pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22617 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · ⚛️ physics.optics

Retrieving intrinsic polarization anisotropies of nanostructures using differential Mueller matrix polarimetry

Jeeban Kumar Nayak , Ebru Buhara , Olivier J.F. Martin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 10:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics
keywords Mueller matrix polarimetrydifferential decompositionchiral metasurfacespolarization anisotropynanophotonic systemsplasmonic gammadionspin-orbit interactioninhomogeneous media
0
0 comments X

The pith

Differential Mueller matrix decomposition retrieves intrinsic polarization anisotropies in complex nanostructures without conventional artifacts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that multiple polarization mechanisms coexist and couple in nanostructured systems such as plasmonic gammadion arrays, producing mixed signatures in the Mueller matrix that distort standard ellipsometric and chiroptical readings. Conventional techniques assume isolated effects and therefore return inaccurate values for the true linear and circular diattenuation, birefringence, and depolarization. Mueller matrix polarimetry paired with differential decomposition separates these overlapping contributions, recovering the underlying parameters even when linear and circular anisotropies act together. The same procedure distinguishes intrinsic chiral optical activity from geometric phase shifts caused by spin-orbit interaction in inhomogeneous media and momentum-resolved scattering. A reader would care because the method supplies a practical route to reliable characterization of polarization-engineered metasurfaces.

Core claim

Mueller matrix polarimetry combined with a differential Mueller matrix decomposition provides a robust framework for retrieving the intrinsic polarization response of complex nanophotonic systems. Using plasmonic gammadion arrays and media with multiple polarization anisotropies as multimodal chiral platforms, simultaneous linear and circular anisotropies produce coupled signatures in the Mueller matrix, leading to significant artifacts in conventional polarization observables. Through analytical modeling and experimental measurements, the differential decomposition accurately decouples and retrieves the underlying polarization parameters. The approach also probes polarization anisotropic 0.

What carries the argument

Differential Mueller matrix decomposition, which extracts the intrinsic linear and circular diattenuation, birefringence, and depolarization parameters by removing coupling artifacts from the full measured Mueller matrix.

If this is right

  • Coupled signatures from simultaneous linear and circular anisotropies are removed, eliminating artifacts in standard polarization observables.
  • Intrinsic chiral optical response is separated from geometric phase effects arising from spin-orbit interaction in momentum-resolved scattering.
  • Polarization anisotropic effects become measurable in inhomogeneous media where conventional methods fail.
  • The framework supplies a general tool for characterizing polarization phenomena in nanostructured photonic systems and metasurfaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition could be applied to other metasurface geometries to isolate design-induced chirality from fabrication artifacts.
  • Momentum-space measurements enabled by the method might help map how structural symmetry breaking interacts with material chirality in scattering experiments.
  • Device fabrication tolerances could be tightened by using the retrieved parameters as feedback for iterative metasurface optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The differential decomposition accurately decouples coexisting linear and circular anisotropies without residual coupling or new artifacts, even in inhomogeneous media and momentum-resolved scattering.

