes

REVIEW

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1402.2954 v1 pith:JHUNQZSG submitted 2014-02-12 quant-ph

Christopher Ferrie , Joshua Combes This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords letterweakarxivcommentsamevaluesamplificationanalysis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

0 comments

read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools