Instrument-dependent method for

obtaining a nondepolarizing estimate

from an experimental Mueller matrix

Razvigor Ossikovski
Oriol Arteaga

Razvigor Ossikovski, Oriol Arteaga, “Instrument-dependent method for obtaining a nondepolarizing

estimate from an experimental Mueller matrix,” Opt. Eng. 58(8), 082409 (2019),
doi: 10.1117/1.OE.58.8.082409.

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Optical Engineering 58(8), 082409 (August 2019)

Instrument-dependent method for obtaining

a nondepolarizing estimate from an experimental
Mueller matrix
Razvigor Ossikovskia,* and Oriol Arteagaa,b
a
LPICM, CNRS, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France
b
Universitat de Barcelona, Departamento de Física Aplicada, IN2UB, Feman Group, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract. We describe a numerical method for obtaining a nondepolarizing estimate from an experimental
Mueller matrix, a necessary preliminary step in determining the Jones matrix and the polarization properties
of the sample under study. The proposed method, being a variant of the general virtual experiment approach,
is based on minimizing the least squares distance between the light intensities virtually generated by the effec-
tively measured Mueller matrix of the sample and by its nondepolarizing estimate, while taking into account the
exact phenomenological description of the polarimetric instrument used. It can be applied to complete, as well as
to partial (12-element) experimental Mueller matrices. The application of the method is illustrated on experimen-
tal examples and its performance is compared to that of alternative approaches. © 2019 Society of Photo-Optical
Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) [DOI: 10.1117/1.OE.58.8.082409]
Keywords: polarimetry; depolarization; Mueller matrix; Jones matrix.
Paper 181692SS received Nov. 28, 2018; accepted for publication Feb. 8, 2019; published online Feb. 26, 2019.

1 Introduction determined Mueller matrix and, being purely algebraic, is

The 2 × 2 complex Jones matrix is the complete phenomeno-
logical descriptor of the totally coherent interaction of a lin-
ear medium or system with polarized light.1–4 The material
under study and the probing light can be considered to be
interacting totally coherently whenever the spectral and spa-
tial variations in the optical response of the sample are much
slower than the spectral resolution and the coherence area of
the instrument. In particular, this is the case for the large and
practically important class of spatially homogeneous sam-
ples. The experimental determination of the Jones matrix of
a totally coherently interacting sample is commonly per-
formed by using generalized ellipsometry1,5 or Mueller
matrix polarimetry.2,3,5 These two polarimetric techniques
do not measure the Jones matrix directly, but rather deter-
mine 12 or all 16 elements of the Mueller matrix, respec-
tively, and therefore, are referred to as partial and
complete polarimetry, respectively. The Jones matrix can
then be derived uniquely from the measured Mueller matrix
elements.2,5,6 However, the experimentally determined
Mueller matrix, be it partial or complete, not only unavoid-
ably contains measurement noise but most generally also
describes partially coherent, instead of totally coherent,
light–matter interaction, commonly referred to as depolari-
zation. Consequently, in order to determine the Jones matrix
of the sample under study, one first needs to obtain a non-
depolarizing estimate from its experimental Mueller matrix.
This step, sometimes termed filtering,7 is accomplished
either by using algebraic decompositions, e.g., the widely
used Cloude sum decomposition,4,7,8 or by applying the vir-
tual experiment (VE) approach based on modeling the
polarimetric experiment.9,10 The first approach yields the
nondepolarizing estimate that is closest to the experimentally
computationally more straightforward. The second approach
provides a nondepolarizing estimate virtually producing
light intensities that are as close as possible to those that
the effectively measured Mueller matrix would produce.
Necessitating numerical implementation, it is more demand-
ing computationally but better takes into account the infor-
mation available, namely the design of the polarimetric
instrument. The VE method also has the unique advantage
of being applicable to partial 12-element Mueller matrices
with missing (unknown) last column (or row) elements, pro-
vided by generalized ellipsometry experiments. Furthermore,
being of numerical nature, it can be implemented to yield
Jones matrices of predefined specific forms, e.g., symmetric,
antisymmetric, or diagonal ones.
The purpose of this work is to introduce and illustrate the
application of the instrument-dependent version of the VE
method. Unlike its conventional variant from Ref. 9, it is
based on the exact phenomenological model of the instru-
ment (complete polarimeter or generalized ellipsometer)
used to determine experimentally the Mueller matrix and
thus allows potentially for the minimization of the measure-
ment noise bias. The performance of the method in the
complete polarimetry case is further compared to that of
conventional Cloude decomposition and VE filtering.
Before proceeding, it should be emphasized that we are
considering conventional instrument designs, both partial
and complete, and that the unique aim of the approach we
propose is the recovery of the nondepolarizing estimate of
the Mueller matrix of the sample and the Jones matrix
associated with it. To address the more general case of the
so-called adaptive polarimetry based on nonconventional
designs generating and analyzing predefined polarization
states11 or using “channels”12 containing responses of linear