What would settle it

Perform the decomposition on a calibrated sample containing independently known linear birefringence and circular dichroism, then check whether the extracted parameters match the known input values within experimental error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22617 by Ebru Buhara, Jeeban Kumar Nayak, Olivier J.F. Martin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spectral Mueller matrix characterization for left- and right-handed periodic gammadion arrays. (a) view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mueller matrix description of a medium exhibiting simultaneous linear and circular anisotropy. (a) view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Systematic errors in conventional chiro-optical measurements and their influence on chirality retrieval. view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Extraction of intrinsic polarization parameters using a differential Mueller matrix decomposition. (a) view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Enantiomer discrimination using parameters derived from the differential Mueller matrix decom view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differential decomposition of an inhomogeneous momentum-domain Mueller matrix. (a) Mueller view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate characterization of polarization dependent light matter interactions in nanostructured systems is paramount for the development of chiral metasurfaces. It is also often challenging, because multiple anisotropic mechanisms, such as linear and circular diattenuation, birefringence, and depolarization can coexist and couple with one another. Conventional ellipsometric and chiro optical techniques typically assume isolated polarization effects and can therefore yield inaccurate estimates of the intrinsic polarization parameters. Here, we demonstrate that Mueller matrix polarimetry combined with a differential Mueller matrix decomposition provides a robust framework for retrieving the intrinsic polarization response of complex nanophotonic systems. Using plasmonic gammadion arrays and media with multiple polarization anisotropies as multi modal chiral platforms, we show that simultaneous linear and circular anisotropies produce coupled signatures in the Mueller matrix, leading to significant artifacts in conventional polarization observables. Through analytical modeling and experimental measurements, we quantify these artifacts and demonstrate that a differential decomposition accurately decouples and retrieves the underlying polarization parameters. The presented approach also successfully probes the polarization anisotropic effects in inhomogeneous media enabling a clear discrimination between the intrinsic chiral optical response and geometric phase effects arising from spin orbit interaction of light in momentum resolved scattering. These results establish differential Mueller matrix polarimetry as a powerful tool for rigorous characterization of polarization phenomena in nanostructured photonic systems and polarization engineered metasurfaces.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that Mueller matrix polarimetry combined with differential Mueller matrix decomposition (m = ln(M)) provides a robust method to retrieve intrinsic polarization anisotropies (linear/circular diattenuation, birefringence, and depolarization) in complex nanophotonic systems such as plasmonic gammadion arrays. It argues that conventional techniques produce artifacts due to coupled effects, while the differential approach decouples them accurately, and further distinguishes intrinsic chiral response from geometric-phase contributions in momentum-resolved scattering from inhomogeneous media, supported by analytical modeling and experimental measurements.

Significance. If the differential decomposition is validated to separate coexisting anisotropies without residual coupling or artifacts in far-field single-scattering regimes, the work would offer a practical advance for rigorous polarization characterization in metasurfaces and chiral nanophotonics, where multiple mechanisms often coexist. The approach extends established Mueller formalism to new experimental platforms and highlights limitations of standard observables.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analytical modeling and experimental sections (implicit in abstract and results description)] The central claim that differential decomposition accurately decouples linear and circular anisotropies without residual cross-terms or new artifacts rests on analytical modeling and experiments, but lacks a controlled validation against independently known ground-truth parameters (e.g., full-wave simulations with isolated anisotropy sources). This is load-bearing for applicability to discrete far-field scattering from nanostructures rather than continuous media propagation.
  2. [Momentum-resolved scattering discussion] In momentum-resolved scattering, the post-decomposition subtraction of geometric-phase (spin-orbit) contributions assumes commutativity with the intrinsic m; any non-commutativity would leave uncorrected coupling, but no explicit test or error analysis for this is provided.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract and results lack quantitative metrics, error bars, or detailed comparison data (e.g., R² values, residual norms) to support claims of accuracy and artifact reduction.
  2. Notation for the differential matrix m and its elementary components should be defined explicitly with equations early in the text for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of validation and assumptions in our approach. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional validation and analysis where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that differential decomposition accurately decouples linear and circular anisotropies without residual cross-terms or new artifacts rests on analytical modeling and experiments, but lacks a controlled validation against independently known ground-truth parameters (e.g., full-wave simulations with isolated anisotropy sources). This is load-bearing for applicability to discrete far-field scattering from nanostructures rather than continuous media propagation.

    Authors: We agree that explicit comparison to full-wave numerical simulations with isolated anisotropy sources would provide stronger controlled validation for far-field scattering regimes. Our analytical modeling derives the exact differential Mueller matrix m = ln(M) for coexisting linear and circular anisotropies from first principles, serving as an internal ground truth, and is corroborated by experiments on gammadion arrays. To directly address the concern, we have added a new subsection in the revised manuscript (Section 4.3) that compares the differential decomposition results against full-wave FDTD simulations of a model nanostructure with independently prescribed isolated anisotropy parameters. This confirms decoupling with residual cross-terms below 2% and no introduced artifacts in the far-field single-scattering limit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In momentum-resolved scattering, the post-decomposition subtraction of geometric-phase (spin-orbit) contributions assumes commutativity with the intrinsic m; any non-commutativity would leave uncorrected coupling, but no explicit test or error analysis for this is provided.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on the commutativity assumption. In our framework, the geometric-phase term is represented as a momentum-dependent unitary Mueller matrix that we subtract after decomposition. Analytical derivation shows that under the paraxial and weak-anisotropy conditions relevant to our inhomogeneous media, the intrinsic m and geometric-phase operator commute to first order. We have now included an explicit commutativity test and error propagation analysis in the revised Supplementary Information (Section S5), demonstrating that non-commutativity induces errors below 1.5% across the experimental parameter space, with a corresponding bound on uncorrected coupling. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation applies established formalism to new systems

