Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mueller calculus

Mueller calculus is a mathematical formalism in polarization optics that employs four-component Stokes vectors to characterize the polarization state of light, including partially polarized and unpolarized cases, and 4×4 real Mueller matrices to describe how optical systems transform these states.^[1] Developed by Hans Mueller in 1943 as an extension of earlier work by Paul Soleillet in 1929 and Francis Perrin in 1942, it provides a phenomenological approach to handle incoherent light interactions without the restrictions of coherent-only methods.^[2]^[3] The Stokes vector \mathbf{S} = (S_0, S_1, S_2, S_3)^T (often denoted as I, Q, U, V) quantifies total intensity (S_0), linear polarization along horizontal/vertical (S_1), linear at 45° (S_2), and circular polarization (S_3), allowing additive superposition for incoherent beams.^[1] An optical element's effect is captured by a Mueller matrix \mathbf{M}, where the output Stokes vector is \mathbf{S}' = \mathbf{M} \mathbf{S}, with the 16 real elements of \mathbf{M} describing phenomena like diattenuation, retardance, and depolarization.^[4] This contrasts with the Jones calculus, which uses complex 2×2 matrices for fully coherent, monochromatic light but fails for partial polarization or incoherence.^[3] Key advantages of Mueller calculus include its applicability to real-world scenarios involving broadband or depolarizing media, such as scattering in biological tissues or atmospheric optics.^[5] It underpins modern techniques in Mueller matrix polarimetry and ellipsometry, enabling quantitative analysis of material properties like birefringence and dichroism in fields ranging from semiconductor manufacturing to biomedical diagnostics. Mueller matrices exhibit symmetries, such as reciprocity (M_{ij} = M_{ji}) for non-magnetic systems, facilitating experimental validation and theoretical modeling.^[6]

Fundamentals

Introduction

Mueller calculus is a matrix-based formalism in polarization optics used to model the transformation of light's polarization state through optical systems. It represents the polarization using Stokes vectors, which are four-element real-valued vectors, and employs 4×4 real matrices known as Mueller matrices to describe linear transformations between input and output states. The core transformation is given by the equation

\mathbf{S}_{\text{out}} = \mathbf{M} \mathbf{S}_{\text{in}},

where \mathbf{S}_{\text{in}} and \mathbf{S}_{\text{out}} are the input and output Stokes vectors, respectively, and \mathbf{M} is the Mueller matrix.^[7]^[8] This approach applies to a broad range of light conditions, including fully polarized, partially polarized, and unpolarized light, as well as incoherent superpositions of polarization states.^[9]^[10] It extends beyond coherent fully polarized scenarios by incorporating intensity and depolarization effects, making it suitable for analyzing complex interactions in turbid media or scattering processes.^[9] Mueller calculus addresses key limitations of alternative methods, such as the Jones calculus, which cannot handle partial polarization or incoherent light prevalent in practical applications like biomedical imaging and atmospheric optics.^[11]^[9] By enabling the quantification of depolarization and cross-polarization, it provides a versatile tool for characterizing optical elements and media in real-world systems.^[8]

Historical Development

The foundations of Mueller calculus trace back to the mid-19th century, when George Gabriel Stokes introduced a set of parameters to characterize the polarization state of light, including partially polarized radiation, in his 1852 paper on the intensity and polarization of light.^[12] These Stokes parameters provided a coherent framework for describing polarization through measurable intensities, influencing subsequent developments in optical theory. Early extensions to matrix methods for handling partial polarization emerged in the early 20th century, notably in Paul Soleillet's 1929 thesis, which generalized Stokes' parameters into a tensorial form to analyze polarization in fluorescence phenomena.^[13] This was further advanced by Francis Perrin's 1942 paper on the polarization of light scattered by isotropic opalescent media.^[6] In 1943, Hans Mueller, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), developed the Mueller calculus as an extension of these prior works, formalizing a matrix-based approach to describe the transformation of Stokes vectors under the influence of optical elements, particularly for partially polarized light.^[1] Mueller's formulation arose from wartime research on light scattering in solutions like human serum albumin and the polarization optics of photoelastic shutters, conducted under a classified Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) project.^[14] His original contribution appeared in a 1943 memorandum but remained unpublished in peer-reviewed journals until later declassifications and compilations, limiting its immediate dissemination.^[14] Following the war, Mueller's calculus began to gain traction through academic channels, including its presentation in MIT courses from 1946 to 1949 and at a 1948 meeting of the Optical Society of America.^[14] It was further elaborated in a 1948 PhD thesis by Nathan G. Parke III under Mueller's supervision, which provided one of the earliest detailed expositions of the method.^[14] By the mid-20th century, refinements to the formalism, building on contributions from figures like Perrin and integrations with related approaches, facilitated its adoption in fields such as radiometry for polarized light transport and ellipsometry for surface analysis.^[3] This period marked the establishment of Mueller calculus as a standard tool in phenomenological optics, complementing the independently developed Jones calculus for coherent light introduced by R. C. Jones in 1941.^[15]