*Address all correspondence to Razvigor Ossikovski, E-mail: razvigor

.ossikovski@polytechnique.edu 0091-3286/2019/$25.00 © 2019 SPIE

Optical Engineering 082409-1 August 2019 • Vol. 58(8)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Ossikovski and Arteaga: Instrument-dependent method for obtaining a nondepolarizing. . .

combinations of Mueller matrix elements, one needs to Mueller matrix M is the one that would produce light inten-
modify and extend the approach presented below. sities that are as close as possible to those potentially gen-
erated by M.9,10 If least squares estimation is supposed,9 then
2 Formal Description of the Method one must minimize the normalized residual δ2 given as
A Mueller matrix polarimeter measures the M × N positive 1
matrix I of light intensities in accordance with the fundamen- δ2 ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e004;326;708 kA M W − A Mnd Wk2
MN
tal measurement relation
1
¼ kAðM − Mnd ÞWk2 ; (4)
I ¼ A M W;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e001;63;674 (1) MN

where W and A are the 4 × N and M × 4 matrices of where the notation k: : : k stands for the Frobenius matrix
the polarization state generator (PSG) and the polarization norm.
p (The ffi Frobenius norm of the matrix B is kBk ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
state analyzer (PSA) of the instrument, respectively, M is trðBT BÞ, where “tr” is the matrix trace, so that kBk2
the 4 × 4 Mueller matrix of the sample, and NðMÞ is the equals the sum of the squares of the elements of B.) The min-
number of polarization states generated (analyzed) by the imization parameters are the four complex elements J ij ,
PSG (PSA).2,5 i; j ¼ 1; 2, of the Jones matrix J through which the non-
The two instrument matrices W and A have the respective depolarizing estimate Mnd is expressed as1
forms
Mnd ¼ TðJ ⊗ J ÞT−1 ;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e005;326;561 (5)
W¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e002a;63;555 ½ sð1Þ
i
ð2Þ
si :::
ðNÞ
si ; (2a)
where the transition matrix T is given as1
and 21 0 0 1 3
A ¼ ½ sð1Þ
o
ð2Þ
so :::
ðMÞ T
so  ; (2b) 61 0 0 −1 7
T¼4
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e002b;63;510