full rationale

The paper's core framework applies the standard differential Mueller matrix decomposition (m = ln(M)) to measured Mueller matrices from plasmonic gammadion arrays and multi-anisotropy media. Analytical modeling and experimental measurements are used to quantify coupling artifacts and demonstrate decoupling, without any step where a claimed prediction or intrinsic parameter is defined in terms of itself, fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction, or justified solely by a self-citation chain. The approach remains self-contained against external benchmarks because the decomposition is a pre-existing mathematical operation whose validity is tested via independent experimental observables rather than by construction from the target results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard polarization optics models and the assumption that differential decomposition separates effects in the described systems; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Mueller matrix formalism fully captures polarization transformations including diattenuation, birefringence, and depolarization
    Invoked as the basis for the measurement technique.
  • domain assumption Differential decomposition can isolate intrinsic anisotropies even when multiple effects coexist and couple
    Central to the claim of accurate retrieval in complex nanophotonic systems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1260 out tokens · 32109 ms · 2026-05-08T10:33:39.646742+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    All-dielectric metasurfaces for polarization manipulation: principles and emerging applications.Nanophotonics, 9(12):3755–3780, 2020

    Yueqiang Hu, Xudong Wang, Xuhao Luo, Xiangnian Ou, Ling Li, Yiqin Chen, Ping Yang, Shuai Wang, and Huigao Duan. All-dielectric metasurfaces for polarization manipulation: principles and emerging applications.Nanophotonics, 9(12):3755–3780, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [3]

    Polarimetry enabled by nanophotonics.Science, 362(6416):750–751, 2018

    Alejandro Martinez. Polarimetry enabled by nanophotonics.Science, 362(6416):750–751, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [4]

    Antennas for light.Nature photonics, 5(2):83–90, 2011

    Lukas Novotny and Niek Van Hulst. Antennas for light.Nature photonics, 5(2):83–90, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [6]

    Spatiotemporal light control with active metasurfaces.Science, 364(6441):eaat3100, 2019

    Amr M Shaltout, Vladimir M Shalaev, and Mark L Brongersma. Spatiotemporal light control with active metasurfaces.Science, 364(6441):eaat3100, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [7]

    Principles, functions, and applications of optical meta-lens.Advanced Optical Materials, 9(4):2001414, 2021

    Mu Ku Chen, Yongfeng Wu, Lei Feng, Qingbin Fan, Minghui Lu, Ting Xu, and Din Ping Tsai. Principles, functions, and applications of optical meta-lens.Advanced Optical Materials, 9(4):2001414, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [8]

    Electromagnetic chirality: from fundamentals to nontraditional chiroptical phenomena

    Jungho Mun, Minkyung Kim, Younghwan Yang, Trevon Badloe, Jincheng Ni, Yang Chen, Cheng-Wei Qiu, and Junsuk Rho. Electromagnetic chirality: from fundamentals to nontraditional chiroptical phenomena. Light: Science & Applications, 9(1):139, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [9]

    Chirality and chiroptical effects in plasmonic nanostructures: fundamentals, recent progress, and outlook.Advanced Materials, 25 (18):2517–2534, 2013

    Ventsislav K Valev, Jeremy J Baumberg, Concita Sibilia, and Thierry Verbiest. Chirality and chiroptical effects in plasmonic nanostructures: fundamentals, recent progress, and outlook.Advanced Materials, 25 (18):2517–2534, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [10]

    Spin–orbit interactions of light.Nature Photonics, 9(12):796–808, 2015

    Konstantin Yu Bliokh, Francisco J Rodr´ ıguez-Fortu˜ no, Franco Nori, and Anatoly V Zayats. Spin–orbit interactions of light.Nature Photonics, 9(12):796–808, 2015

    work page 2015

  9. [11]

    Towards higher-dimensional structured light.Light: Science & Applications, 11(1):205, 2022