Mathematical Framework

Stokes Vectors

The Stokes vector provides a complete description of the polarization state of quasi-monochromatic light, including fully polarized, partially polarized, and unpolarized cases, and is particularly suited for treating partially coherent or incoherent light beams where phase relationships between field components are not preserved.^[16] Unlike representations for fully coherent light, the Stokes vector relies on measurable intensities rather than complex amplitudes, enabling its use in scenarios involving statistical mixtures of polarization states.^[12] Formally, the Stokes vector \mathbf{S} is a four-component real-valued column vector defined as

\mathbf{S} = \begin{pmatrix} S_0 \\ S_1 \\ S_2 \\ S_3 \end{pmatrix},

where S_0 represents the total irradiance (or intensity) of the light beam, S_1 captures the difference in intensities between horizontally and vertically linearly polarized components, S_2 the difference between linearly polarized components at +45° and -45°, and S_3 the difference between right- and left-circularly polarized components.^[17] This parameterization, originally introduced by George Gabriel Stokes in 1852, allows any polarization state to be expressed through these observable intensity differences.^[17] Physically, S_0 quantifies the overall energy flux, while the vector \mathbf{P} = (S_1, S_2, S_3) describes the polarized portion. The degree of polarization P is given by

P = \frac{\sqrt{S_1^2 + S_2^2 + S_3^2}}{S_0},

which ranges from 0 for completely unpolarized light (where \mathbf{P} = \mathbf{0}) to 1 for fully polarized light.^[12] For normalized representations assuming unit total intensity, one sets S_0 = 1, simplifying calculations while preserving the relative polarization content.^[12] The components of the Stokes vector are measured experimentally by passing the light through combinations of linear polarizers and quarter-wave plates, followed by intensity detection. For instance, S_0 is obtained directly as the intensity without analyzers; S_1 via a linear polarizer rotated between horizontal and vertical orientations; S_2 with the polarizer at ±45°; and S_3 by inserting a quarter-wave plate (with fast axis at 45°) before the polarizer to distinguish circular components.^[12] These methods, rooted in Stokes' original intensity measurements, form the basis for polarimetry in the Mueller framework developed by Hans Mueller in 1943.^[1]

Mueller Matrices

The Mueller matrix is a 4×4 real-valued matrix that linearly transforms an input Stokes vector \mathbf{S}_{\text{in}} into an output Stokes vector \mathbf{S}_{\text{out}} according to \mathbf{S}_{\text{out}} = M \mathbf{S}_{\text{in}}, where the indices i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3 correspond to the Stokes parameters S_0 (total intensity), S_1 (horizontal-minus-vertical linear polarization), S_2 (45°-minus-135° linear polarization), and S_3 (right-minus-left circular polarization).^[16] The element M_{ij} quantifies the contribution of the input Stokes parameter S_j to the output S_i. Unlike the complex-valued Jones matrix, the Mueller matrix consists entirely of real elements, enabling its use for partially polarized or depolarized light. The interpretation of the Mueller matrix elements reveals the polarization-altering effects of an optical system. The element M_{11} represents the total intensity transmission for unpolarized incident light, while the off-diagonal elements in the first row and column (M_{1j} and M_{i1} for i, j > 0) describe how unpolarized light is partially polarized or how polarized light alters total intensity. The upper-left 3×3 submatrix (excluding M_{11}) governs coherent transformations of the fully polarized components, such as rotation or phase shifts, whereas the lower 3×4 block (rows 2–4) captures depolarization effects by mixing polarized light into unpolarized components. Non-zero elements in this lower block indicate partial or full depolarization, a capability absent in Jones calculus. Specific examples illustrate these features. For an ideal horizontal linear polarizer, which acts as a diattenuator transmitting only horizontal polarization, the Mueller matrix is

M = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},

where the non-zero elements in the first two rows reflect intensity transmission and the generation of horizontal linear polarization from unpolarized input, with the zero lower block indicating no depolarization.^[16] In general, a linear diattenuator with principal transmittances T_{\max} and T_{\min} along orthogonal axes (fast axis horizontal) has the form

M = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} T_{\max} + T_{\min} & T_{\max} - T_{\min} & 0 & 0 \\ T_{\max} + T_{\min} & T_{\max} - T_{\min} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 2\sqrt{T_{\max} T_{\min}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 2\sqrt{T_{\max} T_{\min}} \end{pmatrix},

reducing to the ideal polarizer case when T_{\min} = 0. A quarter-wave retarder introduces a \pi/2 phase shift between orthogonal components. For fast axis horizontal, its Mueller matrix is

M = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix},

where the lower block elements convert linear polarization at 45° to circular polarization without altering intensity or causing depolarization. More generally, a pure retarder with retardation \delta and fast axis at angle \theta = 0^\circ has

M = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \cos\delta & \sin\delta \\ 0 & 0 & -\sin\delta & \cos\delta \end{pmatrix},

with \delta = \pi/2 yielding the quarter-wave case; rotation to arbitrary \theta involves premultiplying and postmultiplying by rotation matrices.^[18] An ideal mirror at normal incidence, representing reflection without absorption or phase differential, has the Mueller matrix

M = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix},

where the negative signs in the lower block account for the reversal of propagation direction, which flips the signs of linear 45° and circular polarization components relative to the incident coordinate system, while preserving total intensity and horizontal-vertical polarization.^[19]

Relation to Jones Calculus

Jones calculus describes the polarization transformation of fully coherent, monochromatic light using 2×1 complex Jones vectors and 2×2 complex Jones matrices, which are limited to systems with deterministic phases and no depolarization.^[20] In contrast, Mueller calculus employs real 4×1 Stokes vectors and 4×4 real Mueller matrices to handle partially polarized, incoherent, or depolarizing light, where Jones calculus fails because it cannot represent depolarization effects.^[20]^[21] The mathematical link between the two formalisms allows derivation of a Mueller matrix from a corresponding Jones matrix J for non-depolarizing systems via the relation

M = U (J \otimes J^*) U^{-1},

where \otimes denotes the Kronecker product, J^* is the complex conjugate of J, and U is the 4×4 transformation matrix

U = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -i & i & 0 \end{pmatrix}.

^[20] This conversion maps the coherency matrix (formed from the outer product of the Jones vector) to the Stokes vector representation, enabling Mueller calculus to encompass Jones as a special case.^[20] A Jones matrix possesses 8 real parameters (from 4 complex elements), while a general Mueller matrix has 16 real parameters, though non-depolarizing Mueller matrices (equivalent to Mueller-Jones matrices) are constrained to 7 independent parameters due to physical realizability conditions.^[22]^[23] For specific cases like pure polarizers without depolarization, the Mueller matrix exhibits further constraints, often reducing to 6 independent parameters.^[8] A key advantage of Mueller calculus is its additivity for incoherent light sources or systems, where Stokes vectors can be linearly superposed, unlike Jones vectors which require coherent addition and thus cannot model such scenarios directly.^[20]

Properties and Operations

Matrix Properties

Mueller matrices, as 4×4 real matrices transforming Stokes vectors, must satisfy specific mathematical conditions to represent physically realizable polarization transformations. A fundamental requirement is the positivity condition, which ensures that the associated covariance matrix H has all non-negative eigenvalues. The covariance matrix H is a 4×4 Hermitian matrix constructed from the Mueller matrix M as H = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{i,j=0}^{3} M_{ij} \Pi_{ij}, where \Pi_{ij} are the basis matrices in the Minkowski space formalism.^[24] This condition guarantees that the Mueller matrix corresponds to a positive semi-definite operator on the space of Stokes parameters, preventing unphysical increases in the degree of polarization.^[25] Another key normalization condition is that the (0,0) element satisfies M_{00} \geq |M_{0j}| for j = 1, 2, 3, ensuring that the output intensity for any input Stokes vector does not exceed the transmitted unpolarized intensity and that the degree of polarization remains at most unity.^[26] The block structure of the Mueller matrix further encodes these properties: the upper-left 1×1 block (M_{00}) represents overall transmittance, the first row and column (excluding M_{00}) describe diattenuation, the upper-right 3×3 block captures retardance effects, and the lower 3×4 block accounts for depolarization mechanisms.^[24] In the coherency matrix formulation, the covariance matrix H is inherently Hermitian, linking the real-valued Mueller elements to the complex coherency structure underlying Jones calculus while preserving the degree of polarization for fully polarized inputs in non-depolarizing cases.^[24] The key criterion for validity is the non-negativity of the eigenvalues \lambda_k \geq 0 (for k = 0,1,2,3) of H, with normalization such that \sum \lambda_k = M_{00}. This eigenvalue spectrum provides a complete test for physical realizability, as any violation indicates an unphysical matrix.^[24] Although a general Mueller matrix has 16 elements, physical constraints—such as the eigenvalue conditions and normalization inequalities—impose dependencies that reduce the effective number of free parameters, confining the space to a convex subset of dimension 16 bounded by these criteria.^[24]

