## Interpretation of the coherency matrix for three-dimensional polarization states

## José J. Gil

Facultad de Educación. Universidad de Zaragoza. Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain. ppgil@unizar.es

## Abstract

From an appropriate parameterization of the three-dimensional (3D) coherency matrix R , that characterizes  the  second-order,  classical  states  of  polarization,  the  coherency  matrices  are classified  and  interpreted  in  terms  of  incoherent  decompositions.  The  relevant  physical quantities derived from R ,  as  the  intensity,  the  degree  of  polarimetric purity, the indices of polarimetric  purity,  the  angular  momentum,  the  degree  of  directionality  and  the  degree  of linear polarization are identified and interpreted on the light of the case study performed. The information provided by R about the direction of propagation is clarified and it is found that coherency  matrices  with  rank 2,  does  not  always  represent  states  with  a  well-defined  R direction of propagation. Moreover, it is demonstrated the existence of 3D mixed states that cannot be decomposed into a superposition of a pure state, a 2D unpolarized state, and a 3D unpolarized state. Appropriate representation and interpretation for all the different types of 3D coherency matrices is provided through physical consistent criteria. Under the approach proposed, the conventional two-dimensional model arises naturally.

OCIS . 260.0260 Physical optics, 260.2130 Ellipsometry and polarimetry, 260.5430 Polarization, 290.5855 Scattering, polarization

PACS. 42.25.Ja Polarization - 42.68.Mj Scattering, polarization

## 1. Introduction

A proper description of the polarization properties of electromagnetic waves relies on the concept  of  the  coherency  matrix,  which  is  applicable  regardless  the  particular  band  of  the electromagnetic spectrum considered.

The study and characterization of three-dimensional (3D) states of polarization is a subject of  high  interest  from  both  theoretical  and  experimental  points  of  view.  Several  relevant contributions have been published in the recent years concerning aspects as the interpretation of  physical  quantities  derived  from  the  eigenvalues  of  the  coherency  matrix R [1-12]; geometric  interpretation  of  3D  states  [13-19];  coherent  composition  of  pure  (or  totally polarized)  states  [20];  incoherent  composition  and  decomposition  of  pure  and  mixed  states [4,7,9,17,21]; 3D polarimetry [22,23]; statistical and coherence properties of 3D states [2428], generalized Stokes parameters [16,1,9,13,29], etc.

However, additional effort is needed in order to get answers to questions such as: how to represent  3D  states  of  polarization  as  combinations  of  states  with  a  simple  physical interpretation? Generally, unitary transformations of the coherency matrix do not correspond to rotations of the 3D laboratory reference frame, therefore, which unitary transformations are physically  realizable?  What  kind  of  information  about  the  propagation  direction  can  be obtained  from  the  coherency  matrix?  How  to  interpret  3D  polarization  states  in  terms  of

meaningful physical quantities? How many different physical situations can be distinguished and how to classify them?

The aim of this work is to provide appropriate and consistent responses to the previous questions by means of 1) an adequate parameterization of the 3D coherency matrix R ,  as is the one proposed by Dennis [13] in terms of nine physical parameters; 2) the case study of the different physical situations, identified through specific descriptors and analyzed by means of the arbitrary and characteristic decompositions of R , and 3) the identification, definition and interpretation of parameters that provide complete and meaningful physical information.

## 2. 3D states of polarization

In  the  most  general  case,  the  three  components  of  the  electric  field  vector E of  the electromagnetic  wave  should  be  considered  in  order  to  describe  the  evolution  of E ,  which determines the polarization state. Let us consider a quasi-monochromatic wave of arbitrary form,  propagating  in  an  isotropic  medium,  and  let   1 2 3 , e ,e e be  a  reference  basis  of orthonormal vectors along the respective axes XYZ .  Given  a  point r in  space,  the  analytic signals of the three components of E can be arranged as the 3D instantaneous Jones vector [9]

$$\tau \, \stackrel { \dots } { s } ( t ) & = \begin{pmatrix} \varepsilon _ { 1 } ( t ) \\ \varepsilon _ { 2 } ( t ) \\ \varepsilon _ { 3 } ( t ) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} A _ { x } ( t ) \\ A _ { y } ( t ) e ^ { i \delta _ { y } ( t ) } \\ A _ { z } ( t ) e ^ { i \delta _ { z } ( t ) } \end{pmatrix} & & ( 1 ) \\. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

In  general, ( )   has  slow  time  dependence  with  respect  to  the  coherence  time,  so  that,  for t ε time  intervals  shorter  than  the  coherence  time,  the  polarization  ellipse  can  be  considered constant. For time intervals higher than the coherence time, the instantaneous Jones vector can vary, resulting in partially polarized states.

Note that totally-polarized (or pure ) states are characterized by the fact that the quantities ( ) ( ), ( ) ( ), ( )   and y x z x y A t A t A t A t t  ( )   are  constant,  and  the  3D Jones vector (applicable z t  only for pure states) is expressed without time dependence. It is well known that, in the case of  pure  states,  the  electric  field  describes  an  ellipse  perpendicular  to  the  direction  of propagation (at point r ).  The 2D model is then easily reproduced by taking the direction of propagation as the transformed Z O reference axis, so that the third component of the 3D Jones vector vanishes.

The coherency matrix or polarization matrix , which contains all measurable second-order information about the state of polarization (including intensity) of an electromagnetic wave, is defined as the  3 3 Hermitian matrix  ( ) ( ) t t      R ε ε whose elements ij r are the secondorder  moments * ( ) ( ) ij i j r t t        , 1,2,3 i j  of  the  zero-mean  analytic  signals ( ) ,  ( i t  * i  represents  the  complex  conjugate  of i  and  the  brackets  indicate  time  averaging  over  the measurement  time).  Thus, R is  a  covariance  matrix  and,  therefore,  its  three  eigenvalues   1, 2, 3    are non-negative. Moreover, R can be expressed as

$$\begin{pmatrix} \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \\ & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \\ & \mathbf R = \begin{pmatrix} \langle A _ { x } ^ { 2 } ( t ) \rangle & \langle A _ { x } ( t ) A _ { y } ( t ) e ^ { - i \delta _ { y } ( t ) } \rangle & \langle A _ { x } ( t ) A _ { z } ( t ) e ^ { - i \delta _ { z } ( t ) } \rangle \\ \langle A _ { x } ( t ) A _ { y } ( t ) e ^ { i \delta _ { y } ( t ) } \rangle & \langle A _ { y } ^ { 2 } ( t ) \rangle & \langle A _ { y } ( t ) A _ { z } ( t ) e ^ { i ( \delta _ { y } ( t ) - \delta _ { z } ( t ) ) } \rangle \\ \langle A _ { x } ( t ) A _ { z } ( t ) e ^ { i \delta _ { z } ( t ) } \rangle & \langle A _ { y } ( t ) A _ { z } ( t ) e ^ { - i ( \delta _ { y } ( t ) - \delta _ { z } ( t ) ) } \rangle & \langle A _ { z } ^ { 2 } ( t ) \rangle \end{pmatrix}$$

where  the  diagonal  elements  can  be  interpreted  as  the  intensities  associated  with  the respective XYZ components of the electric field and the total intensity (irradiance or power flux density of the wave, averaged over the measurement time) is given by

$$I = \text{tr} \, \mathbf R = \langle A _ { x } ^ { 2 } ( t ) \rangle + \langle A _ { y } ^ { 2 } ( t ) \rangle + \langle A _ { z } ^ { 2 } ( t ) \rangle \,.$$

As  Fano  pointed  out  [30],  an  appropriate  basis  for x n n coherency  matrices  is  a  set  of Hermitian  trace-orthogonal  operators,  that  in  the  case  of R is  that  constituted  by  the  3 3  identity matrix together with the eight Gell-Mann matrices (generators of the SU(3) group)

$$\text{3.3.3.3} \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \, \dashrightarrow \colon \\ \omega _ { 1 1 } \equiv \left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right ), \omega _ { 1 2 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ), \omega _ { 1 3 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ), \\ \omega _ { 2 1 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & - i & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ), \omega _ { 2 2 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & - 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ), \\ \omega _ { 3 1 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & - i \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ i & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ), \omega _ { 3 2 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & - i \\ 0 & i & 0 \end{matrix} \right ), \omega _ { 3 3 } \equiv \sqrt { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & - i \\ 0 & i & 0 \end{matrix} \right ). \\ \text{e Gell-Mann matrices have been normalized in order to ensure that their Euclidean norms} \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \end{matrix}$$

The Gell-Mann matrices have been normalized in order to ensure that their Euclidean norms coincide with that of the  3 3 identity matrix (in analogy to the 2D case, where the Euclidean  norms of the Pauli matrices coincides with that of the  2 2 identity matrix). The notation used  for these matrices is justified for the sake of simplicity as well as to emphasize the symmetry in some mathematical expressions [9]. Note that, leaving aside the normalization factor, the Pauli matrices are nested in the upper  2 2 submatrices of  12 21 22 , , ω ω ω .

