1.

INTRODUCTION

In the second-order approach, the polarization effects of a material medium on the electromagnetic wave that interacts with it are characterized by means of the corresponding Mueller matrix. Beyond its mere role as the 4×4 matrix that transforms the Stokes vectors of the incoming polarization states into the Stokes vectors of the outgoing states, the Mueller matrix contains, in a intricate manner, rich information on the physical nature and properties of the medium.

This work is devoted to identify and interpret the main physical quantities involved in a Mueller matrix. After an analysis of each significant quantity, the notions of components of purity, indices of polarimetric purity as well as the sets of quantities that remain invariant under certain transformations are revisited and interpreted on the basis of a common framework.

For the sake of self-consistency of this work, it is worth considering briefly the concept of Mueller matrix. The transformation of the state of polarization of an electromagnetic beam caused by its linear interaction with a material medium can be formulated mathematically as Ms = s′, where s and s′ are the respective Stokes vectors of the input and output states of polarization and M is the Mueller matrix associated with the medium (for the given particular conditions of interaction). In general, the medium can exhibit dispersive effects or certain degree of heterogeneity over the area illuminated by the incident electromagnetic beam, producing depolarization. Therefore, the emerging electromagnetic wave is composed of a number of incoherent contributions (mutually coherent or incoherent), in such a manner that the polarimetric effect of the medium not always can be represented by means of a Mueller-Jones matrix (deterministic case).

In other words, while some polarimetric interactions have a deterministic nature and can be formulated either by the Jones calculus or by the Stokes-Mueller calculus (in which case the Mueller matrix M is pure, also called nondepolarizing or Mueller-Jones matrix, that is, M is derived from a unique Jones matrix), in the most general case, M is a convex sum, or ensemble average, of pure Mueller matrices (i.e. a linear combination of pure Mueller matrices with positive coefficients that sum to one). This is a consequence of the fact that, essentially, any macroscopic polarimetric effect is due to a sort of scattering by a myriad of elementary electronic excitations, each one with a well-defined Jones matrix, and the whole action of the medium is a statistical composition of such pure interactions. This physical requisite is called the ensemble criterion [1] (also covariance criterion or Cloude’s criterion [2]).

Note that the ensemble criterion imposes additional restrictions beyond the fact that a Mueller matrix is a Stokes matrix transforming Stokes vectors into Stokes vectors [3]. A simple example of a Stokes matrix that is not a Mueller matrix is the Minkowski metric G ≡ diag (1, −1, −1, −1), which plays a key role in the Stokes-Mueller algebra [5-12] but has no associated Jones matrix.

Furthermore, leaving aside certain artificial arrangements [13], the linear polarimetric effects are passive [3,5,14,15], in the sense that the intensity (power density flux) of the output electromagnetic wave never exceeds the intensity of the input wave.

Thus, by considering jointly the ensemble and passivity criteria, we can state that a 4×4 real matrix M is a Mueller matrix if and only if it can be expressed as

where M_Ji are pure and passive Mueller matrices (i.e. M_Ji are associated with respective passive Jones matrices). For a more detailed analysis of this subject we refer the reader to Ref. [1].

Before identifying the relevant physical parameters involved in a general Mueller matrix M, let us first recall that the structure of the information contained in M is closely related to its block expression [16],

where M̂ is the normalized version of M.

For some analyses it is also useful to parameterize the submatrix m as follows [17]

so that M is expressed in terms of m₀₀ and the five constitutive vectors

It is also worth to consider briefly the reciprocity properties of Mueller matrices, that is, the relation between Mand the Mueller matrix M^r that corresponds to the same medium as M, but interchanging input and output directions of the probe wave interacting with it. It has been proved that (leaving aside systems involving magnetooptic effects, whose reciprocity property M^r = M differs from the usual rule) the reciprocal Mueller matrix M^ris given by [18,19]

where the superscript T indicates transposed matrix. Therefore, the knowledge of a depolarizing Mueller matrix M fully determines the reciprocal Mueller matrix M^r. In fact, it has been proved that the constraining inequalities that characterize the Mueller matrices are invariant with respect to the change of M^r by M^T [5,1], and consequently all the physical conditions for a matrix M to be a Mueller matrix must also be satisfied by M^r and M^T. In other words, M is a Mueller matrix if and only if M^T (or M ^r) is a Mueller matrix.