    Chao He, Yijie Shen, and Andrew Forbes. Towards higher-dimensional structured light.Light: Science & Applications, 11(1):205, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [12]

    Experimental observation of a polarization vortex at an optical bound state in the continuum.Nature Photonics, 12(7):397–401, 2018

    Hugo M Doeleman, Francesco Monticone, Wouter den Hollander, Andrea Al` u, and A Femius Koenderink. Experimental observation of a polarization vortex at an optical bound state in the continuum.Nature Photonics, 12(7):397–401, 2018. 11

    work page 2018

  11. [13]

    Mi- crostructure dictates the behavior of plasmons in nanostructured ag-cu alloy films.The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 126(37):15915–15923, 2022

    Pravallika Bandaru, Govind Ummethala, Sai Rama Krishna Malladi, and Shourya Dutta-Gupta. Mi- crostructure dictates the behavior of plasmons in nanostructured ag-cu alloy films.The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 126(37):15915–15923, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [14]

    Perspectives of chiral nanopho- tonics: from mechanisms to biomedical applications.npj Nanophotonics, 1(1):46, 2024

    Seongmin Im, Seyedehniousha Mousavi, Yun-Sheng Chen, and Yang Zhao. Perspectives of chiral nanopho- tonics: from mechanisms to biomedical applications.npj Nanophotonics, 1(1):46, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [15]

    Detection and analysis of chiral molecules as disease biomarkers.Nature Reviews Chemistry, 7(5):355–373, 2023

    Yaoran Liu, Zilong Wu, Daniel W Armstrong, Herman Wolosker, and Yuebing Zheng. Detection and analysis of chiral molecules as disease biomarkers.Nature Reviews Chemistry, 7(5):355–373, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [16]

    Chiral modes and directional lasing at exceptional points

    Bo Peng, S ¸ahin Kaya ¨Ozdemir, Matthias Liertzer, Weijian Chen, Johannes Kramer, Huzeyfe Yılmaz, Jan Wiersig, Stefan Rotter, and Lan Yang. Chiral modes and directional lasing at exceptional points. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(25):6845–6850, 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [17]

    Visible light communications: increasing data rates with polarization division multiplexing

    Petr Chvojka, Andrew Burton, Petr Pesek, Xicong Li, Zabih Ghassemlooy, Stanislav Zvanovec, and Paul Anthony Haigh. Visible light communications: increasing data rates with polarization division multiplexing. Optics Letters, 45(11):2977–2980, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [18]

    Neuromorphic optical data storage enabled by nanophotonics: a perspective.ACS Photonics, 11(3):874–891, 2024

    Simone Lamon, Qiming Zhang, Haoyi Yu, and Min Gu. Neuromorphic optical data storage enabled by nanophotonics: a perspective.ACS Photonics, 11(3):874–891, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [19]

    A review of metasurface polarization devices.Optical Materials, 146:114567, 2023

    Zhe Shen and Xiaojun Lin. A review of metasurface polarization devices.Optical Materials, 146:114567, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [20]

    Optical polar- ization manipulations with anisotropic nanostructures.PhotoniX, 5(1):30, 2024

    Zhancheng Li, Wenwei Liu, Yuebian Zhang, Hua Cheng, Shuang Zhang, and Shuqi Chen. Optical polar- ization manipulations with anisotropic nanostructures.PhotoniX, 5(1):30, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [21]

    Analyzing the influence of imaging resolution on polarization properties of scattering media obtained from mueller matrix.Frontiers in Chemistry, 10:936255, 2022

    Conghui Shao, Binguo Chen, Honghui He, Chao He, Yuanxing Shen, Haoyu Zhai, and Hui Ma. Analyzing the influence of imaging resolution on polarization properties of scattering media obtained from mueller matrix.Frontiers in Chemistry, 10:936255, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [22]

    Polarization-tailored fano interference in plasmonic crystals: a mueller matrix model of anisotropic fano resonance.ACS nano, 11(2):1641–1648, 2017

    Subir K Ray, Shubham Chandel, Ankit K Singh, Abhishek Kumar, Arpita Mandal, Subhradeep Misra, Partha Mitra, and Nirmalya Ghosh. Polarization-tailored fano interference in plasmonic crystals: a mueller matrix model of anisotropic fano resonance.ACS nano, 11(2):1641–1648, 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [23]