Thus, the coherency matrix R can be expanded as [3]

$$R = \frac { 1 } { 3 } \sum _ { i, j = 1 } ^ { 3 } q _ { i j } \omega _ { i j } \,, \, q _ { i j } = \text{tr} \left ( R \omega _ { i j } \right ),$$

where the nine real coefficients ij q are the so-called the generalized Stokes parameters [16].

A study of the 3D spectral density tensor devoted to plane waves was presented in Ref. [16],  where  it  is  shown  that  the  real  vector   32 23 31 , , q q q   v determines  the  plane  of  the polarization ellipse. Note that 00 tr q I   R , so that some expressions are simplified by using the normalized form ˆ tr  R R R of the coherency matrix.

Let us now consider the Euclidean norm and the trace norm of R , defined respectively as [9]

$$\left \| R \right \| _ { 2 } \equiv \sqrt { \text{tr} \left ( R ^ { 2 } \right ) } ; \ \left \| R \right \| _ { \text{tr} } \equiv \text{tr} R = 1$$

The 3D degree of polarimetric purity (3) P [9] can be defined as [31,32,1]

$$P _ { ( 3 ) } = \sqrt { \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \frac { 3 \left \| { \mathbf R } \right \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { \left \| { \mathbf R } \right \| _ { t r } ^ { 2 } } - 1 \right ) } \,. \quad \quad \quad$$

This invariant non-dimensional quantity is limited to the interval 0  P (3)  1.  The upper limit corresponds  to  the  case  that R has  only  one  nonzero  eigenvalue  (pure  state). Conversely, P (3) =  0  is  reached  when  the  three  eigenvalues  of R are  equal  (equiprobable mixture  of  states  and  zero  correlation  between  the  electric  field  components).  For  reasons

explained  in  Ref.  [9],  we  consider  preferable  to  refer (3) P to  as  the  degree  of  polarimetric purity rather than the degree of polarization.

Setälä et al. pointed out [1,2] that (3) P takes into account not only the purity of the mean polarization  ellipse,  but  also  the  stability  of  the  plane  that  contains  the  instantaneous components of the electric field  of  the  wave.  Nevertheless, (3) P does  not  provide  complete information about the polarimetric purity of a 3D state of polarization R , and two quantities like the two indices of polarimetric purity [3,9,10,17] are required

$$P _ { 1 } = \frac { \lambda _ { 1 } - \lambda _ { 2 } } { \text{tr} R } \,, \ P _ { 2 } = \frac { \lambda _ { 1 } + \lambda _ { 2 } - 2 \lambda _ { 3 } } { \text{tr} R } \,,$$

where 1 2 3 1 2 3 , , ( )         are  the  eigenvalues  of R . These  invariant  non-dimensional parameters are restricted by the nested inequalities  0 1 2 1. P P   

Thus,  while  the  pair   1 2 , P P provides  detailed  information  of  the  structure  of  the polarimetric purity of R , P (3) represents an overall measure of polarimetric purity of R , which can be calculated from 1 P and 2 P by the weighted quadratic average [3,17]

$$P _ { ( 3 ) } = \sqrt { 3 P _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + P _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } \, / 2 \,.$$

By  taking  advantage  of  the  analytic  expressions  for   1, 2, 3    obtained  by  Sheppard [18,19] from the del Ferro-Cardano-Tartaglia-Vieta solution for the cubic equation with real roots, the indices of polarimetric purity can be written as

$$\text{or poaimeq} \, & \text{many can use when as} \\ & P _ { 1 } = \frac { 2 } { \sqrt { 3 } } P _ { ( 3 ) } \sin \psi, \ P _ { 2 } = 2 P _ { ( 3 ) } \cos \psi ; \\ & \psi \equiv \frac { 1 } { 3 }$$

excluded  the  case (3) 0,  where P  1 1 0.  Note  that  the  value  of P P    is  limited  by 0 3. The physically feasible region in the purity space      1 2 , P P has been studied and interpreted  by  us  in  previous  papers  [9,17],  while  interesting  geometric  representations  for   1, 2, 3    and  other  derived  quantities  (including 1 P and 2 P ) have  been  presented  by Sheppard [18,19].

The physical interpretation of 1 P , 2 P and other parameters is considered in later sections on the light of the case study preformed.

## 3. Composition and decomposition of 3D states of polarization

## 3.1.  Coherent composition

As a previous step to the study of the incoherent superposition of states of polarization, which  must  be  performed  through  the  additive  composition  of  the  respective  coherency matrices,  it  is  worth  to  consider  the  coherent  composition  of  pure  states,  which  must  be realized through the additive composition of the respective Jones vectors.

Let  us  consider  a  point r in  a  linear,  homogeneous  and  isotropic  medium  where  two mutually  coherent  states,  characterized  by  respective  3D  Jones  vectors 1 ε and 2 ε are superposed. The resultant state of polarization (at point r ) is a pure state given by the Jones

vector 1 2   ε ε ε .  The  electric  field  of  the  combined  state  describes  a  well-defined  ellipse, which, at point r , lies in the plane tangent to the wavefront [20].

The  polarization  ellipse  of  a  pure  state  with  nonzero  ellipticity  lies  in  a  well-defined plane  , and thus, the direction of propagation of the state (at point r ) is well defined because it is necessarily perpendicular to  . On the contrary, a 3D Jones vector representing a linearly polarized  state  is  compatible  with  any  direction  of  propagation  perpendicular  to  the  axis where the electric field of the electromagnetic wave lies. Consequently, a 3D Jones vector  (and hence the corresponding coherency matrix) does not contain intrinsic information about the  direction  of  propagation,  but  that  information  can  be  deduced  from  ,  either  as  a  fixed direction, for states with nonzero ellipticity, or as an arbitrary direction perpendicular to the polarization  axis,  for  linearly  polarized  states  (zero  ellipticity).  It  will  be  worth  keeping  in mind  this obvious result when  we  deal later with the incoherent composition and decomposition of linearly polarized states with coincident polarization axes.

Moreover, since the sum of Jones vectors is a Jones vector, given a 3D Jones vector  , it can always be expressed, in an infinite number of ways, as the sum of a number of 3D Jones vectors.

## 3.2 Arbitrary decomposition of the coherency matrix

Iterative  [9]  and  constructive  [21,32,34]  general  procedures  for  the  decomposition  of  a coherency  matrix  into  a  convex  sum  of  coherency  matrices  have  been  presented  by  us  in previous works and are summarized below for the case of 3D polarization matrices.

Let us now consider the diagonalization   † 1 2 3 diag , ,     R U U ,  where U is  the unitary matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors of R , and  diag   1 2 3 , ,    represents the diagonal matrix composed of the ordered  non-negative eigenvalues   3 2 1 0       .

As  follows  from  Ref.  [21]  (where  the  case  of  four-dimensional  covariance  matrices representing material media is considered), R can be expressed as the following convex sum in  terms  of  a  set  of r (with rank r  R )  arbitrary  independent 3D complex unit vectors i w belonging to  Range   R (i.e.,  belonging to the subspace generated by the eigenvectors of R with nonzero eigenvalues)

$$R = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { r } p _ { i } R _ { i } ; \ R _ { i } \equiv \text{tr} R \left ( w _ { i } \otimes w _ { i } ^ { \dagger } \right ) ; \ \ p _ { i } = \frac { 1 } { \text{tr} H \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { r } \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { j } } \left | \left ( U ^ { \dagger } w _ { i } \right ) _ { j } \right | ^ { 2 } } ; \ \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { r } p _ { i } = 1, \quad ( 1 1 ) \\. \quad + +. \ d \. \ d \. \ d \. \ d \ - \ d \. \ d \ - \ d \. \ d \ - \ d \$$

where indicates the modulus (or Euclidean norm).