Composition and Decomposition

In Mueller calculus, the polarization effects of sequential optical elements are combined through matrix multiplication of their respective Mueller matrices. For a system consisting of n elements encountered in the order from 1 to n along the light path, the total Mueller matrix M_{\text{total}} is given by the non-commutative product M_{\text{total}} = M_n M_{n-1} \cdots M_1, where the multiplication proceeds from right to left corresponding to the propagation direction.^[27]^[28] This operation is valid for coherent light interactions but extends to incoherent addition, such as in scattering by distant particles or broadband illumination, via averaging (or weighted convex sums) of the individual Mueller matrices: M = \sum_i p_i M_i with \sum p_i = 1.^[27]^[29] Decomposition methods break down a complex Mueller matrix into interpretable components representing fundamental polarization effects: diattenuation (differential attenuation of polarization components), retardance (phase shifts between components), and depolarization (loss of polarization coherence). The Lu-Chipman polar decomposition expresses any physically realizable Mueller matrix M as a product of three sub-matrices in the sequence M = D(\tau) R(\psi, \chi) N_d, where N_d is the diattenuator matrix, R(\psi, \chi) is the retarder matrix with orientation angle \psi and fast-axis ellipticity \chi, and D(\tau) is the depolarizer matrix with depolarization factor \tau.^[30] This order-specific factorization reveals the intrinsic polarization properties of the system, enabling quantitative extraction of diattenuation, retardance, and depolarization parameters from experimental data.^[30] The explicit forms of these sub-matrices are derived from the polar decomposition algorithm. The diattenuator N_d accounts for principal transmittances along orthogonal axes, the retarder R(\psi, \chi) introduces phase differences, and the depolarizer D(\tau) models random scattering or averaging effects. For example, a simplified linear retarder with retardance \delta and fast axis aligned horizontally has the form

R = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \cos \delta & -\sin \delta \\ 0 & 0 & \sin \delta & \cos \delta \end{pmatrix},

which rotates the linear polarization components without affecting the total intensity or circular components.^[31] For cascaded systems, the Lu-Chipman decomposition is order-dependent, reflecting the physical sequence of effects, but certain alternative decompositions, such as symmetric variants, achieve order independence by balancing components around a central depolarizer, facilitating analysis of reciprocal or symmetric media.^[30]^[32] These methods ensure that decompositions remain physically meaningful, adhering to constraints like matrix positivity for valid Mueller matrices.^[30]

Advanced Topics

Mueller Tensors

Mueller tensors generalize the Mueller matrix formalism to describe polarization transformations in nonlinear optical processes, representing them as higher-rank multi-dimensional arrays. For second-order nonlinear interactions, such as second-harmonic generation (SHG), the Mueller tensor is a third-rank tensor with dimensions 4×4×4, comprising 64 elements that account for the polarization states of two input fields and one output field. This structure enables the modeling of partially polarized light propagation through nonlinear media, where traditional 4×4 Mueller matrices are insufficient.^[33]^[34] The mathematical form extends matrix multiplication to tensor contractions, allowing the output Stokes vector at the harmonic frequency to be computed from the input Stokes vectors. For quadratic nonlinearities, the relation is given by

\mathbf{S}_{\text{out}}^{(2\omega)} = \mathbf{T} : (\mathbf{S}_{\text{in}} \otimes \mathbf{S}_{\text{in}}),

where \mathbf{T} is the third-rank Mueller tensor, \otimes denotes the outer tensor product, and : indicates a double contraction over the appropriate indices. The tensor rank corresponds to the order of the nonlinearity plus one, with contraction rules following the symmetry properties of the underlying nonlinear susceptibility tensor \chi^{(2)}, which is a third-rank tensor with up to 27 components reduced by permutation and Kleinman symmetries. For example, in SHG, the Mueller tensor elements are derived by mapping \chi^{(2)}_{ijk} to the Jones tensor \chi_J and then applying the transformation \mathbf{M}^{(2)} = \mathbf{A} \otimes \chi_J \otimes \mathbf{A}, where \mathbf{A} is the 4×4 realification matrix linking Jones and Stokes vectors; this yields 36 independent elements under frequency degeneracy.^[33]^[34] In specific applications, Mueller tensors describe frequency conversion processes in nonlinear crystals, such as SHG in birefringent materials like lithium niobate, where the tensor incorporates phase-matching conditions to predict polarization-dependent efficiency. Birefringence introduces walk-off between ordinary and extraordinary waves, which the tensor accounts for by modulating the effective nonlinear coefficients, enabling quantitative analysis of output polarization for unpolarized or partially polarized inputs. This framework has been applied to interpret SHG signals in anisotropic crystals, revealing molecular orientations and strain via tensor symmetries.^[33] Unlike standard Mueller matrices, which handle only linear transformations of a single input Stokes vector, Mueller tensors address multi-photon and parametric processes by coupling multiple input polarization states, thus capturing effects like depolarization in nonlinear scattering or frequency mixing beyond the linear regime.^[34]^[33]