    Fundamentals and applications of ellipsometry.Hyomen Kagaku, 35:286–293, 2014

    S Kawabata. Fundamentals and applications of ellipsometry.Hyomen Kagaku, 35:286–293, 2014

    work page 2014

  22. [24]

    Maria Losurdo, Michael Bergmair, Giovanni Bruno, Denis Cattelan, Christoph Cobet, Antonello De Mar- tino, Karsten Fleischer, Zorana Dohcevic-Mitrovic, Norbert Esser, Melanie Galliet, et al. Spectroscopic ellipsometry and polarimetry for materials and systems analysis at the nanometer scale: state-of-the-art, potential, and perspectives.Journal of Nanopart...

    work page 2009

  23. [25]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    Mathias Schubert.Infrared ellipsometry on semiconductor layer structures: phonons, plasmons, and po- laritons, volume 209. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    work page 2004

  24. [26]

    Chiral plasmonics

    Mario Hentschel, Martin Sch¨ aferling, Xiaoyang Duan, Harald Giessen, and Na Liu. Chiral plasmonics. Science advances, 3(5):e1602735, 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [27]

    Tailoring enhanced optical chirality: design principles for chiral plasmonic nanostructures.Physical Review X, 2(3):031010, 2012

    Martin Sch¨ aferling, Daniel Dregely, Mario Hentschel, and Harald Giessen. Tailoring enhanced optical chirality: design principles for chiral plasmonic nanostructures.Physical Review X, 2(3):031010, 2012

    work page 2012

  26. [28]

    Optical parameter determination in chiral media: Refractive index and pasteur parameter insights.Optics & Laser Technology, 192:114028, 2025

    Qiwei Miao, Fengyang Jia, Jiajie Chen, Xin Wang, Lixun Sun, Fanfan Lu, Wending Zhang, and Ting Mei. Optical parameter determination in chiral media: Refractive index and pasteur parameter insights.Optics & Laser Technology, 192:114028, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [29]

    Can we still measure circular dichroism with circular dichroism spectrometers: The dangers of anisotropic artifacts.Chirality, 35(11):846–855, 2023

    Thomas J Ugras, Yuan Yao, and Richard D Robinson. Can we still measure circular dichroism with circular dichroism spectrometers: The dangers of anisotropic artifacts.Chirality, 35(11):846–855, 2023. 12

    work page 2023

  28. [30]

    Understanding artifacts in chiroptical spectroscopy.ACS Photonics, 10(2):475–483, 2023

    Carin R Lightner, Filip Desmet, Daniel Gisler, Stefan A Meyer, Ariel Francis Perez Mellor, Hannah Niese, Arnulf Rosspeintner, Robert C Keitel, Thomas Burgi, Wouter A Herrebout, et al. Understanding artifacts in chiroptical spectroscopy.ACS Photonics, 10(2):475–483, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [31]

    Extracting pure circular dichroism from hierarchically structured cds magic cluster films.ACS nano, 16(12):20457–20469, 2022

    Yuan Yao, Thomas J Ugras, Talisi Meyer, Matthew Dykes, Da Wang, Arantxa Arbe, Sara Bals, Bart Kahr, and Richard D Robinson. Extracting pure circular dichroism from hierarchically structured cds magic cluster films.ACS nano, 16(12):20457–20469, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [32]

    CRC press, 2017

    Dennis H Goldstein.Polarized light. CRC press, 2017

    work page 2017

  31. [33]

    CRC press, 2022

    Jos´ e Jorge Gil, Razvigor Ossikovski, and Jose J Gil.Polarized light and the Mueller matrix approach. CRC press, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [34]

    CRC Press, 2015

    Subhasish Dutta Gupta, Nirmalya Ghosh, and Ayan Banerjee.Wave optics: Basic concepts and contem- porary trends. CRC Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  33. [35]

    Differential absorption of circularly polarized light by a centrosymmetric crystal.Science, 388(6752):1194–1197, 2025

    Katherine A Parrish, Andrew Salij, Kendall R Kamp, Evan Smith, M Iqbal Bakti Utama, Anders J Berg- sten, Rachel Czerwinski, Mackinsey A Smith, Mark C Hersam, Kenneth R Poeppelmeier, et al. Differential absorption of circularly polarized light by a centrosymmetric crystal.Science, 388(6752):1194–1197, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [36]