Expansion (11)) provides the way for generating arbitrary complete sets of the coherency matrices  tr   † i i  R w w of  the  pure  components  as  well  as  their  corresponding  coefficients i p .  Note  that  the  minimum  number  of  pure  components  of  the  arbitrary  decomposition  is equal to r . When 3, r  any arbitrary three-dimensional generalized complex basis   1,2,3 i i  w can  be  chosen.  When 2 , r  any  arbitrary two-dimensional  generalized complex basis   1 2 , w w belonging to  Range   R can be chosen. When 1, r  R represents a pure  state  (fixed  polarization  ellipse)  and  consequently  the  arbitrary  decomposition  has  no physical interest, because it becomes a tautology. Hereafter, when appropriate to note that a state R is pure, we will denote its coherence matrix as p R .

By  taking  as i w the  eigenvectors   1,2,3 i i  u of R , we  get  the  following spectral decomposition of R as a particular case of the arbitrary decomposition

$$R = \frac { \lambda _ { + } } { \ t r R } U \text{diag} ( \text{tr}, 0, 0 ) U ^ { + } + \frac { \lambda _ { 2 } } { \ t r R } U \text{diag} ( 0, \text{tr}, 0 ) U ^ { + } + \frac { \lambda _ { 3 } } { \ t r R } U \text{diag} ( 0, 0, \text{tr} ) U ^ { + }$$

where each term in the sum is synthesized from the corresponding eigenvector i u of R and its weight in the convex sum is proportional to the corresponding eigenvalue i 

$$R = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 3 } \frac { \lambda _ { i } } { \text{tr} R } \left [ ( \text{tr} R ) \left ( \text{u} _ { i } \otimes \text{u} _ { i } ^ { + } \right ) \right ].$$

It  should  be  noted  that,  when  one  of  the  eigenvalues  has  a  multiplicity  higher  than  one, then the eigenvectors of the corresponding invariant subspace are not unique, and consequently the spectral decomposition is not unique.

By considering the possible values of the indices of purity, we observe that they have a direct link with the purity structure of R and provide more detailed information than the very value of rank r  R . As a general overview, the following cases can be distinguished [17]: 1) when 1 2 0 1 P P      3 , r  R can be considered as composed  of  three pure states 1 1 2 2 3 3 p p p p p p    R R R R ;  if,  in  particular, 2 0   (and  hence, P  1 0 ), P  R is  proportional  to the  identity  matrix,    3 diag 1,1,1 u D I   R R ,  so  that  it  represents  a  3D  unpolarized  state (completely random polarization ellipse and completely random direction of propagation); 2) when 1 2 0 1 P P      2 r  , R can be considered as composed  of  two  pure  states 1 1 2 2 p p p p   R R R ; if, in particular 1 0 , P  R corresponds  to a 2D  unpolarized  state propagating along a well-defined direction of propagation. Finally, when 1 1 (and hence, P  2 1 and P  1), r  R corresponds to a pure state.

## 3.3. Characteristic decomposition of the coherency matrix

While all  the  components  of  the  arbitrary  decomposition  of R are  pure  states,  it  is  also possible to decompose R by means of the following characteristic (or trivial ) decomposition [9]

$$\mathbf R = \text{Udiag} ( \lambda _ { 1 }, \lambda _ { 2 }, \lambda _ { 3 } ) \, \mathbf U ^ { + } = P _ { 1 } / \hat { \mathbf R } _ { 1 } + ( P _ { 2 } - P _ { 1 } ) \, \hat { \mathbf R } _ { 2 } + ( 1 - P _ { 2 } ) \, \hat { \mathbf I } _ { 3 } \\ \hat { \mathbf R } _ { 1 } \equiv \text{Udiag} ( 1, 0, 0 ) \, \mathbf U ^ { + }, \, \hat { \mathbf R } _ { 2 } \equiv \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \mathbf U \text{diag} ( 1, 1, 0 ) \, \mathbf U ^ { + }, \, \hat { \mathbf R } _ { 3 } \equiv \frac { 1 } { 3 } \, \mathbf U \text{diag} ( 1, 1, 1 ) \, \mathbf U ^ { + } \\ \cdot \quad \dots \, \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \end{quad \quad ( 1 4 )$$

where  all  the  components  have  been  chosen  to  have  the  same  intensity tr I  R and  the respective coefficients of the components are expressed in terms of the indices of polarimetric purity   1 2 , P P . Note that  rank 1 ˆ 1,  rank  R 2 ˆ 2 and  rank  R 3 ˆ 3.  R

Recall that the trivial decomposition of R cannot be always performed in the form of a sum  of  a  pure  state  and  a  3D  unpolarized  state.  This  is  because,  in  general,  pure n n  coherency  matrices  contain  2 1  independent  parameters  whereas n  m D-unpolarized n n  coherency  matrices  contain    2 1  independent  parameters.  In  the  case  of  a n m  2 2  coherency matrix, the well-known decomposition of a mixed state into a pure state and a 2D unpolarized state is retrieved.

The  characteristic  decomposition  leads  to  a  physical  interpretation  of 1 P as  the  ratio  of power  of  the  completely  polarized  part  (or  pure  component)  to  the  total  power  of  the electromagnetic wave. Furthermore, 2 P is  the relative portion of power once the completely random component has been subtracted.

## 4. The intrinsic coherency matrix

The physically realizable rotations of the laboratory reference frame XYZ are represented by  3 3 orthogonal matrices  Q (with  det 1), so that the transformed coherency matrix  Q  R representing  the  same  state  as R but  referred  to  the  new  reference  frame,  is  given  by T   R Q RQ .  Moreover, let us consider the decomposition of R into  its  real  and  imaginary parts R I i   R R R , where  the real matrix   Re R  R R is symmetric  and  positivesemidefinite, whereas the imaginary matrix   Im I  R R is skew-symmetric   T I I   R R . As Dennis pointed out [13], R R can always be diagonalized through a particular rotation Q of the reference frame:

$$Q ^ { T } \mathbf R _ { R } \mathbf Q = \text{diag} \left ( a _ { 1 }, a _ { 2 }, a _ { 3 } \right ) ; \, \left ( 0 \leq a _ { 3 } \leq a _ { 2 } \leq a _ { 1 } \right ).$$

Thus, R R defines  an  ellipsoid  (called  by  Dennis  the  inertia  ellipsoid),  whose  semiaxes   1 2 3 , , a a a are aligned  along  the  respective  transformed  axes O O O X Y Z (Fig.1). Thus,   1 2 3 diag , , a a a can  be  interpreted  as  the  coherency  matrix  of  a  state  composed  of  the incoherent superposition of three linearly polarized pure states

$$\text{p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.} \\ \text{diag} \left ( a _ { 1 }, a _ { 2 }, a _ { 3 } \right ) = \text{R} _ { p _ { 1 } } + \text{R} _ { p _ { 2 } } + \text{R} _ { p _ { 3 } } ; \\ \text{R} _ { p _ { 1 } } \equiv a _ { 1 } \text{diag} \left ( 1, 0, 0 \right ), \text{ R} _ { p _ { 2 } } \equiv a _ { 2 } \text{diag} \left ( 0, 1, 0 \right ), \text{ R} _ { p _ { 3 } } \equiv a _ { 3 } \text{diag} \left ( 0, 0, 1 \right ),$$

with respective intensities 1 a , 2 a and 3 a .  The previous decomposition is compatible with a variety  of  directions  of  propagation  for  each  component  (the  only  condition  is  that  the direction  of  propagation  is  orthogonal  to  the  respective  polarization  axis).  For  the  sake  of clarity in further physical interpretations, it results convenient the choice of the axis O Z as the common  direction  of  propagation k for  the  pure  states 1 p R and 2 p R , while  any  axis orthogonal to k can be considered as the direction of propagation of the third pure component 3 p R (Fig.1).

Fig. 1 (color online). Intensity ellipsoid, with semiaxes 1 2 3 a a a   , representing a mixed state constituted by the incoherent superposition of three pure linearly polarized states 1 p R , 2 p R and 3 p R . The direction k along the reference axis ZO can be chosen

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-cbbd5381-0a48-4ecf-aaa9-a2f7cb71ace7.jpg)

as the common direction of propagation of the pure components 1 p R and 2 p R (with respective intensities 1 2 , a a ), whereas the third pure component 3 p R (with intensity a ), propagates along any direction orthogonal to k .