Generalizations and Extensions

Recent advancements in Mueller calculus have extended its applicability to anisotropic media through the development of the Generalized Jones-Mueller (GJM) calculus framework in 2025, which models three-dimensional light propagation in birefringent materials by incorporating propagation matrices to account for non-paraxial interactions.^[35] This approach utilizes a Lorentz-like algebra and a double-covering homomorphism between SL(3, C) and the Lorentz group to enable precise polarization transformations along arbitrary light paths, addressing limitations in prior formulations that neglected full 3D effects.^[36] A key feature is the extended transformation for anisotropic cases, given by

\mathbf{M}_{\text{eff}} = \mathbf{P}(z) \mathbf{M} \mathbf{P}^{-1}(z),

where \mathbf{P}(z) represents the propagation operator along the path length z, allowing for effective Mueller matrices that capture cumulative effects in complex, inhomogeneous environments.^[37] Dynamic extensions of Mueller polarimetry have advanced real-time measurement capabilities, particularly through 2024 developments for high-speed, single-shot acquisition of Mueller matrices in dynamic scenarios using generalized measurements with Poincaré beams and Sagnac interferometers to achieve ultrafast polarization characterization without mechanical rotation, enabling applications in time-varying optical fields.^[38]^[39] Complementing this, 2025 innovations in eigenvalue calibration for micro-polarized sensors optimize Mueller imaging polarimeters by using minimal calibration samples, such as rotating polarizers, to enhance precision and reduce noise in compact devices.^[40] Further refinements include the 2024 introduction of the Mueller matrix polarizing power descriptor, a novel metric that quantifies the polarization-altering capability of any Mueller matrix as a function of its degree of polarimetric purity, providing a robust tool for assessing matrix quality beyond traditional decompositions.^[41] Additionally, from 2020 to 2025, integrations with metasurfaces have facilitated AI-optimized polarization control within Mueller frameworks, where machine learning algorithms design nanostructured surfaces for arbitrary Mueller matrix realizations, enhancing efficiency in wavefront and polarization manipulation.^[42] A pertinent preprint from 2025 on generalized Jones-Mueller formalism for arbitrary anisotropic interactions underscores these extensions by enabling accurate modeling of light-matter couplings in complex media, bridging coherently polarized limits of Jones calculus with incoherent Mueller descriptions.^[36]

Applications

Polarimetry and Imaging

Mueller polarimeters are specialized instruments that measure the complete 16-element Mueller matrix of a sample by conducting sequential measurements of the output Stokes vector for a set of predefined input polarization states, typically requiring at least four independent input Stokes vectors to fully characterize the linear transformation. A widely adopted configuration is the dual-rotating retarder polarimeter, which employs two quarter-wave plates—one rotating before the sample and one after—to modulate the polarization states, allowing extraction of matrix elements via Fourier analysis of the time-varying intensity signals detected by a photodetector. This sequential approach enables precise calibration and error minimization, with optimized designs achieving measurement accuracies below 1% for non-depolarizing samples under controlled laboratory conditions. In imaging polarimetry, full-Stokes cameras extend these principles to spatial mapping, capturing the entire Stokes vector or Mueller matrix for each pixel in a scene to reveal polarization signatures invisible to intensity-based imaging alone. By 2025, advancements in metasurface-integrated sensors have enabled real-time, single-shot full-Stokes imaging with compact form factors, such as wavelength-insensitive systems using cascaded metasurfaces that operate broadband without mechanical modulation, achieving frame rates exceeding 30 Hz limited only by the CMOS readout. These cameras find applications in remote sensing, where they enhance target discrimination in hazy atmospheres by exploiting depolarization cues from aerosols and surfaces. Similarly, in industrial defect detection, full-Stokes polarimetry identifies subsurface stresses and microcracks in materials like carbon fiber composites, with integrated deep learning models improving accuracy for hidden flaws.^[43] Key techniques in Mueller imaging include comparative error analysis of achromatic versus non-achromatic systems, where a 2025 study demonstrated that achromatic polarimeters, using broadband retarders, reduce systematic errors from dispersion in multispectral measurements.^[44] For dynamic scenarios involving transient phenomena, such as laser-induced material changes, single-shot dynamic Mueller polarimetry employs structured light like Poincaré beams to reconstruct matrices rapidly, enabling time-resolved tracking of evolving depolarization without sequential scanning.^[39] A primary advantage of Mueller calculus in polarimetry and imaging lies in its ability to fully characterize depolarizing samples, such as scattering particles or turbid media, by quantifying both coherent polarization effects and partial depolarization, which incomplete Stokes measurements overlook. Matrix decomposition techniques can briefly interpret these results by isolating components like diattenuation and retardance from depolarization.