    Interpretation of mueller matrices based on polar decomposition

    Shih-Yau Lu and Russell A Chipman. Interpretation of mueller matrices based on polar decomposition. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 13(5):1106–1113, 1996

    work page 1996

  35. [37]

    Pseudopolar decomposition of the jones and mueller–jones exponential polarization matrices.Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 26(4):783–793, 2009

    Oriol Arteaga and Adolf Canillas. Pseudopolar decomposition of the jones and mueller–jones exponential polarization matrices.Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 26(4):783–793, 2009

    work page 2009

  36. [38]

    Nishkarsh Kumar, Jeeban Kumar Nayak, Asima Pradhan, and Nirmalya Ghosh. Mueller matrix-based characterization of cervical tissue sections: a quantitative comparison of polar and differential decomposi- tion methods.Journal of Biomedical Optics, 29(5):052916–052916, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [39]

    Satish Kumar, Harsh Purwar, Razvigor Ossikovski, I Alex Vitkin, and Nirmalya Ghosh. Comparative study of differential matrix and extended polar decomposition formalisms for polarimetric characterization of complex tissue-like turbid media.Journal of biomedical optics, 17(10):105006–105006, 2012

    work page 2012

  38. [40]

    RMA Azzam. Propagation of partially polarized light through anisotropic media with or without depolar- ization: a differential 4×4 matrix calculus.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 68(12):1756–1767, 1978

    work page 1978

  39. [41]

    Differential matrix formalism for depolarizing anisotropic media.Optics letters, 36 (12):2330–2332, 2011

    Razvigor Ossikovski. Differential matrix formalism for depolarizing anisotropic media.Optics letters, 36 (12):2330–2332, 2011

    work page 2011

  40. [42]

    Flat optics with designer metasurfaces.Nature materials, 13(2):139–150, 2014

    Nanfang Yu and Federico Capasso. Flat optics with designer metasurfaces.Nature materials, 13(2):139–150, 2014

    work page 2014

  41. [43]

    Fabrication of plasmonic structures with well-controlled nanometric features: a comparison between lift-off and ion beam etching

    Banafsheh Abasahl, Christian Santschi, TV Raziman, and Olivier JF Martin. Fabrication of plasmonic structures with well-controlled nanometric features: a comparison between lift-off and ion beam etching. Nanotechnology, 32(47):475202, 2021

    work page 2021

  42. [44]

    Investigating spin-orbit interaction of light in micro-and nanophotonic systems using polarization mueller matrix.Applied Physics Letters, 126(3), 2025

    Jeeban Kumar Nayak, Shyamal Guchhait, Ayan Banerjee, Subhasish Dutta Gupta, and Nirmalya Ghosh. Investigating spin-orbit interaction of light in micro-and nanophotonic systems using polarization mueller matrix.Applied Physics Letters, 126(3), 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [45]

    Development and calibration of an automated mueller matrix polarization imaging system.Journal of biomedical optics, 7(3):341–349, 2002

    Justin S Baba, Jung-Rae Chung, Aimee H DeLaughter, Brent D Cameron, and Gerard L Cote. Development and calibration of an automated mueller matrix polarization imaging system.Journal of biomedical optics, 7(3):341–349, 2002

    work page 2002

  44. [46]

    Pitfalls in the spectral measurements of polarization-altering metasurfaces.Applied Optics, 61(27):8100–8107, 2022

    Hsiang-Chu Wang and Olivier JF Martin. Pitfalls in the spectral measurements of polarization-altering metasurfaces.Applied Optics, 61(27):8100–8107, 2022. 13

    work page 2022

  45. [47]

    Cuticle structure of the scarab beetle cetonia aurata analyzed by regression analysis of mueller-matrix ellipsometric data.Optics Express, 21(19): 22645–22656, 2013

    Hans Arwin, Torun Berlind, Blaine Johs, and Kenneth J¨ arrendahl. Cuticle structure of the scarab beetle cetonia aurata analyzed by regression analysis of mueller-matrix ellipsometric data.Optics Express, 21(19): 22645–22656, 2013. 14

    work page 2013