3

By applying the rotation Q to the whole matrix R , we observe that the real and imaginary parts transform separately, so that we get the transformed coherency matrix [13]

$$\underset { \alpha } { m o i m } \sec p a a c e y, \, \text{so u a l w e g e u n e u a m i n e u c o n e r y m a u l a } \lfloor \, \mathcal { U } \rfloor \\ \mathbf R _ { o } \equiv Q ^ { T } \mathbf R Q = Q ^ { T } \mathbf R _ { R } Q + i Q ^ { T } \mathbf R _ { I } Q = \text{diag} ( a _ { 1 }, a _ { 2 }, a _ { 3 } ) + i \mathbf R _ { I } ^ { \prime }, \\ \mathbf R _ { o } \equiv \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} a _ { 1 } & - i n _ { 3 } & i n _ { 2 } \\ i n _ { 3 } & a _ { 2 } & - i n _ { 1 } \\ - i n _ { 2 } & i n _ { 1 } & a _ { 3 } \end{smallmatrix} \right ],$$

$$\Phi _ { 1 } \dots \Phi _ { 2 } \Phi _ { 3 } \Phi _ { 4 } \Phi _ { 5 } \Phi _ { 6 } \Phi _ { 7 } \Phi _ { 8 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phicon _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9} \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi_ _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9. } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi_ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi _ _ { 9 } \Phi }$$

where, as occurs for I R , I  R is  real  and  skew-symmetric. The orthogonal matrix Q can be expressed as a product of rotations around the respective axes ZXY

$$\mathbf Q = \mathbf Q _ { z } ( \varphi ) \mathbf Q _ { x } ( \alpha ) \mathbf Q _ { y } ( \beta ) = \begin{bmatrix} \cos \varphi & - \sin \varphi & 0 \\ \sin \varphi & \cos \varphi & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \cos \alpha & - \sin \alpha \\ 0 & \sin \alpha & \cos \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \cos \beta & 0 & - \sin \beta \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \sin \beta & 0 & \cos \beta \end{bmatrix}.$$

Thus, R can  be  expressed  as T O  R QR Q , and  it  can  be  parameterized  in  the  form proposed  by  Dennis  [13]  through  the  following  nine  independent  parameters:  the  three orientation angles   , ,    ; the semiaxes  of the intensity ellipsoid (or inertia ellipsoid [13]) given by the principal intensities   1 2 3 , , a a a , and the three components   1 2 3 , , n n n , along the respective axes O O O X Y Z , of the angular momentum n of the wave. In general, the orientation 2 2 2 1 2 3 ˆ n n n    n n of n differs from k [13]. The intensity   of the state I O R is given by

$$I = \text{tr} \, \text{R} = \lambda _ { 1 } + \lambda _ { 2 } + \lambda _ { 3 } = \text{tr} \, \text{R} _ { O } = \text{tr} \, \text{R} _ { p 1 } + \text{tr} \, \text{R} _ { p 2 } + \text{tr} \, \text{R} _ { p 3 } = a _ { 1 } + a _ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } \,.$$

Since  the  orthogonal  similarity  transformation  (17)  preserves  the  non-negativity  (or convexity),  the intrinsic coherency  matrix O R is positive  semidefinite  and,  thus,  the quantities   1 2 3 1 2 3 , , ; , , a a a n n n must satisfy the following set of constraining inequalities [13] derived from the non-negativity of the leading principal minors of O R

$$a _ { 1 } \geq a _ { 2 } \geq a _ { 3 } \geq 0 ; \ \ a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } \geq n _ { 3 } ^ { 2 }, a _ { 1 } a _ { 3 } \geq n _ { 2 } ^ { 2 }, a _ { 2 } a _ { 3 } \geq n _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ; \ \ a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } a _ { 3 } \geq a _ { 1 } n _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 2 } n _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } n _ { 3 } ^ { 2 }. \quad ( 2 0 )$$

The smaller is the third principal intensity 3 a , the smaller is the solid angle around the axis O Z that limits the range of compatible orientations of n . When 3 0 , a  n is forced to lie along the axis O Z , which, in turn, in this case is precisely the well-defined direction of propagation of the state O R .

Up to the limits set by the five restrictive inequalities (20), the quantities   1 2 3 1 2 3 , , ; , , a a a n n n are independent and are intrinsic of a given coherency matrix R . It should be stressed that the fact that the only physically realizable unitary transformations of R are those that are orthogonal, leads to the indicated set of six physical parameters instead of the only three physical invariants derivable from the eigenvalues of R . In other words, not all the unitary transformations of R are  physically realizable in the laboratory, and consequently a proper  interpretation  of  the  physical  quantities  involved  in R ,  as  well  as  an  appropriate

analysis of the arbitrary and characteristic decompositions of R must be performed through orthogonal  transformations  (and  hence  excluding  the  unitary  transformations  that  are  not orthogonal).

## 5. Case analysis

Once  the  arbitrary  and  characteristic  decompositions,  the  structure  of  purity  and  the orthogonal transformations of a generic  3 3 coherency matrix  R have been considered, we are ready to undertake the study of the possible decompositions of a three-dimensional state of polarization represented by a given coherency matrix R . To perform a proper case analysis, it  is  necessary  to  pay  attention  to  the  values  of  the  integer  parameters rank rank O r   R R

$$\text{and } t \equiv \text{rank} \left [ \tilde { \ } R e \left ( \tilde { \mathbf R } \right ) \right ] = \text{rank} \left [ \tilde { \ } R e \left ( \tilde { \mathbf R } _ { o } \right ) \right ].$$

## 5.1. rank 1  R .

In this case, the intrinsic coherency matrix O R takes the form

$$\text{mome conversion} & = \begin{bmatrix} a _ { 1 } & - i \sqrt { a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } } & 0 \\ i \sqrt { a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } } & a _ { 2 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix},$$

so  that,  the  electric  field  lies  in  the  transformed  plane O O X Y .  Now,  by  introducing  the parameters 0 1 2 s a a   and 3 1 2 2 s a a  , together with the pair of parameters   1 1 2 cos2 s a a    ,   2 1 2 sin 2 s a a    , determined by the arbitrary choice of  the angle  , we see that O R can be expressed as [13]

$$\Gamma \text{ can use a } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as } \Gamma \text{sessu as }$$

which  corresponds  to  a  2D  pure  state  propagating  along  the O Z axis.  Furthermore,  the polarization  ellipse  is  oriented  in  such  a  manner  that  the  major  and  minor  semiaxes  lie respectively in the new reference axes O X and O Y [note that this is a result of the effect of the matrix   Z  Q in the orthogonal transformation (17)].

Thus,  an  additional  rotation  of  an  arbitrary  angle  around  the  axis O Z provides  the general  expression  of  the  coherency  matrix O pZ R of  a  pure  state  propagating  along  the direction O Z in terms of the Stokes parameters   0 1 2 3 , , , s s s s (Fig.2)

$$\text{tion } Z _ { o } \text{ in terms of the Stokes parameters } \left ( s _ { 0 }, s _ { 1 }, s _ { 2 }, s _ { 3 } \right ) \text{(Fig.2)} \\ \mathbf R _ { \rho Z _ { o } } \equiv \mathbf Q _ { z } \left ( \theta \right ) \mathbf R _ { o } \mathbf Q _ { z } ^ { r } \left ( \theta \right ) \equiv \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{matrix} s _ { 0 } + s _ { 1 } & s _ { 2 } - i s _ { 3 } & 0 \\ s _ { 2 } + i s _ { 3 } & s _ { 0 } - s _ { 1 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ], \\ \left ( \cos 2 \theta \equiv \frac { s _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { s _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } }, s _ { 0 } = \sqrt { s _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } } \right ).$$

Fig. 2 (color online). Coherency matrix O pZ R of a generic pure state propagating along the axis ZO , obtained from its intrinsic coherency matrix O R through an arbitrary rotation  around ZO .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-e6e7a70a-3cd5-48d9-984e-6ab9bc2b0445.jpg)

By  considering  now  the  two  possible  values  of t that  are  compatible  with 1, r  the following two sub-cases can be distinguished.

$$5. 1. 1. \ r = 1, \ t = 1, \, \left ( a _ { _ { 1 } } > 0, \, a _ { _ { 2 } } = a _ { _ { 3 } } = 0, \, n _ { _ { 1 } } = n _ { _ { 2 } } = n _ { _ { 3 } } = 0 \right )$$

O R takes the simple form   1 diag ,0,0 O a  R ,  where 1 a can be interpreted as the Stokes parameter 1 s of  a  linearly  polarized  state  whose  polarization  ellipse  degenerates  into  a segment  along  the  axis O X .  It  should  be  noted  that,  in  this  case, O R (and  hence R )  is compatible with any direction of propagation perpendicular to the axis O X . Obviously, under experimental conditions, it is common to have specific complementary information about the direction of propagation, but we stress that, in the case of a pure linearly polarized state, the very knowledge of the coherency matrix R does not determine the direction of propagation of the  wave  (Fig.3).  Furthermore,  we  also  note  that,  at  the  point  in  the  space  where R (and hence O R )  is  being  considered, the incoherent superposition of a variety of pure states with linear polarizations along the O X axis, but with different directions of propagation, produces a pure state of linear polarization. Thus, without information additional to R , this last case is polarimetrically indistinguishable from a pure state of linear polarization and fixed direction of  propagation. The geometric nature of this peculiarity provides a method for superposing incoherently, at a fixed point in the space, a number of linearly polarized pure states whose arbitrary  directions  of  propagation  lie  in  a  plane  perpendicular  to  the  common  polarization axis O X and  produce  a  pure  state  whose  intensity  is  the  sum  of  the  intensities  of  the combined states.