5: (6)
0 1 1 0
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e006;326;518

ðkÞ ðkÞ
where si ðso Þ
is the input (output) Stokes vector describing
the k’th polarization state generated (analyzed) by the PSG
(PSA). [The superscript T in Eq. (2b) stands for matrix
transpose.]
The above measurement formalism holds for a Mueller
polarimeter employing M × N discrete polarization states
(e.g., a ferroelectric liquid crystal based one). If continuous
periodic modulation of the polarization state of light is used
instead (e.g., in a rotating compensator or a phase-modulated
instrument), then the PSG and the PSA matrices are time-
dependent, WðtÞ ¼ ½si ðtÞ and AðtÞ ¼ ½so ðtÞT . However,
the discrete forms from Eq. (2) can still be used provided
the continuous periodic signals are sampled in accordance
with the Nyquist criterion
WðtÞ → W ¼ ½ si ðt1 Þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e003a;63;327 si ðt2 Þ
and
AðtÞ → A ¼ ½ so ðt1 Þ so ðt2 Þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e003b;63;285
To measure the complete 4 × 4 Mueller matrix M, the
0 i −i 0
(The asterisk stands for complex conjugation; the symbol
“⊗” denotes the Kronecker product.) Since Mnd is real,
one can assume that one of the elements J ij of J is real
too which reduces the number of real fitting parameters to
4 × 2 − 1 ¼ 7. Once the Jones matrix elements are deter-
mined by the minimization procedure, the nondepolarizing
estimate Mnd is obtained from Eq. (5).
Clearly, the PSG and PSA matrices W and A depend on
the specific design of the instrument. For a discrete state
complete Mueller polarimeter, such as a ferroelectric crystal
based one, one typically has M ¼ N ¼ 4 for the number of
generated and analyzed polarization states. If the Stokes
::: si ðtN Þ ; (3a) vectors sðkÞ of these states, assumed identical for the PSG
and the PSA, are uniformly distributed in polarization
space, i.e., form a regular tetrahedron on the Poincaré sphere,
then
::: so ðtM Þ T : (3b)
W ¼ AT ¼ ½ sð1Þ sð2Þ sð3Þ sð4Þ 
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e007;326;274

21 1 1 1 3
number of polarization states generated and analyzed by
the instrument must be N ≥ 4 and M ≥ 4. Furthermore, 6 a −a a −a 7
¼4 5; (7)
ðkÞ ðkÞ
the input and output Stokes vectors si and so entering a −a −a a
the instrument matrices W and A from Eq. (2) must be com- a a −a −a
plete, i.e., they must not contain any identically vanishing pffiffiffi
components. The instrument is then termed a complete where a ¼ 1∕ 3. This is the conventional version of the VE
ðkÞ ðkÞ method.9 Since the value of the residual defined by Eq. (4) is
Mueller polarimeter. If N < 4 or M < 4, or if si or so independent of the way the PSG and PSA regular tetrahedra
are incomplete, the Mueller polarimeter is partial. An impor- are oriented in polarization space, Eq. (7) can be used to
tant special case of a partial polarimeter is the generalized
ðkÞ ðkÞ
model any 16-state Mueller polarimeter that is optimal,
ellipsometer where si (so ) contain exactly one vanishing i.e., whose four PSG and four PSA polarization states are
ðkÞ ðkÞ
component whereas so (si ) are complete; such an instru- both uniformly distributed in polarization space, regardless
ment measures 12 out of the 16 elements of the Mueller of their specific orientation. Complete Mueller polarimeters
matrix with a column (a row) missing. based on continuous time modulation, e.g., the dual rotating
The principle of the VE method states that the best non- compensator (DRC)3,5,13 or the four photoelastic modulator
depolarizing estimate Mnd of the experimentally determined (4PEM)14 polarimeters, have time-dependent (and generally