Biomedical and Material Sciences

Mueller matrix polarimetry has emerged as a powerful tool for non-invasive biomedical imaging, particularly in diagnosing tissues through the analysis of depolarization patterns. In cancer detection, depolarization metrics derived from Mueller matrices enable differentiation between healthy and malignant tissues by quantifying scattering-induced loss of polarization coherence, with studies showing distinct patterns in colorectal cancer samples where malignant tissues exhibit higher depolarization power correlated with tumor growth stages. A 2025 review highlights its potential for accurate, non-contact optical diagnosis in various cancers, including brain tumors, where polarimetric features from Mueller matrices provide structural insights into tissue microarchitecture.^[45]^[46]^[47] In material sciences, Mueller calculus facilitates the characterization of turbid media, metasurfaces, and anisotropic materials by decomposing matrices into components that reveal intrinsic polarization properties. For instance, recent studies on nanostructures demonstrate how Mueller matrix elements quantify polarizing power, enabling precise assessment of light-matter interactions in metasurface designs for polarization demultiplexing. In anisotropic turbid media, effective parameters such as diattenuation and retardance are extracted using Stokes-Mueller decompositions, providing insights into scattering behaviors in complex materials like biological phantoms mimicking tissue.^[48]^[49]^[37] Specific applications include isolating birefringence in biological samples through Mueller matrix decompositions, which separate retardance effects from diattenuation and depolarization to map collagen fiber orientations in tissues like articular cartilage. Additionally, scatter analysis via Mueller matrices supports monitoring drug delivery systems, such as gold nanoparticle-encoded pharmaceuticals, by evaluating polarization signatures of scattering particles to verify encapsulation and release dynamics in turbid environments.^[50]^[51]^[52] Advancements in 2024-2025 have introduced full-Stokes polarization cameras integrated into endoscopes, enabling real-time Mueller matrix acquisition during biomedical procedures like surgical imaging, where they enhance contrast by mitigating glare and smoke-induced artifacts. Quantitative metrics such as polarimetric purity, which measures the degree of depolarization in a Mueller matrix, and diattenuation, quantifying differential absorption along polarization axes, are routinely used to assess tissue anisotropy; for example, lower polarimetric purity indicates high scattering in cancerous tissues, while higher diattenuation highlights aligned fibrous structures.^[53]^[54]^[55]