Fig. 3 (color online). Representation of a linearly polarized pure state as the incoherent superposition of an arbitrary number of linearly polarized states with the same polarization axis along the axis XO , but with different directions of propagation

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-560fd097-7e13-4a8e-8f09-748080d31e2b.jpg)

$$5. 1. 2. \ r = 1 \,, \ t = 2 \,, \, \left ( a _ { 1 } \geq a _ { 2 } > 0 \,, \, a _ { 3 } = 0 \,, \, a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } = n _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } \,, \, n _ { 2 } = n _ { 3 } = 0 \right )$$

In  this  case,  the  polarization  ellipse  determines  a  plane O O X Y ,  so  that  the  propagation direction O Z is orthogonal to the said plane and therefore it is well defined. Once performed the  orthogonal  transformation  of  the  reference  axes,  the  case  is  reduced  to  a  2D  pure  state characterized by the coherency matrix

$$\text{terized by the coherency matrix} \\ \text{R} _ { p z _ { o } } = \mathbf Q _ { z } \left ( \theta \right ) \mathbf R _ { o } \mathbf Q _ { z } ^ { r } \left ( \theta \right ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{matrix} s _ { 0 } + s _ { 1 } & s _ { 2 } - i s _ { 3 } & 0 \\ s _ { 2 } + i s _ { 3 } & s _ { 0 } - s _ { 1 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ], \\ \left ( \cos 2 \theta \equiv \frac { s _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { s _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } }, s _ { 0 } = \sqrt { s _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } } \right ).$$

## 5.2. rank 2  R .

The interpretation of the coherency matrix R with  rank 2 depends substantially on the  R value of  . Since the value t 1 is not compatible with t  2 , we distinguish the two possible r  cases   2, 2 r t   and   2, 3 . r t  

$$5. 2. 1. \ r = 2, \, t = 2, \, \left ( a _ { 1 } \geq a _ { 2 } > 0, \, a _ { 3 } = 0, \, a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } > n _ { 3 } ^ { 2 }, \, n _ { 2 } = n _ { 3 } = 0 \right )$$

It is straightforward to show that, similarly as in the case   1, 2 r t   the reference axes can be chosen in such a manner that the elements of the third row and of the third column of the coherency  matrix  are  zero. The  orthogonally  transformed  coherency  matrix O Z R represents a partially polarized state with a well-defined direction of propagation O Z , that is to say, a 2D partially polarized (or mixed ) state

$$\text{a 2D partially polarized (or mixed)} state \\ \text{R} _ { z _ { o } } = \text{Q} _ { z } ( \theta ) \text{R} _ { o } \text{Q} _ { z } ^ { T } ( \theta ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{matrix} s _ { 0 } + s _ { 1 } & s _ { 2 } - i s _ { 3 } & 0 \\ s _ { 2 } + i s _ { 3 } & s _ { 0 } - s _ { 1 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ], \\ \left ( \cos 2 \theta \equiv \frac { s _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { s _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } }, \ \ s _ { 0 } > \sqrt { s _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + s _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } } \right ]. \\ \text{a the direction of non-organization } 7 \text{ has been determined the state of normalization can be}$$

Once the direction of propagation O Z has been determined, the state of polarization can be considered two-dimensional and  described by a generic  2 2  coherency matrix 

$$\Phi ( I, P _ { 1 }, \mathbf u ) = I \frac { 1 } { 2 } \begin{bmatrix} 1 + P _ { i } u _ { 1 } & P _ { 1 } ( u _ { 2 } - i u _ { 3 } ) \\ P _ { 1 } ( u _ { 2 } + i u _ { 3 } ) & 1 - P _ { 1 } u _ { 1 } \end{bmatrix},$$

where the intensity tr I  Φ is the time averaged power density flux of the wave; 1 P (the first index of polarimetric purity) is the degree of polarization , and i u are the components of the unit vector u (Pauli axis) that summarizes the information about the azimuth   0      and ellipticity  tan    4 4       of the average polarization ellipse

$$\mathbf u \equiv \left ( u _ { 1 }, u _ { 2 }, u _ { 3 } \right ) ^ { T } = \left ( \cos 2 \chi \cos 2 \varphi, \cos 2 \chi \sin 2 \varphi, \sin 2 \chi \right ) ^ { T }.$$

The state   1 , , I P Φ u , can also be represented through the corresponding Stokes vector

$$s \equiv \left ( s _ { 0 }, s _ { 1 }, s _ { 2 }, s _ { 3 } \right ) ^ { T } = I \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ P _ { 1 } \end{smallmatrix} \right ].$$

## 5.2.1.1.  Arbitrary decomposition.

As  it  has  been  pointed  out  in  previous  works  [7,9]  a  mixed  2D  state  can  always  be considered  as  an  incoherent  composition  of  two  totally  polarized  (or  pure)  states 1 p Φ and 2 p Φ . One of them can arbitrarily be chosen and then the second one is totally determined by that choice, so that there exist infinite possibilities for decomposing  as a combination of two (or more) pure states

$$\text{two (or more)} \,pure states & \\ \Phi ( I, P _ { 1 }, \mathfrak { u } ) = p \, \Phi _ { p _ { 1 } } ( I, \mathfrak { v } ) + ( 1 - p ) \Phi _ { p _ { 2 } } ( I, \mathfrak { w } ) ; & \\ \Phi _ { p _ { 1 } } ( I, \mathfrak { v } ) \equiv I \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 + v _ { 1 } & v _ { 2 } - i v _ { 3 } \\ v _ { 2 } + i v _ { 3 } & 1 - v _ { 1 } \end{smallmatrix} \right ], & \Phi _ { p _ { 2 } } ( I, \mathfrak { w } ) \equiv I \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 + w _ { 1 } & w _ { 2 } - i w _ { 3 } \\ w _ { 2 } + i w _ { 3 } & 1 - w _ { 1 } \end{smallmatrix} \right ], & \\ p = \frac { 1 - P _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - P _ { 1 } \mathfrak { u } ^ { \tau } \mathfrak { v } \right ) }, & \mathfrak { w } = \frac { P _ { 1 } \mathfrak { u } - p \mathfrak { v } } { 1 - p }. & &$$

A geometric view for the arbitrary decomposition of 3D states can be found in Ref. [7, p. 341]

Obviously,  this  arbitrary  decomposition  of  can  be  considered  either: a) a  convex combination of two pure states with equal intensities  , or I b) an additive combination of two pure states   1 p p Φ and   2 1 p p      Φ with respective intensities   pI and   I pI  . Despite of  the  fact  that  both  the  said  interpretations  are  equivalent  and  respectively  physically realizable, it is particularly convenient to use the interpretation (a) because it is formulated in terms of representative states taken with the same trace norm tr I  Φ [21].