Optical Engineering 082409-2 August 2019 • Vol. 58(8)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Ossikovski and Arteaga: Instrument-dependent method for obtaining a nondepolarizing. . .
different) PSG and PSA matrices WðtÞ and AðtÞ. If the
arrangements of the optical components in the PSG and in
 T
si ðtÞ ¼ so ðtÞ ¼ 1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e008;63;718
cos2 R2C þ sin2 R2C cos 4ωC t
where RC and ωC are the retardance and the angular speed of the PSG (PSA) compensator, respectively.5,13 For the 4PEM
polarimeter,
si ðtÞ ¼ so ðtÞ ¼ ½ 1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e009;63;650 cos Rm1 ðtÞ sin Rm1 ðtÞ sin Rm2 ðtÞ
where Rm k ðtÞ ¼ Am k sin ωm k t is the sinusoidally varying
retardance of the k’th PSG (PSA) photoelastic modulator
with amplitude Am k and cyclic frequency ωm k (k ¼ 1; 2).14
All input and output Stokes vectors from Eqs. (8) and (9) feature
nonvanishing components, so that both DRC and 4PEM polar-
imeters are complete.
Generalized ellipsometers being a practically important
class of partial Mueller polarimeters, we report the explicit
forms of the W and A matrices for two common designs, the
rotating polarizer-compensator ellipsometer (abbreviated
RPCE) and the extended photoelastic modulator ellipsome-
ter (PME) representing a rotating polarizer-photoelastic
modulator ellipsometer design (abbreviated RPPME).5 The
PSG of both instruments is based on simple rotating polar-
izer design generating a time-dependent input Stokes vector
si ðtÞ given as
si ðtÞ ¼ ½ 1 cos 2ωP t sin 2ωP t
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e010;63;436 0 T ;
where ωP is the angular speed of the polarizer. The PSA of
the RPCE instrument contains a rotating compensator
(a waveplate retarder) followed by a fixed analyzer and
analyzes the following output Stokes vector so ðtÞ given by
Eq. (8). Since so ðtÞ is complete whereas si ðtÞ has its fourth
component identically equal to zero, the RPCE instrument
measures only the first three columns of the Mueller matrix
of the sample, i.e., only 12 out of its 16 elements.
The PSA of the RPPME instrument consists of a photoelas-
tic modulator (an electrically driven variable retarder) and an
analyzer whose transmission axis makes a fixed azimuth of
45 deg with the modulator fast axis.5 The analyzed output
Stokes vector so ðtÞ depends on the azimuth θm of the modu-
lator with respect to the incidence plane (the plane defined by
the incident and the outgoing light beams) and is given as
soI ðtÞ ¼ ½ 1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e011a;63;240 0  cos Rm ðtÞ sin Rm ðtÞ T ;
if θm ¼ 0 deg (90 deg) (called configuration I) or by
soII ðtÞ ¼ ½ 1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e011b;63;197  cos Rm ðtÞ 0 sin Rm ðtÞ T ;
if θm ¼ 45 deg (configuration II) where Rm ðtÞ ¼
Am sin ωm t is the sinusoidally varying modulator retardance
with amplitude Am and cyclic frequency ωm. Since the second
and the third component of soI ðtÞ and soII ðtÞ, respectively,
vanish identically, to achieve complete analysis of the output
Stokes vector two consecutive series of measurements in con-
figurations I and II have to be performed. Consequently, the
normalized estimator from Eq. (4) takes the following form for
the RPPM instrument:
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
the PSA are mirror images of each other, then WðtÞ ¼ AðtÞT
and si ðtÞ ¼ so ðtÞ. For the DRC polarimeter, one then has
sin2 R2C sin 4ωC t sin RC sin 2ωC t ; (8)
sin Rm1 ðtÞ cos Rm2 ðtÞ T ; (9)
1
δ2 ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e012;326;612 ðkAI M W − AI Mnd Wk2
2MN
þ kAII M W − AII Mnd Wk2 Þ; (12)
where AI and AII are the discrete (sampled) counterparts of
the time varying PSA matrices AI ðtÞ and AII ðtÞ for configu-
rations I and II, obtained from soI ðtÞ and soII ðtÞ in
accordance with Eq. (3). Notice that, like the RPCE instru-
ment, the RPPME one is a generalized ellipsometer measuring
only the first three columns of the Mueller matrix, since both
instruments have in common a rotating polarizer-based
incomplete PSG. As a result, the values of the elements of
the fourth column of the experimental Mueller matrix M
entering Eqs. (4) and (9) are immaterial if M has been partially
determined in a generalized ellipsometry experiment.
As mentioned, the Jones matrix whose elements are
(10) treated as fitting parameters in the process of numerical min-
imization of the estimator defined by Eq. (4) or Eq. (9) can be
of special form, accounting for the available a priori infor-
mation on the structure of the sample or on the experimental
configuration. For instance, if the sample exhibits mirror
symmetry with respect to the incidence plane (in either
reflection or in transmission measurement configuration),
then its Jones matrix is known to be diagonal.15
Consequently, the number of real fitting parameters reduces
from seven to only 2 × 2–1 ¼ 3. A second example is pro-
vided by the relatively common backscattering (or backre-
flection) experimental configuration in which the incident
and the outgoing light beams follow the same path albeit
in opposite directions. It can be easily shown that in this con-
figuration the Jones matrix of the sample is antisymmetric,
JT ¼ −J,15,16 and the number of real fitting parameters is
reduced to 3 × 2–1 ¼ 5. More generally, this symmetry
property holds if a 180-deg-rotation of the sample about
(11a) its normal brings it to its initial position.15
3 Application of the Method to Experimental
(11b) Mueller Matrices
To apply the instrument-dependent VE method, one needs to
sample the periodically varying input and output Stokes vec-
tors si ðtÞ and so ðtÞ from Eqs. (8)–(10) in order to construct
the discrete counterparts W and A of the time-dependent
PSG and PSA matrices WðtÞ ¼ ½si ðtÞ and AðtÞ ¼ ½so ðtÞT
in accordance with Eq. (3). If ωmax is the highest (rotation
or modulation) cyclic frequency present in si ðtÞ or in so ðtÞ,
then it is enough to sample uniformly its period 2π∕ωmax in
only N ¼ 3 number of points defining the corresponding
time instants tk
082409-3 August 2019 • Vol. 58(8)
 Ossikovski and Arteaga: Instrument-dependent method for obtaining a nondepolarizing. . .