The state of polarization of an electromagnetic beam with a well defined direction of propagation can be represented by means of the corresponding Stokes vector

where I is the intensity, P is the degree of polarization (a measure of how close is the state represented by s to a totally polarized one), while ϕ and χ are respectively the azimuth and ellipticity angle of the average polarization ellipse (called the characteristic polarization ellipse [20]).

The whole set of polarization states ŝ ≡ s/ I (i.e., states with unit intensity and arbitrary values of P, ϕ and χ) constitute the Poincaré sphere. States with P = 1 (said to be pure, or totally polarized) constitute the surface of the sphere, while states satisfying 0 ≤ P < 1 lie inside the sphere (P = 0 corresponding to the origin).

To inspect some polarimetric properties of M, it will be useful to keep in mind the following transformations, through M and through M^T, of an input state ŝ into the respective output states s^f and s^r

2.

MEAN INTENSITY COEFFICIENT

Let us consider the pair of normalized pure Stokes vectors

which are said to be mutually orthogonal (i.e., they satisfy ) and are represented by antipodal points on the surface of the Poincaré sphere.

The effect of a medium represented by a Mueller matrix M on the following equiprobable incoherent mixture of the states ŝ_p+ and ŝ_p−

is given by the outgoing Stokes vector

whose intensity is m₀₀. Since each pure state ŝ _p+ has its respective orthogonal state ŝ _p−, it turns out that an equiprobable incoherent mixture of all pure states (thus covering the entire surface of the Poincaré sphere) is given by a unpolarized state

and therefore, from (11), the intensity of the corresponding output state is m₀₀. Furthermore, if we consider a unpolarized input state with intensity I, the intensity of the transformed state is m₀₀ I. This fact provides the physical meaning of m₀₀ and justifies calling it the mean intensity coefficient of M (also termed transmittance -or reflectance- or gain).

3.

POLARIZANCE AND DIATTENUATION

A given Mueller matrix transforms an input unpolarized state as shown in Eq. (11), so that the ability of M to polarize input unpolarized states is characterized by the polarizance vector P, whose absolute value P is the degree of polarization of the transformed state and is called the polarizance of M [21,22]

The upper limit P = 1 of P (which is restricted to the interval 0 ≤ P ≤ 1) is achieved for media that fully polarize the input unpolarized states. Thus, a medium satisfying P = 1 is called a polarizer and his associated Mueller matrix M_P̂D has the form [23,24]

Moreover, the polarizance of a Mueller matrix M can be expressed as [17]

where the degree of linear polarizance P_L is a measure of the ability of M to transform a unpolarized state into a linearly polarized state (0 ≤ P_L ≤ 1), while the degree of circular polarizance P_C is a measure of the ability of M to C;transform a unpolarized state into a circularly polarized one (|P_C| ≤ 1, with P_C = −1 for a left-handed circular polarizer and P_C = 1 for a right-handed circular polarizer).

To analyze the physical information involved in the diattenuation vector D, let us observe that, from Eq. (7), the and minimum intensities for the output state s^f = Mŝ are given by

which correspond respectively to the following mutually-orthogonal input states

so that the absolute value D of D can be expressed as [5,25,1]

showing that the diattenuation D is a measure of the relative difference between the maximum and minimum intensities of the output states with respect to all possible input polarization states. D is limited by 0 ≤ D ≤ 1, where D = 1 corresponds to media for which there exists an input state (s_−D̂) whose corresponding output state has zero intensity. When D = 1 the medium is called an analyzer and has the general form [23,24]

As for polarizance, diattenuation can be expressed as a quadratic average of linear diattenuation D_L and circular diattenuation D_C [17]

Let us now consider the reverse M^r and transpose M^T Mueller matrices associated with M, and observe that, from the mere definition of P, D, D_L, D_C, P_L, P_C, these quantities satisfy

In other words, the polarizance of M is also the diattenuation (or reciprocal polarizance) of M^r and M^T, while the diattenuation of M is also the polarizance (or reciprocal diattenuation) of M^r and M^T [4].

4.

POLARIZANCE ANGLE

Vectors P and D, whose respective physical meanings have been analyzed in Section 3, can be represented in the Poincaré sphere, and the polarizance angle η formed by them and defined as

is an interesting quantity involved in M that remains invariant under certain transformations of M (this subject will be considered in further sections on retarder and rotation transformations of M). In particular, the role played by η in the classification of nondepolarizing Mueller matrices is studied in Ref. [27].