As a particular case of the above arbitrary decomposition, the choice  v u leads  to  the well-known spectral decomposition of  into two pure states represented by antipodal points on the Poincaré sphere

$$\Phi ( I, P _ { _ { 1 } }, \mathbf u ) = \frac { 1 + P _ { _ { 1 } } } { 2 } \Phi _ { _ { p } } ( I, \mathbf u ) + \frac { 1 - P _ { _ { 1 } } } { 2 } \Phi _ { _ { p ^ { 2 } } } ( I, - \mathbf u ) \,,$$

Since the 2D states of polarization are usually represented by means of Stokes vectors, it is worth to bring up the corresponding expressions for the arbitrary and spectral decompositions

$$\ s = \stackrel { \mu } { I } \stackrel { \mu } { \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ P _ { 1 } \mathfrak { u } \end{smallmatrix} \right ] } = p I \stackrel { \mu } { I } \stackrel { \mu } { \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ \mathfrak { v } \end{smallmatrix} \right ] }, + ( 1 - p ) I \stackrel { \mu } { \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ \mathfrak { w } \end{smallmatrix} \right ] }, \ s = I \stackrel { 1 } { \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ P _ { 1 } \mathfrak { u } \end{smallmatrix} \right ] } = \frac { 1 + \stackrel { \mu } { P _ { 1 } } } { 2 } I \stackrel { 1 } { \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ \mathfrak { u } \end{smallmatrix} \right ] } + \frac { 1 - P _ { 1 } } { 2 } I \stackrel { \mu } { \left [ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ \mathfrak { u } \end{smallmatrix} \right ] }.$$

We  emphasize  the  potential  applications  of  Eq.  (29)  in  Stokes  polarimetry  (which  has particular importance in several fields as, for instance, astronomic and atmospheric measurements [35]) because it provides a simple procedure for the polarimetric subtraction of a reference Stokes vector from that obtained by experimental measurements [21].

In summary, the state O Z R is expressed as an incoherent superposition of two pure states with the same direction of propagation O Z (Fig. 4)

$$\mathbf R _ { z _ { o } } = p I \hat { \mathbf R } _ { p \mathbf 1 Z _ { o } } + ( 1 - p ) I \hat { \mathbf R } _ { p \mathbf 2 Z _ { o } } \,,$$

and can be interpreted in terms of the following six independent parameters:

-  two orientation angles that determine the common direction of propagation of the two components;
-  three stokes parameters of the pure state   ˆ O pZ I R v ,
-  and the coefficient p of   ˆ O pZ I R v in the convex sum.

Fig. 4 (color online).  Arbitrary representation of a 2D mixed state (i.e., 2, 2 ) as r t   the incoherent superposition of two pure states with the same propagation direction ZO .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-1fec7638-12db-462c-9846-fec0364ef746.jpg)

## 5.2.1.2.  Characteristic decomposition .

An alternative  interpretation  of  a  2D  mixed  state  is  achieved  through  the  corresponding characteristic decomposition

$$\text{succompositor} \Phi ( I, P _ { 1 }, \mathbf u ) & = P _ { 1 } \Phi _ { p } ( I, \mathbf u ) + ( 1 - P _ { 1 } ) \Phi _ { u }, \ \Phi _ { u } \equiv \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} ; \\ s & = I \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ P _ { 1 } \mathbf u \end{bmatrix} = P _ { 1 } I \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \mathbf u \end{bmatrix} + ( 1 - P _ { 1 } ) I \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \mathbf 0 \end{bmatrix},$$

where p Φ represents  a  2D  pure  state  and u Φ represents  a  2D  unpolarized  state,  both propagating along the same direction O Z .  This  is  the  well-known  two-dimensional form of the characteristic decomposition.

Returning to the 3D representation, the characteristic decomposition is expressed as

$$\text{eturning to the 3D representation, the characteristic decomposition is expressed as} \\ \mathbf R _ { z _ { o } } = P _ { 1 } \mathbf R _ { p \mathcal { Z } _ { o } } + \left ( 1 - P _ { 1 } \right ) \mathbf R _ { u - 2 D } ; \\ \mathbf R _ { p \mathcal { Z } _ { o } } = I \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{matrix} 1 + u _ { 1 } & u _ { 2 } - i u _ { 3 } & 0 \\ u _ { 2 } + i u _ { 3 } & 1 - u _ { 1 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ], \, \mathbf R _ { u - 2 D } \equiv I \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ]. \\ \mathbb { m } \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \ \mathbb { m } \quad \mathbb { m } \quad \mathbb { m } \quad \mathbb { m } \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot.$$

where O pZ R represents  a  pure  state  and 2 u D  R represents  a  2D  unpolarized  state,  both propagating along the same direction O Z ;  that  is  to  say,  once  the  laboratory  reference  axes have been appropriately rotated, the characteristic decomposition of a state R with 2, 2 r t   is expressed as that of a generic 2D state [Eq. (33)].

Thus,  in  the  case  of 2, 2 ,  the  characteristic  decomposition  leads  to  the  following r t   interpretation of the coherency matrix in terms of six independent parameters (Fig.5):

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  pure component O pZ R ;

-  three stokes parameters of the pure component O pZ R ,
-  and  the  degree  of  polarization 1 P of O Z R ,  which  is  the  coefficient  of O pZ R in  the convex sum.

Fig. 5  (color online). Characteristic representation of a 2D mixed state (i.e., 2, 2 ) as the incoherent superposition of a pure state and a 2D unpolarized state r t   with the same propagation direction ZO .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-092e02d1-4870-496c-9648-0dc34457ab6c.jpg)

$$5. 2. 2. \ r = 2 \,, \ t = 3 \,, \, \left ( a _ { 1 } \geq a _ { 2 } \geq a _ { 3 } > 0 ; \ a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } a _ { 3 } = a _ { 1 } n _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 2 } n _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } n _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } \right )$$

When 3, the electric field t  E of the electromagnetic wave has necessarily three nonzero orthogonal components, so that E does not evolve inside a fixed plane, and thus the direction of  propagation  is  not  well  defined.  The  analogy  with  the  2D  representation  is  no  longer applicable for the state represented by R .

## 5.2.2.1.  Arbitrary decomposition .

Any pure state belonging to  Range R (note that  Range Range O  R R ) can be considered as  a  component,  and  the  second  pure  component  as  well  as  the  respective  coefficients,  are easily determined. Thus, the arbitrary decomposition   1 2 ˆ ˆ 1 p p pI p I    R R R (Fig. 6) can be  performed  either  as  indicated  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  section,  or  through  the following procedure [9]:

- 1. take an arbitrary 3D complex unit vector 1 w belonging to  Range R ,  and  synthesize the normalized coherency matrix † 1 1 1 ˆ p   R w w of the first component;
- 2. calculate the coefficient 1 p of 1 ˆ p R :       1 1 2 1 1 2 ˆ tr diag , ,0 ; p p I I           R ,
- 3. and calculate the second pure component:     2 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 p p p p    R R R .

Obviously, the previous procedure can be applied either to R or to O R depending on the reference frame considered.

Fig. 6  (color online). Arbitrary representation of a mixed state R with  rank 2 and  R     rank Re 3, as the incoherent superposition of two pure states with different    R directions of propagation. In spite of  rank 2,  R R corresponds to a 3D mixed state.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-16d61b46-b16e-4ca2-81a3-8239514e3d79.jpg)

Since  any  superposition  of  pure  states  with  the  same  directions  of  propagation  is represented by a coherency matrix O R with 3 0 , we conclude that, when a  2, 3, the r t   state R can be considered as the superposition of two pure states whose propagation directions are different. In other words, the previous analysis demonstrates the surprising result that a coherency  matrix R with  rank 2  can  be  synthesized  through  the  superposition  of  two  R pure states propagating along different directions (provided  rank 3). O  R

Consequently, in the case of 2, 3, the coherency matrix can be interpreted in terms r t   of the following set of eight independent parameters:

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  first component  ˆ 1 p R of the arbitrary decomposition;
-  three stokes parameters of the pure state 1 ˆ p R ;
-  two orientation angles that determine the direction of propagation of the second pure component  ˆ 2 p R of the arbitrary decomposition,
-  and the coefficient 1 p of the convex sum in the arbitrary decomposition of R .