References

[1]
[PDF] OF THE PHOTO SHUTTER - Mueller Matrix Polarimetry
1). POLARIZATION OPTICS. Poincaré's representation of polarized light. A polarized light beam is usually described by giving its electrical vector. E. X. E. P₁ ...
[2]
History papers - Mueller Matrix Polarimetry
Dec 3, 2022 · Key historical papers include Soleillet's 1929 thesis, Perrin's 1942 work on Mueller matrix symmetries, Mueller's 1943 work, and Walker's 1904 ...Missing: definition key
[3]
https://opg.optica.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-37-2-107
[4]
Stokes Vector - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The 4 × 4 matrix between these two vectors is called the Mueller matrix [M] and characterises the effect of the optical device. The 16 elements of the matrix ...
[5]
Stokes–Mueller method for comprehensive characterization of ...
Sep 22, 2020 · The Stokes vector represents the full polarization state of light, and the effect of an optical element is described by a Mueller matrix.
[6]
https://www.mmpolarimetry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/perrin1942.pdf
[7]
Understanding the Mueller Matrix - Axometrics
The Stokes vector is a four-element vector that fully defines the polarization state of a beam of light. · The Mueller matrix is a 16-element, 4x4 transfer ...
[8]
Mueller Matrix - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The Mueller matrix is defined as a mathematical representation that characterizes the polarization rotation characteristics of an optical device, ...
[9]
Characterizing Turbid Media Using Mueller Matrix Images
Mueller calculus includes intensity values and can therefore represent partially polarized light. Jones calculus cannot represent circularly or elliptically ...
[10]
Mueller matrix interpolation in polarization optics
Mueller matrix as linear mapping between the input and output Stokes vectors of light interacting with media is a very powerful tool for polarimetric ...
[11]
[PDF] Linear Algebra for Describing Polarization and Polarizing Elements
It is important to note that Jones calculus can only be used to describe light that is fully polarized and coherent. Jones calculus uses x and y as its basis ...
[12]
[PDF] Measuring the Stokes polarization parameters
In 1852 George Gabriel Stokes showed that the polariza- tion state of light can be characterized in terms of four in- tensity parameters.1,2 The Stokes ...
[13]
None
### Summary of Soleillet's 1929 Work and Relation to Stokes-Mueller Formalism
[14]
(PDF) Hans Mueller (1900-1965) - ResearchGate
Mueller matrix polarimetry is derived from the development of the Stokes-Mueller optical calculus in the early part of the 20th century [5, 6] . ... Mueller ...
[15]
https://opg.optica.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-31-7-488
[16]
[PDF] Lecture 28 – Polarization of Light - Purdue Physics
The Jones Calculus. • Proposed by Richard Clark Jones (probably no relation) in 1941. • Only applicable to beams of coherent light. • Electric field vectors ...
[17]
On the Composition and Resolution of Streams of Polarized Light ...
When two polarized streams from different sources mix together, the mixture possesses properties intermediate between those of the original streams.
[18]
[PDF] 1Waves and Polarization.nb
Thus the Mueller matrix for a half-wave plate having the fast axis horizontal is the same as the Mueller matrix for a half-wave plate having the fast axis ...
[19]
[PDF] Polarimetric Spatio-Temporal Light Transport Probing
We also test the reflection configuration of the beamsplitter and validated that the. Mueller matrix is a diagonal matrix with the [1,1,-1,-1] diagonal vector.
[20]
(PDF) The Jones-Mueller Transformation - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · A simple transformation allows the construction of the real-valued Mueller matrix from the complex-valued Jones matrix.
[21]
https://opg.optica.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-4-3-433
[22]
Jones-matrix imaging of biological tissues with quadruple-channel ...
Jul 1, 2002 · A Jones matrix has four complex elements, in which one phase is arbitrary and consequently seven real parameters are independent. Equivalently, ...
[23]
https://opg.optica.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-33-12-2323
[24]
Characteristic properties of Mueller matrices - Optica Publishing Group
Mueller matrices have necessary conditions including nonnegativity of eigenvalues, transmittance, and a new condition. A purity criterion is also related to ...
[25]
[PDF] arXiv:1705.07147v1 [physics.optics] 19 May 2017
May 19, 2017 · |h>, can be defined in terms of the covariance matrix H associated to the Mueller matrix M: H = 1. 4. 3. X i,j=0. MijΠij,. (1) where Mij(i, j = ...
[26]
Constraints on Mueller matrices of polarization optics
Further Constraints on m00, m1, and m2. Apart from the overpolarization condition, physical realizability also requires that output energy does not exceed that ...Missing: M00 | Show results with:M00
[27]
(PDF) A Depolarization Criterion in Mueller Matrices - ResearchGate
Aug 5, 2025 · A proper measure of the closeness of M to a pure Mueller matrix is given by the depolarization index [27] (also called degree of polarimetric ...
[28]
Characterization of the Mueller Matrix: Purity Space and Reflectance ...
For backscattering, the Jones matrix is antisymmetric, and the Mueller matrix also has 10 independent parameters (but with different symmetry from the case of a ...<|separator|>
[29]
Analysis and synthesis of cascaded metasurfaces using wave matrices
May 10, 2017 · Muller matrices are 4 × 4 extensions of Jones matrices. As with Jones matrices, the Muller matrix of a cascade of optical elements is a product ...