 
k − 1 2π ρpp ρps
tk ¼ ; k ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; N: (13) J¼ ; (15)
N ωmax ρsp 1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e013;63;752

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e015;326;752

Thus, for the rotating polarizer PSG and the rotating com-
pensator PSG (PSA) ωmax ¼ 2ωP and ωmax ¼ 4ωC ; see
Eqs. (10) and (8), respectively. These are the values used
in modeling the RPCE and the RPPME instruments, as
well as the DRC complete polarimeter. For the phase modu-
lated PSA in the RPPME instrument ωmax ¼ ωm , whereas
for the 4PEM complete polarimeter, ωmax ¼ ωm1 ¼ ωm2 .
The retardance of the compensator(s) was set to
RC ¼ π∕4; the modulation amplitude Am of the PSA of
the RPPME instrument, as well as those of the PSG and
the PSA of the 4PEM complete polarimeter, assumed
equal, Am1 ¼ Am2 , were all set to 2.405 rad. By using the
above values, the W and A matrices of all four instruments
(RPCE, RPPME, and DRC, and 4PEM polarimeters) were
computed. In accordance with the fundamental measurement
relation Eq. (1), the W and A matrices will generate, in the
case of N ¼ 3 sampling points, a total of N × N ¼ 3 × 3 ¼ 9
virtual intensities which is the minimum number making
possible the determination of the seven-parameter Jones
matrix J from either the complete, 16-element, or the partial,
12-element, experimental Mueller matrix M by using
Eqs. (4)–(6).
3.1 First Example
Consider the experimental Mueller matrix
2 1 −0.8351
6 −0.8245 0.9268
M1 ¼ 6
4 −0.1761
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e014;63;438
then Table 1 reports the values of the elements of J obtained
with various methods.
The first two lines (header excluded), named “Cloude”
and “VE,” report the Jones matrices of the nondepolarizing
estimates obtained with the Cloude decomposition8 and the
conventional VE9 methods. The values in the next two lines
result from DRC and 4PEM complete polarimeter VEs. The
last column of the table reports the root mean square (rms)
deviation ΔM of the matrix elements of the experimental M
from those of its nondepolarizing estimate Mnd
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2ffi
1 X
ΔM ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e016;326;607 M − Mndij ;
i;j ij
(16)
N
in which the sum runs either over all 16 matrix elements in
the case of complete polarimetry (and N ¼ 16) or over the 12
elements belonging to the first three columns in the case of
partial polarimetry (generalized ellipsometry; N ¼ 12). It
should be mentioned that, in the partial polarimetry case,
the Jones matrix quality factor18 can be used instead of
ΔM. The evaluation of ΔM allows for the assessment of
the quality of the nondepolarizing estimation. The ΔM val-
ues for all four complete polarimetry methods are compa-
rable in magnitude and lie below 0.3%; to be compared
0.1757 0.1525 3
to the experimental error which has been estimated to be
below 0.5% for the 4PEM polarimeter.14 It should be
−0.1075 −0.2692 7
7; (14) noted that in the case of the 4PEM VE we had to oversample
−0.5129 0.0424 5 the period in five instead of in only three points, i.e., we set