## 5.2.2.2.  Characteristic decomposition .

In this case, the characteristic decomposition of R is formulated as follows

$$\text{ase, the characteristic decomposition of $R$ is formulated as follows} \\ \text{R} & = U \begin{bmatrix} \lambda _ { 1 } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda _ { 2 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \text{U} ^ { \dagger } = P _ { 1 } \text{R} _ { p } + ( 1 - P _ { 1 } ) \text{R} _ { m } ; \\ \text{R} _ { p } & \equiv I \text{U} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \text{U} ^ { \dagger }, \text{ R} _ { m } = \frac { I } { 2 } \text{U} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \text{U} ^ { \dagger }, \\ \text{f the                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                        } \text{$R$                                                                                                                                                                                                        \text{$R$                                                                                                                                                                                                 
      the                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 \text{$\text{$the                                                                                                                                                                                                        $\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{	$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text	$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\test{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\test$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text
$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text<$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text`$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text#$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text'$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\$$$

in  terms  of  the  pure  component p R and  the  non-pure  component m R .  While p R has  an immediate physical interpretation as a completely polarized state, the physical interpretation of m R requires the consideration of the value of the integer parameter    rank Re m m r     R :

a) when 2, m r  m R represents a 2D unpolarized state 2 u D  R propagating along a direction different from that of p R , and therefore R can be interpreted by means of the following eight parameters provided by the characteristic decomposition of R (Fig. 7):

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  pure component p R ;
-  three stokes parameters of the pure component p R ;
-  two  orientation angles that determine  the direction of propagation  of the 2D unpolarized component 2 m u D   R R ,
-  and the first index of polarimetric purity (or degree of polarization) 1 P of R , which is the coefficient of p R in the convex sum (we recall that, when 3, the second index r  of  polarimetric  purity 2 P is  equal  to  one,  and  thus  the  coefficient 2 1 P P  of m R becomes 1 1 P  ).

b) when 3, m r  m R represents a 3D partially polarized (but not totally random) state without a  well-defined direction of propagation. The state m R corresponds to the case (2b) studied previously. From the characteristic decomposition of R , it can be interpreted by means of the following eight parameters (Fig. 8):

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  pure component p R ;
-  three stokes parameters of the pure component p R ,
-  and the three principal intensities of the electric field of m R ,  i.e.,  the  eigenvalues of   Re m R . Note that, with this choice, the value of 1 P is obtainable from the indicated set of parameters.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-b89f2c46-a16b-4029-b4be-7ed73fbd5821.jpg)

Fig. 7 (color online). Characteristic representation of a mixed state R with  rank 2,  R     rank Re 3 and   rank    R     Re 2, as the incoherent superposition of a m    R pure state and a 2D unpolarized state, with different directions of propagation. In spite of rank 2,  R R corresponds to a 3D mixed state.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-d605f9b6-f946-4d85-a43b-b9a9621a2163.jpg)

Fig. 8 (color online). Characteristic representation of a mixed state R with  rank 2,  R     rank Re 3 and   rank    R     Re 3, as the incoherent superposition of a m    R pure state and a 3D mixed state. In spite of  rank 2,  R R corresponds to a 3D mixed state.

$$5. 3. \ \text{rank} \, \mathbf R = 3 \,, \ \left ( a _ { 1 } \geq a _ { 2 } \geq a _ { 3 } > 0, \ \ a _ { 1 } a _ { 2 } a _ { 3 } > a _ { 1 } n _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 2 } n _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } n _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } \right ).$$

In this case, the only achievable value of    rank Re O t     R is 3, so that the electric field t  E of the electromagnetic wave has necessarily three nonzero orthogonal components, and thus the  direction  of  propagation  is  not  well  defined.  As  in  the  previous  case,  in  order  to  get appropriate physical interpretation, let us consider separately the arbitrary and characteristic decompositions.

## 5.3.1. Arbitrary decomposition

When  rank 3, the arbitrary decomposition of  R R can be performed either as indicated at the beginning of the present section, or through the following procedure [9]:

- 1. take  an  arbitrary  3D  complex  unit  vector 1 w (note  that 1 w necessarily  belongs  to Range R ,  because  Range R covers the complete 3D complex space) and synthesize the normalized coherency matrix † 1 1 1 ˆ p   R w w of the first component;
- 2. calculate the coefficient 1 p of 1 ˆ p R :

$$\text{$r$.} \text{ caname in the $\Gamma_{1}$} \circ \mathbb { m } _ { p 1 }. \\ p _ { 1 } = \left \{ \text{tr} \left [ \text{diag} ( \lambda _ { 1 }, \lambda _ { 2 }, \lambda _ { 3 } ) \hat { \mathbf R } _ { p 1 } \right ] \right \} & \Big / I \, ; \, \left ( I \equiv \lambda _ { 1 } + \lambda _ { 2 } + \lambda _ { 3 } \right ) ;$$

- 3. calculate the remainder coherency matrix     † 1 1 1 1 ˆ ˆ 1 r p p         R R w w ;
- 4. take an arbitrary 3D complex unit vector 2 w belonging to  Range ˆ r R and synthesize the normalized coherency matrix † 2 2 2 ˆ p   R w w of the second component;
- 5. calculate the coefficient 2 p of 2 ˆ p R in the convex sum

$$p _ { 2 } = \frac { 1 } { I } \text{tr} \left \{ \text{diag} \left ( \lambda _ { 1 }, \lambda _ { 2 }, \lambda _ { 3 } \right ) \left [ \text{w} _ { 2 } \otimes \text{w} _ { 2 } ^ { \dagger } \right ] \right \},$$

- 6. and calculate the third pure component and its coefficient through the expressions:

$$\begin{array} { c } \text{$\text{and can cause one una pure component and is convenient among use expressions.} \\ \hat { \mathbf R } _ { p 3 } = \left [ \hat { \mathbf R } - p _ { 1 } \left ( \mathbf w _ { 1 } \times \mathbf w _ { 1 } ^ { \dagger } \right ) - p _ { 2 } \left ( \mathbf w _ { 2 } \times \mathbf w _ { 2 } ^ { \dagger } \right ) \right ] \Big / \left ( 1 - p _ { 1 } - p _ { 2 } \right ), \quad p _ { 3 } = 1 - p _ { 1 } - p _ { 2 }. \end{array}$$

With respect to the directions of propagation of the three pure components of the arbitrary decomposition,  there  are  two  possibilities: 1) two  components  have  the  same  direction  of propagation,  but  different  to  that  of  the  remainder  component,  and 2) the  three  pure components have different directions of propagation.

The arbitrary decomposition of R leads to its interpretation in terms of the following nine independent parameters (Fig. 9):

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  first component  ˆ 1 p R ;
-  three stokes parameters of the pure state 1 ˆ p R ;
-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  pure component  ˆ 2 p R (or, if the said direction coincides with the direction of propagation of
- 1 ˆ p R , the orientation angles that determine the direction of propagation of 3 ˆ p R ),

-  and the coefficients 1 p and 2 p (recall that 3 1 2 1 p p p    ).

Fig. 9 (color online). Arbitrary representation of a mixed state R with  rank 3 as  R the incoherent superposition of three pure states with different directions of propagation.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-1613b2ec-a4f2-42e9-8202-7b0a699f47a7.jpg)

## 5.3.2. Characteristic decomposition

When rank 3 , the characteristic decomposition of  R R has the general form

$$R = & \, U \begin{bmatrix} \lambda _ { 1 } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda _ { 2 } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \lambda _ { 3 } \end{bmatrix} U ^ { \dagger } = P _ { 1 } R _ { p } + ( P _ { 2 } - P _ { 1 } ) R _ { m } + ( 1 - P _ { 2 } ) R _ { u - 3 D } ; \\ R _ { p } = & \, I U \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} U ^ { \dagger }, \, R _ { m } = \frac { I } { 2 } U \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} U ^ { \dagger }, \, R _ { u - 3 D } = \frac { I } { 3 } \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}.$$

p R represents  a  pure  state  and 3 u D  R represents  a  3D  unpolarized  state  ( 2 0 ).  The P  characteristic decomposition is completed with the second component m R , whose interpretation  can  be  performed  as  follows  in  terms  of  the  value  of  the  auxiliary  parameter    rank Re m m r     R .

a) when 2, m r  m R represents a 2D unpolarized state 2 u D  R propagating along a direction different than that of p R . Thus, R can be expressed as

$$\mathbf R = P _ { 1 } \mathbf R _ { p } + \left ( P _ { 2 } - P _ { 1 } \right ) \mathbf R _ { u - 2 D } + \left ( 1 - P _ { 2 } \right ) \mathbf R _ { u - 3 D },$$

and therefore, R can be interpreted by means of the following eight independent parameters (Fig. 10):

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  pure component p R ;
-  three stokes parameters of the pure component p R ;
-  two  orientation angles that determine  the direction of propagation  of the 2D unpolarized component 2 m u D   R R ,
-  and the two indices of polarimetric purity   1 2 , P P of R .