5.

DEGREE OF POLARIZANCE

As we have seen, despite the fact that both polarizance P and diattenuation D have respective specific physical meanings, they rely on a common dual physical nature, so that, for some purposes, it is useful to define the degree of polarizance P_P [28]

which provides a measure of the combined contribution of P and D to polarimetric purity. P_P is restricted to the range 0 ≤ P_P ≤ 1, P_P = 1 corresponding to a pure polarizer and P_P = 0 corresponding to a nonpolarizing Mueller matrix M (with zero diattenuation and zero polarizance).

Concerning the notion of the degree of polarizance, it is worth to recall that, contrary to that it would seem at first sight, P_P is related to the ability of the medium represented by M to reduce the degree of polarization of certain input states of polarization [29]. To analyze this feature, let us consider the example of a normal diattenuator [30] (which is a kind of pure Mueller matrix [1]), with diattenuation 0 < D < 1, whose Mueller matrix has the form [23]

The action of MD on the partially polarized state (1,D^T)^T, whose degree of polarization D equals the diattenuation of MD, produces an output partially polarized state represented by the following Stokes vector

whose degree of polarization is D (1 + D²) < DD and, consequently, the fact that D > 0 implies that MD reduces the degree of polarization of some input partially polarized states.

6.

DEGREE OF SPHERICAL PURITY

The degree of spherical purity, P_S, is defined as [29,31]

so that it is limited by 0 ≤ P_S ≤ 1 and constitutes a measure of how close is M to the Mueller matrix of a retarder (in general elliptic, and regardless of the effective value of its retardance) [26]. That is, P_S = 1 corresponds to a Mueller matrix whose normalized version is the Mueller matrix M_R of a retarder (i.e. and det M_R = +1). The lower limit and P_S = 0 corresponds to a depolarizing medium satisfying m = 0, which is fully characterized by m₀₀, P and D.

7.

DEGREE OF POLARIMETRIC PURITY

Polarimetric purity refers to the closeness of a Mueller matrix to that of a deterministic nondepolarizing medium (i.e., a pure medium, hence characterized by the fact that it preserves the degree of polarization of any input totally polarized state in both forward and reverse directions). An overall measure of the degree of polarimetric purity of M is given by the depolarization index P_Δ defined as [22]

This quantity is limited by 0 ≤ P_Δ ≤ 1, the upper limit P_Δ = 1 corresponding to a pure medium (regardless of its particular retardance and diattenuation properties) and the lower limit P_Δ = 0 corresponding to an ideal depolarizer with associated Mueller matrix M_Δ0 = m₀₀ diag (1, 0, 0, 0).

In accordance with the physical meaning of P_Δ, an overall measure of the depolarizing power (or polarimetric randomness) of the medium is given by the depolarizance [26]

Pure Mueller matrices are characterized by P_Δ = 1 (D_Δ = 0), while Mueller matrices satisfying P_Δ < 1 (D_Δ > 0) are called nonpure or depolarizing.

Despite the fact that P_Δ constitutes a well-defined overall measure of the polarimetric purity, it has been shown that it does not provide enough information for a complete parameterization of the polarimetric purity of M [4,31]. Such parameterization can be obtained from two complementary sets of quantities called the components of purity and the indices of polarimetric purity which will be described in respective sections.

8.

COMPONENTS OF PURITY

The block expression of a Mueller matrix in Eq. (2) is particularly significant because it reflects relevant properties of M concerning the structure of the physical information contained in it. Accordingly, and from the inspection of the right term of Eq. (26) the quantities P, D and P_S, taken as a set, are called the components of purity (hereafter CP) of M. The analysis of the particular values of the CP allows for a classification of Mueller matrices (see Refs. [20,26]).

The parameters P_P and P_S, taken as a set, are called the sources of purity of M, which represent complementary contributions to the overall polarimetric purity given by P_Δ [28]

and their representation in the purity figure [26] provides a meaningful view of the different types of Mueller matrices (see Fig. 1 in Section 9).

Fig. 1.