0.1054
0.1510 −0.2673
of a diffraction grating measured in a reflection configuration
at the wavelength of 540 nm and at the incidence angle of
65 deg by using a 4PEM polarimeter.14 Details on the struc-
ture of the diffraction grating sample can be found in Ref. 17.
The matrix M1 is only very weakly depolarizing; its Gil-
Bernabeu depolarization index (DI)2,4 equals 0.995 (recall
that DI ¼ 1 for a nondepolarizing Mueller matrix).
Assuming that the Jones matrix J corresponding to the
best nondepolarizing estimate Mnd of the experimental
Mueller matrix M1 is normalized to its J 22 element
−0.0399 −0.4426 N ¼ 5 in Eq. (13), to be able to achieve accuracy comparable
to that of the other three methods.
The last three lines of Table 1 report the Jones matrix esti-
mates obtained from RPCE and RPPME partial polarimetry
VEs. The last but one line, named “RPCE with sym.” gives
the Jones matrix with the imposed symmetry condition
ρsp ¼ −ρps ; it was therefore obtained by fitting only five
instead of all seven Jones matrix elements, as explained at
the end of the previous section. Indeed, the grating sample
is invariant with respect to a 180-deg-rotation about its nor-
mal and therefore, it should feature an antisymmetric Jones
matrix.

Table 1 Jones matrix elements associated with the best nondepolarizing estimates of M1 obtained with various methods.