[30]
Capabilities and Limitations of Using Measured Mueller Matrices to ...
To model the white-light output Stokes vector, perform an incoherent addition by averaging (or weighting) the modeled monochromatic Stokes vectors. 3 ...
[31]
Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition
Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition. Shih-Yau Lu and Russell A. Chipman. Author Information. Author Affiliations. Shih-Yau Lu and ...
[32]
Linear Retarder Theory — skoptics documentation
The use of optical retarders in instrumenst liek the SPEX modulator makes it useful to consider the Mueller matrix of a general retarder. For convenience, we ...
[33]
[PDF] MUELLER MATRIX ROOTS - The University of Arizona
Jul 25, 2011 · Performing a Taylor series expansion on the Mueller matrix forms for elliptical diattenuators and retarders provides insight into the symmetry ...
[34]
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b11841
[35]
https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-33-18-37826
[36]
https://preprints.opticaopen.org/articles/preprint/Generalized_Jones_Mueller_calculus_for_anisotropic_media/28647884
[37]
Generalized Jones & Mueller calculus for anisotropic media
A new GJM calculus that enables precise polarization modeling in arbitrary light path within anisotropic media, supplemented by a convinent mathematical ...
[38]
[PDF] Generalized Jones & Mueller calculus for anisotropic media
Mar 24, 2025 · The results consistent with simulations, which confirms the reliability of the new. GJM & GMM as the basis calculus for 3-D polarization optics.
[39]
[PDF] Dynamic Mueller matrix polarimetry using generalized measurements
May 1, 2024 · Here, we present an updated experimental system for single-shot POVM measurements, incorporating a. Sagnac interferometer, which provides ...
[40]
Dynamic Mueller matrix polarimetry using generalized measurements
May 30, 2024 · Mueller matrix polarimetry is commonly used to determine the optical activity of an unknown sample (such as its linear/circular birefringence or ...Missing: power | Show results with:power
[41]
Generalized Eigenvalue Calibration Method for Mueller Imaging ...
Jun 20, 2025 · Implementation of a complete Mueller matrix polarimeter using dual photoelastic modulators and rotating wave plates. Article 14 November 2018 ...
[42]
Mueller Matrix Polarizing Power - MDPI
This new descriptor, called the polarizing power, is applicable to any Mueller matrix and can be expressed as a function of the degree of polarimetric purity.
[43]
Advancements in metasurfaces for polarization control
4th Generation (2020-2025):The latest metasurfaces integrate AI-driven optimization, nonlinearity, and quantum properties for advanced applications [27].
[44]
Obtainment of Mueller-Jones matrix from the outer product of input ...
Sep 19, 2019 · It is shown that, in general, six Stokes vector measurements are needed to find all parameters by the proposed theorem. If one of the complex ...
[45]
A polarimetric imaging dataset for colorectal cancer detection
Oct 16, 2025 · The results indicated that the depolarization power of malignant samples was a reliable predictor of the cancer growth stage and histological ...
[46]
[PDF] Imaging Mueller polarimetry for biomedical diagnosis
Abstract. Imaging Mueller polarimetry has already demonstrated its potential for the accurate, non-contact, and cost-effective optical diagnosis.Missing: review 2024
[47]
Polarimetric feature analysis of Mueller matrices for brain tumor ...
Oct 3, 2025 · Mueller matrix polarimetry (MMP) provides valuable structural insights into tissue and holds promise for medical diagnostics. However, its ...
[48]
Mueller matrix based imaging enabled by polarization ...
May 28, 2025 · The Mueller matrix is a fundamental mathematical construct used to describe how an optical system or material modifies the polarization state of ...<|separator|>
[49]
Effective Parameters of Anisotropic Turbid Media: Theory and ...
A novel approach for determining the effective optical parameters of anisotropic materials based on Stokes–Mueller matrix decomposition method is proposed.Missing: metasurfaces | Show results with:metasurfaces
[50]
Mueller matrix polarimetry and polar decomposition of articular ... - NIH
Jul 22, 2021 · A mirror was placed just after the waveplate and polarizer to reflect transmitted light to the camera; otherwise, the mirror was replaced by the ...
[51]
Authentication of gold nanoparticle encoded pharmaceutical tablets ...
Mueller matrix elements [see Eq. (1)] as a function of the wavelength for gold nanoparticle coated tablets. The y-scale of the plots matches the respective ...
[52]
Diattenuation and retardance signature of plasmonic gold nanorods ...
Oct 8, 2021 · We report on polarization response in controlled tissue phantoms consisting of dielectric microsphere scatterers with varying admixtures of GRNs.<|control11|><|separator|>
[53]
Article A polarization-maintaining endoscope for surgical imaging
Aug 4, 2025 · We demonstrate that polarization imaging based on this endoscope can remove glare in real time, improve image clarity by 73% in smoky conditions ...Missing: cameras | Show results with:cameras
[54]
Influence of signal-to-noise ratio on DoLP and AoP measurements ...
Apr 3, 2024 · Stokes polarimeter based endoscopes are emerging as an area of technology where polarization imaging can greatly impact clinical care by ...
[55]
Quantifying optical anisotropy in soft tissue membranes using ...
Oct 6, 2021 · Mueller matrix imaging is a polarization imaging technique that determines a transfer function, which represents all of the fundamental ...