Different purity regions are determined by the number η of 1-valued IPP. Region I: curve AC (η = 3), is exclusive for pure systems, whose total purity P_Δ = 1 is shared among the sources of purity P_P and P_S. Region II: ACDGA (branch AC excluded), determined by , is feasible for systems with η = 0,1, 2. Region III: GDEFG (branch GD excluded), determined by , is feasible for systems with η = 0,1. Region IV: FEOF (branch FE excluded), determined by 0 ≤ P_Δ < 1/3, is exclusive for systems with η = 0 (P₁ ≤ P₂ ≤ P₃ < 1). From J. J. Gil, Opt. Commun. 368, 165-173 (2016).

9.

INDICES OF POLARIMETRIC PURITY

While the components of purity provide information of how the polarimetric purity is shared among polarizance, diattenuation and spherical purity, a complementary view of how the polarimetric purity (or, conversely, its randomness) is quantitatively structured, is achieved from the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix H associated with M and defined as

where ⊗ stands for the Kronecker product and σ_k are the Pauli matrices (ordered as usual in Optics)

Since H is a positive semidefinite Hermitian matrix, its eigenvalues are nonnegative, and, taken in decreasing order, are denoted by λ_i (λ₀ ≥ λ₁ ≥ λ₂ ≥ λ₃). Thus, H can be expressed as

where U is the unitary matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors u_i and the so-called spectral decomposition, or Cloude’s decomposition of H is defined as [2,3]

where λ̂ ≡ λ (tr H) and H_Ji are the covariance matrices associated with respective pure Mueller matrices MJi (the subscript J is used to indicate that these matrices are associated with pure Mueller matrices, that is, each H_Ji has only one nonzero eigenvalue λ_i). The spectral decomposition of M is formulated as follows in terms of the pure Mueller matrices M_Ji ≡ m₀₀ M̂_Ji with the same mean intensity coefficients [3] equal to m₀₀ = tr H

The above decomposition means that, from a polarimetric point of view, the medium represented by M is equivalent to a parallel composition [32,33] of the pure media represented by M_Ji, that is, the medium behaves like if the input electromagnetic beam was shared among a set of pencils interacting separately with the pure components represented by M_Ji, in such a manner that the emerging pencils recombine incoherently into a whole output beam [3,4]. Consequently, the normalized eigenvalues λ̂_i of H represent the relative weights of the pure components MJi in the spectral decomposition.

An objective view of how the polarimetric purity is structured in M is obtained by rearranging the spectral decomposition in the form of the following trivial, or characteristic, decomposition [4]

where the quantities P₁, P₂ and P₃ are the so-called indices of polarimetric purity (IPP) of M, defined as follows from the normalized eigenvalues of H [34]

while M̂_J0, M̂_J1, M̂_J2 and M̂_Δ0 are normalized Mueller matrices associated with the covariance matrices Ĥ_{J 0}, Ĥ_J1, Ĥ_J2, and Ĥ_Δ0 defined as

where I is the 4×4 identity matrix. The above expressions allows for the following interpretation of the characteristic components of M:

The overall degree of polarimetric purity P_Δ can be calculated through the following weighted quadratic average of the IPP [34]

It is remarkable that, from the role played by the IPP in the characteristic decomposition and from the scaled structure of their values [34]

the IPP constitute a privileged set of parameters providing quantitative information of how the polarimetric purity (or, conversely, the polarimetric randomness) is organized in the medium represented by M. Note that the IPP are insensitive to the specific features of M relative to its CP.

Although IPP and CP provide independent and complementary information, note that the set (P_1, P_2, P_3, P, D) of purity parameters is sufficient to calculate P_Δ and P_S. The purity figure (Fig. 1) provides a powerful geometric tool to inspect the intricate relations between the IPP and the CP. A detailed analysis of the physical interpretation of both sets of parameters, can be found in Ref. [26]

10.

RETARDER TRANSFORMATIONS

The term retarder is used for pure media with zero diattenuation-polarizance, P = D = 0. The Mueller matrix of an ideal retarder M_R has the general form

so that a given Mueller matrix M corresponds to a retarder if and only if M^T = M⁻¹, that is, if and only if M is orthogonal.

The action of M_R can be represented in the Poincaré sphere as a rotation by the angle Δ about the axis defined by the unit Pauli vector u_R of M_R, so that any input state is transformed into an output state obtained through such rotation. The two eigenstates of M_R are given by the mutually orthogonal and totally polarized Stokes vectors

Thus, a given retarder can also be represented by means of its corresponding straight retardance vector R defined as

where u_R is the Pauli vector determining the azimuth and ellipticity of the fast eigenstate of M_R and Δ is the retardance. Note that R has been defined so as to satisfy 0 ≤ R ≤ 1 which allows for its representation in the Poincaré sphere.