Method ρpp ρps ρsp ΔM

Cloude −0.2672 þ 0.0227i −0.0788 − 0.1170i 0.0792 þ 0.1170i 0.0027

VE −0.2689 þ 0.0228i −0.0795 − 0.1176i 0.0790 þ 0.1175i 0.0023

DRC −0.2679 þ 0.0219i −0.0802 − 0.1179i 0.0790 þ 0.1168i 0.0026

4PEM −0.2706 þ 0.0225i −0.0772 − 0.1187i 0.0792 þ 0.1168i 0.0027

RPCE −0.2692 þ 0.0205i −0.0760 − 0.1164i 0.0809 þ 0.1120i 0.0036

RPCE with sym. −0.2683 þ 0.0182i −0.0791 − 0.1146i 0.0791 þ 0.1146i 0.0034

RPPME −0.2638 þ 0.0228i −0.0785 − 0.1149i 0.0800 þ 0.1113i 0.0036

Optical Engineering 082409-4 August 2019 • Vol. 58(8)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Ossikovski and Arteaga: Instrument-dependent method for obtaining a nondepolarizing. . .
Table 2 Jones matrix elements associated with the best nondepolarizing estimates of M2 obtained with various methods.
Method
Cloude
VE
DRC
RPCE
RPCE with sym.
Like in the complete polarimetry case, the partial polar-
imetry VEs feature comparable rms deviation values (last
column in Table 1). More specifically, the ΔM values in
the partial polarimetry case are higher than those of the com-
plete polarimetry (DRC and 4PEM) ones (by about 40%);
nevertheless, they are still of the order of the experimental
error of the 4PEM polarimeter (<0.5%). It should be stressed
that the neither the Cloude nor the conventional VE
approaches can be applied to the partial polarimetry case,
since both require a complete experimental Mueller matrix.
3.2 Second Example
The experimental Mueller matrix
2 1 −0.1261
6 −0.1280 0.8674
M2 ¼ 6
4 −0.2140
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e017;63;452
0.0508
−0.0424 −0.3276
was obtained on the same sample, in the same measurement
configuration and with the same instrument as M1 but at
the wavelength of 290 nm. The probing spot partially hit
the substrate surrounding the diffraction grating thus intro-
ducing depolarization through the incoherent mixture of the
responses of the two juxtaposed media.17 As a result, the Gil-
Bernabeu DI of M2 , equal to 0.959, turns out to be lower
than that of M1 (equal to 0.995).
Table 2 summarizes the Jones matrix elements, normal-
ized in accordance with Eq. (15), obtained with a part of
the nondepolarizing estimation methods (the 4PEM com-
plete polarimetry and RPPME partial polarimetry VEs have
not been applied). The notations are identical to those of
Table 1.
Inspection of the last column of the table containing the
rms deviation (ΔM) values shows that all, complete and par-
tial, polarimetry methods feature comparable performance.
However, the ΔM values in Table 2 are several times higher
than those in Table 1 from the previous section and exceed
the 4PEM measurement error (<0.5%) more than three times.
This is due to the higher depolarization of M2 (DI2 ¼
0.959 < 1) with respect to that of M1 (DI1 ¼ 0.995 ≈ 1).
The level of depolarization present in the experiment clearly
sets an upper limit on the applicability of all nondepolarizing
estimation methods (both algebraic and VE ones); in prac-
tice, the methods are applicable so far as rms deviation
ΔM is of the order or the experimental error of the instrument
used. Note that the level of depolarization cannot be evalu-
ated directly in the partial polarimetry case, since all
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
ρpp
−0.8017 þ 0.3527i
−0.8013 þ 0.3570i
−0.7833 þ 0.3810i
−0.8044 þ 0.3171i
–0.7993 þ 0.3463i
0.2189 −0.0418 3
−0.0677 −0.3254 7
7 (17)
−0.8924 0.3744 5
−0.3609 −0.7686
082409-5
ρps ρsp ΔM
−0.1420 − 0.1459i 0.1517 þ 0.1440i 0.0160
−0.1388 − 0.1451i 0.1486 þ 0.1436i 0.0163
−0.1568 − 0.1421i 0.1597 þ 0.1424i 0.0197
−0.1205 − 0.1370i 0.1535 þ 0.1553i 0.0203
−0.1455 − 0.1560i 0.1455 þ 0.1560i 0.0192
depolarization metrics, e.g., the depolarization index, are
based on the complete, 16-element experimental Mueller
matrix.
Another “effect” of the higher depolarization of M2 is the
larger asymmetry between the two off-diagonal Jones matrix
elements ρsp and ρps . Indeed, these are supposed to be oppo-
site to one another (ρsp ¼ −ρps ) because of the symmetry
properties of the diffraction grating sample (note that the
presence of depolarization does not affect the symmetries).
Close inspection of the respective table entries indicates that
the PRCE partial polarimetry VE features larger asymmetry
between off-diagonal matrix elements than the complete
polarimetry ones (Cloude, VE, or DRC). Thus, the violation
of the expected symmetry relations between the estimated
Jones matrix elements in the partial (12-element) polarimetry
case appears as an extra (indirect) indicator, besides the rms
deviation value, for the presence of high depolarization in
the measurement. To apply the instrument-dependent VE
method in this case, one then must include explicitly
the symmetry conditions in the fitting procedure; thus, the
results for the RPCE instrument case are reported in the
line named “RPCE with sym.” Doing so has the further