Unlike Mueller matrices of retarders, Mueller matrices (pure or nonpure) with nonzero diattenuation or polarizance, are necessarily associated with media that exhibit forward or reverse diattenuation, which is a property linked to selective absorption (dichroism) or selective reflection, hence producing power loss, in the sense that such effects cannot be compensated by means of serial combinations with additional passive media. Therefore, unlike the action of diattenuators, the action of a retarder produces lossless effects on the interacting electromagnetic wave. In fact, given M_R, always exists a passive pure Mueller matrix M_R⁻¹ (which also corresponds to a retarder) whose serial combination with the retarder represented by M_R, M_R⁻¹ M_R = I produces a neutral effect.

To get a deeper knowledge of the information contained in M, it is therefore interesting to analyze its possible lossless transformations through its serial combination with other Mueller matrices. The most general form of a lossless transformation of M is that of a dual retarder transformation [17]

whose physical interpretation is that the medium represented by M is sandwiched by the retarders represented by M_R1 (entrance retarder) and M_R2 (exit retarder), so that this serial combination is represented by the resulting Mueller matrix M′. Dual retarder transformations preserve important quantities like m₀₀, D, P, P_S, P₁, P₂, P₃ and P_Δ, thus including those that fully characterize the depolarizing properties of M; this is the reason why Mueller matriceslinked to M through dual retarder transformations are said to be invariant-equivalent to M [31].

Among the infinite Mueller matrices that are invariant-equivalent to M, it is worth to pay attention to the so-called arrow form M_A of M [35], which is built from the singular value decomposition of the submatrix m of M

where m_RI and _mRO are proper orthogonal matrices, and m_A is the diagonal matrix whose elements are defined as follows from the singular values (a₁, a₂, a₃) of m,

The arrow form M_A of M is defined as [35]

so that the dual retarder transformation M = M_RO M_A M_RI is called the arrow decomposition of M.

The main feature of the arrow form M_A is that the six off-diagonal elements of m_A are zero, so that the ten nonzero elements of M_A provide all the information of M that is invariant under dual retarder transformations. In fact, M_A is built from m₀₀ together with (1) the diattenuation vector D_A ≡ m_RI D, (2) the polarizance vector P_A ≡ m^T_ROP, and (3) the spherical vector

whose absolute value equals the degree of spherical purity

Other interesting class of retarder transformations is the single retarder transformation, defined as an orthogonal similarity transformation of M [17]

whose physical interpretation is that the medium represented by M is sandwiched by two identical retarders whose fast eigenstates are mutually orthogonal.

11.

ROTATION TRANSFORMATIONS

This section is devoted to dual retarder transformations that can be physically performed by means of rotations of the respective laboratory reference frames used for the representation of the Stokes vectors of the input and output electromagnetic beam [17].

The matrix M_G that transforms a Mueller matrix M into the Mueller matrix of the same medium but with respect to a rotated laboratory reference frame, is commonly called a rotator and has the form

where θ is the angle rotated. Note that M_G (θ) is a Mueller matrix. In fact, it coincides with the Mueller matrix of circular retarder with retardance 2θ [1].

A dual-rotation transformation [17] is a kind of dual retarder transformation where M_R2 and M_R1 have the form of respective rotation matrices M_R2 = M_G (θ₂), M_R1 = M_G (θ₁)

By using the five-vector expression of M in terms of the elements of its constitutive vectors D, P, k, r and q, [17]

the dual rotation transformations can be expressed as [17]

An especially interesting subclass of dual rotation transformations is that constituted by single rotation transformations [17], which correspond to the case that the laboratory reference frames for the representation of input and output polarization states are rotated jointly (and, hence, applicable for the case of direct transmission experiments where input and output reference frames coincide)

When expressed in terms of the elements of the five constitutive vectors of M, the single rotation transformation adopts the form [17]

12.

PHYSICAL PARAMETERIZATION OF A MUELLER MATRIX

The retarder and rotation transformations provide meaningful ways for describing the physical information contained in M in terms of certain sets of quantities.

From the point of view of dual retarder transformations and, in particular, from the arrow decomposition of M, we get that a complete set of sixteen physical parameters is provided by

that is, by

As we have seen in previous sections, the quantitative characterization of the polarimetric purity of M is given by the IPP: P₁, P₂, P₃ (which, obviously, also determine the quantitative structure of the polarimetric randomness and depolarizing properties of M), while the qualitative characterization of the polarimetric purity (or of the corresponding sources of depolarization) of M is given by the CP: P, D, P_S. Moreover, it has been demonstrated [36] that any depolarizing Mueller matrix M has an associated reference pure Mueller matrix M_J (M) to which M is reduced when the IPP of M are replaced by P₁ = P₂ = P₃ = 1. That is, the IPP act as regulators of the quantitative structure of the polarimetric purity of M, while the CP provide detailed information on the sources and nature of the polarimetric purity associated with M.

In virtue of the dual retarder transformation of a pure Mueller matrix, which can always be written as [1,37]

where the central horizontal diattenuator has the form

the entrance equivalent retarder M_R1 is determined by a sequence of a linear retarder (with retardance Δ_I and whose fast linear eigenstate has azimuth ϕ_I) and a horizontal linear retarder with retardanceΔ/2, while the exit equivalent retarder M_R2 is determined by a sequence of a horizontal linear retarder with retardance Δ/2 and a linear retarder (with retardance ΔO and whose fast linear eigenstate has azimuth ϕ_O).

Therefore, when the IPP of M are replaced by their values P₁ = P₂ = P₃ = 1 corresponding to total purity, the six parameters associated with the set composed of the entrance and exit retarders, M_RI and M_RO, of the arrow decomposition of M, _collapse into the five parameters ϕ_I, Δ_I, Δ, ϕ_O, Δ_O, while the nine parameters of M _{A collapse} into the two parameters of M_DL0 (m₀₀, D). Consequently, contrary to the apparent necessity of nine parameters for the complete integral quantitative and qualitative characterization of the depolarization properties of M, they are fully determined by its five purity parameters P₁, P₂, P₃, P, D. Obviously, the complete joint characterization of retarding, polarizing, diattenuating and depolarizing properties of M is given by R _I, R_O, P, D, P₁, P₂, P₃ (fifteen parameters that, together with the mean intensity coefficient m₀₀, complete the sixteen physical parameters that fully characterize M).

Thus, the above physical parameterization of M has important consequences for the physical interpretation of Mueller matrices. In fact, the dual retarder transformation that links M and its arrow form M_A is reversible in the sense that it does not involve diattenuation effects (the CP of M_A are equal to those of M) or changes in the structure of polarimetric purity (the IPP of M_A are equal to those of M). Conversely, transformations involving diattenuators or depolarizers necessarily affect to the CP or to the IPP.

Obviously, there are many quantities that can be derived from the above minimum set of sixteen independent parameters in Eq. (54), like, for instance, P_Δ, D_Δ and P_S.

It has been demonstrated [17] that other alternative parameterizations of M, based on dual retarder transformations, are possible, as for instance the one obtained by replacing P₁, P₂ and P₃ in the set (52) by the scalar quantities P_S, det M (whose physical meaning is studied in Refs. [24,38]), and P^T mD (whose physical interpretation would require further analysis). Other possible choice is that constituted by

13.

OTHER PARAMETERIZATIONS OF A MUELLER MATRIX

Concerning the parameterization of M in terms of the single retarder transformation, let us observe that a complete set is constituted by [17]

Note that P^T D = PD cosη, where η is the polarizance angle. Nevertheless, the physical interpretation of P^T m D, P^T m^T D and trM is not straightforward and require additional study.

From the point of view of dual rotation transformations, different sets of sixteen mutually independent parameters can be chosen, as for example, from Eq. (51), [17]

where, in analogy to the linear and circular components of vectors P and D, the linear and circular components of vectors r, q and k have been defined as

And finally, from the single rotation transformation, the following parameterization in terms of sixteen independent parameters is obtained [17]

or, alternatively

14.

CONCLUSION

The relevant physical information contained in a Mueller matrix M has been identified, decoupled and interpreted on the basis of the arrow decomposition of M:

Complete quantitative and qualitative information on the depolarizing properties of M is provided by the set of five purity parameters P₁, P₂, P₃, P, D, from which other relevant physically invariant quantities relative to polarimetric purity, like P_S, P_Δ or D_Δ can be calculated

Funding. This research was supported by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, grants FIS2011-22496 and FIS2014-58303-P, and by Gobierno de Aragón (E99).