advantage of decreasing the number of fitting parameters,
as discussed before.
4 Conclusion
We have proposed a numerical method for obtaining a non-
depolarizing estimate from an experimental Mueller matrix.
Based on the VE approach, the method takes into account the
specific design of the measurement instrument and can be
applied to both complete and partial, 12-element, Mueller
polarimetry. We have illustrated the method on two experi-
mental examples with different levels of depolarization and
have compared it to other existing approaches, such as
Cloude decomposition and conventional VE filtering. We
believe that this method will be of use to experimentalists
performing Mueller polarimetry on nondepolarizing samples
and willing to extract all phenomenological information
available from the experiments.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially funded by the European
Commission (Polarsense, MSCA-IF-2017-793774). The
authors are grateful to their colleague Dr. E. Garcia-Caurel
for having provided them with the diffraction grating sample.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
related to this article.
August 2019 • Vol. 58(8)
 Ossikovski and Arteaga: Instrument-dependent method for obtaining a nondepolarizing. . .
References
1. R. M. A. Azzam and N. M. Bashara, Ellipsometry and Polarized Light,
Elsevier, North Holland, Amsterdam (1987).
2. R. A. Chipman, “Polarimetry,” in Handbook of Optics II, M. Bass, Ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York (1995).
3. D. H. Goldstein, Polarized Light, Marcel Dekker, New York (2003).
4. J. J. Gil and R. Ossikovski, Polarized Light. The Mueller Matrix
Approach, CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016).
5. P. S. Hauge, “Recent developments in instrumentation in ellipsometry,”
Surf. Sci. 96, 108–140 (1980).
6. E. Kuntman, M. Ali Kuntman, and O. Arteaga, “Vector and matrix states
for Mueller matrices of nondepolarizing optical media,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.
A 34, 80–86 (2017).
7. J. J. Gil, “On optimal filtering of measured Mueller matrices,” Appl.
Opt. 55, 5449–5455 (2016).
8. S. R. Cloude, “Conditions for the physical realizability of matrix oper-
ators in polarimetry,” Proc. SPIE 1166, 177–185 (1989).
9. R. Ossikovski, “Retrieval of a nondepolarizing estimate from an exper-
imental Mueller matrix through virtual experiment,” Opt. Lett. 37, 578–
580 (2012).
10. A. Aiello et al., “Maximum-likelihood estimation of Mueller matrices,”
Opt. Lett. 31, 817–819 (2006).
11. S. N. Savenkov, “Optimization and structuring of the instrument matrix
for polarimetric measurements,” Opt. Eng. 41, 965–972 (2002).
12. A. S. Alenin and J. Scott Tyo, “Structured decomposition design of par-
tial Mueller matrix polarimeters,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 32, 1302–1312
(2015).
13. O. Arteaga et al., “Mueller matrix microscope with a dual continuous
rotating compensator setup and digital demodulation,” Appl. Opt. 53,
2236–2245 (2014).
14. O. Arteaga et al., “Mueller matrix polarimetry with four photoelastic
modulators: theory and calibration,” Appl. Opt. 51, 6805–6817 (2012).
Optical Engineering 082409-6
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Apr 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
15. H. C. van de Hulst, Light Scattering by Small Particles, Dover,
New York (1981).
16. O. Arteaga, E. Garcia-Caurel, and R. Ossikovski, “Elementary polari-
zation properties in the backscattering configuration,” Opt. Lett. 39,
6050–6053 (2014).
17. M. Foldyna et al., “Characterization of grating structures by Mueller
polarimetry in presence of strong depolarization due to finite spot
size,” Opt. Commun. 282, 735–741 (2009).
18. J. N. Hilfiker et al., “Estimating depolarization with the Jones matrix
quality factor,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 421B, 494–499 (2017).
Razvigor Ossikovski is a professor at École Polytechnique, France.
He received his engineering degree from the Technical University,
Rousse, Bulgaria, in 1990. He was an international student (X88)
at École Polytechnique wherefrom he received his MS and PhD
degrees in physics in 1991 and 1995, respectively. He is the author
of more than 120 journal papers and has written two books and three
book chapters. His current research interests include the theory of
polarimetry and tip-enhanced Raman spectroscopy.
Oriol Arteaga is an associate researcher at the University of
Barcelona, Spain, and École Polytechnique, France. His research
focuses on light–matter interaction and the measurement of the
optical properties of materials, with special interest to chiral media.
He worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the Molecular Design
Institute of New York University, and later he was reincorporated to
the European Research System as a Marie Curie Fellow. He has
authored more than 70 publications in international journals.
August 2019 • Vol. 58(8)