Fig. 10 (color online). Characteristic representation of a mixed state R with rank 3,  and   rank  R     Re 2, as the incoherent superposition of a pure m    R state, a 2D unpolarized state (with different direction of propagation) and a 3D unpolarized state.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-ac39c251-e3df-4f65-b6ca-bfbc86e1f010.jpg)

b) when 3, the components m r  p R and m R can be recombined and re-decomposed in such a manner  that  the  characteristic  decomposition  of R can  be  rewritten  in  the  following appropriate form

$$\text{appropriate form} \\ \hat { R } _ { p 1 } = U \left [ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ] U ^ { \dagger }, \hat { R } _ { p 2 } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } U \left [ \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ] U ^ { \dagger }, \hat { R } _ { u - 3 D } = \frac { 1 } { 3 } \left [ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right ], \\ \text{vhaar the two first commonate a runa tactic with different direction of non-union and}$$

where the two first components are pure states with different directions of propagation and 3 ˆ u D  R is a 3D unpolarized state. Thus, R can be interpreted by means of the following nine independent parameters (Fig. 11):

-  two  orientation  angles  that  determine  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  first  pure component 1 p R ;
-  three stokes parameters of 1 p R ;
-  two orientation angles that determine the direction of propagation of the second pure component 2 p R ,
-  and the two indices of purity   1 2 , P P of R .

Fig. 11 (color online). Characteristic representation of a mixed state R with  rank 3,  and  R     rank Re 3 as the incoherent superposition of two pure states (with different directions of m    R propagation) and a 3D unpolarized state.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0312v1-figure-c77a3de3-825b-4308-9437-1dbc0ddeb4f0.jpg)

## 6. The degree of directionality

As it has been pointed out above, the 3D coherency matrix R is defined for a given fixed point r in the  space,  and  does  not  contain  direct  information  about  the  direction  of

propagation of the electromagnetic wave. Nevertheless, in the previous section we have found that, when     Re 2, the evolution of the electric field defines a fixed plane O t rank     R  , and consequently, the direction k perpendicular to that plane, and hence perpendicular to the wavefront, can properly be considered as the  direction of propagation at point r .  That is to say, the 3D state of polarization given by R is polarimetrically indistinguishable from a plane wave with the same coherency matrix R and propagating along the direction k .

Moreover, when 3, the evolution of the electric field of the wave defines the intensity t  ellipsoid, so that, except for the case of 3D unpolarized states, the direction k perpendicular to the plane of symmetry containing the maximum ellipse (Fig. 1), can be considered as a the average  direction  of  propagation.  Thus,  it  is  highly  desirable  to  define  a  measure  of  the directional purity of the state R , i.e., a measure of the distance from the directionality of R to the random directionality of a 3D unpolarized state. As a previous attempt to get a definition of such a degree of directionality ,  we proposed the use of the second index of polarimetric purity 2 P , but the analysis performed in the previous sections shows that, when rank 2 and r   R 3, then t  2 1, despite the fact that the direction of propagation is not P  well defined. On the light of the interpretation of the intrinsic coherency matrix   O R R and inspired  by  the  definition  of 2 P in  terms  of  the  eigenvalues  of R ,  we  find  that  the  desired definition of the degree of directionality d P is given by the nondimensional quantity

$$P _ { d } \equiv \frac { a _ { 1 } + a _ { 2 } - 2 a _ { 3 } } { a _ { 1 } + a _ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } } \,,$$

where, as indicated in Eq. (15), the real, non-negative, quantities   1 2 3 , , a a a , are defined from the  diagonalization   1 2 3 diag , , T R a a a  Q R Q of  the  real  part R R of R , with  the  choice 3 2 1 0 a a a    . The degree of directionality d P reaches its maximum value 1 for d P  3 0 . a  Moreover 0  corresponds exclusively to a 3D unpolarized state d P  3 u D  R , whose associated direction  of  propagation  is  completely  random  (i.e.,  the  intensity  ellipsoid  is  a  sphere).  In agreement  with  the  case  study  performed  above,  intermediate  cases  have  appropriate  and consistent values in the interval 0 1. Thus, in our opinion, d P   d P is a proper measure of the degree of directionality.

The particular case of a pure linearly polarized state ( 2 3 0) is out of the range of a a   application  of d P .  In  fact,  in  this  limiting  case 1,  while  the  corresponding  coherency d P  matrix  can  be  obtained  trough  the  incoherent  superposition  of  an  arbitrary  set  of  linearly polarized pure states  propagating along different directions, provided that such directions lie in the plane perpendicular to the polarization axis.

By  taking advantage of the analogies between the expressions derived from the eigenvalues   1 2 3 , ,    of R and that derived from the eigenvalues   1 2 3 , , a a a of  Re   R , we define the degree of linear polarization l P as the nondimensional parameter

$$P _ { l } \equiv \frac { a _ { 1 } - a _ { 2 } } { a _ { 1 } + a _ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } } \,,$$

whose  possible  values  are  limited  by 0 l d P P     1 .  The  minimum  value d P  0 l P    1 2 a a  corresponds  to  a  state  with  an  intensity  ellipsoid  of  revolution  with  semiaxes   1 1 3 , , a a a ,  so  that  its  intersection  with  the  plane  perpendicular  to  the  average  direction  of

propagation k is a circumference of radio 1 a . Regardless the value of d P , 0  corresponds l P  to states with equal principal intensities in the plane perpendicular to k . When, in particular, 0 ,  the  intensity  ellipsoid  is  a  sphere  and  corresponds  to  a  3D  unpolarized  state.  The d P  maximum value 1, entails l P  1 and corresponds to a pure state of linear polarization. In d P  the case of 2D states   1 , d P  2 2 1 2 0 l P s s s   , as corresponds to the natural and commonly used definition of the degree of linear polarization. Thus, the inspection of the values of l P for all  the  possible  3D  states  of  polarization  shows  that l P gives  an  appropriate  and  consistent measure of the degree of linear polarization.

Regardless the intrinsic  physical  meaning  of   1 2 3 , , a a a as  the  semiaxes  of  the  intensity ellipsoid,  equivalent  physical  information  can  be  represented  through  the  set  of  quantities   , , l d I P P ,  whose physical meaning is particularly appropriate for the study and analysis of three-dimensional states of polarization.

## 7. Conclusions

At  a  given  point  in  the  space,  the  second-order  state  of  polarization  of  an  arbitrary electromagnetic  wave  is  characterized  by  means  of  the  corresponding  coherency  matrix R , which can be interpreted in terms of a set of nine well-defined parameters, namely [13], the principal  intensities   1 2 3 , , a a a ;  the  angular  momentum   1 2 3 , , n n n  n ,  and  the  set  of  three orientation angles   , ,    . This parameterization constitutes an adequate framework for the analysis and  interpretation of any  three-dimensional  state  of  polarization  through  the corresponding arbitrary and characteristic decompositions.

Together with the integer parameter rank r  R , which determines the minimum number of pure components in the arbitrary decomposition, we have found that the integer parameter    rank Re t     R plays a fundamental role in the physical interpretation of the possible threedimensional states of polarization. 1 corresponds to pure states with linear polarization. In t  this case, as indicated in the previous section, the direction of propagation is not determined by R , even though it is true that the experimentalists have usually complementary information enough to determine it. When 2 , the state t  R is reduced to a conventional two-dimensional state of polarization, with a well-defined direction of propagation; thus, the arbitrary and the characteristic  decompositions  of R translate  into  that  of  two-dimensional  states  and,  in particular,  the  arbitrary  decomposition  is  necessarily  composed  of  two  pure  states  with  the same  directions  of  propagation;  moreover,  the  characteristic  decomposition  has  the  wellknown form of a superposition of a pure state and a unpolarized two-dimensional state. In the case that 3, even if t  2 ,  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  assign  a  well-defined  direction  of r  propagation to the state R ,  so  that  at  least  two  of  the  three  pure  arbitrary  components have different propagation directions; moreover, the characteristic decomposition adopts particular forms  depending  on  the  value  of  an  additional  auxiliary  integer  parameter.  The  case  study performed  clarifies  the  interpretation  and  the  role  played  by  the  set  of  two  indices  of polarimetric  purity   1 2 , P P as  physically  invariant  quantities  that  give  nondimensional appropriate measures of the structure of purity of a state R ,  beyond the overall information provided by the degree of polarimetric purity 2 2 (3) 1 2 3 2. P P P  

Inspired by the expression of the second index of polarimetric purity 2 P in  terms  of  the eigenvalues of R , the degree of directionality d P has been defined, which gives an appropriate

and  consistent  measure  of  the  stability  of  the  direction  of  propagation  of  the  state  of polarization represented by R .

The transformation of the coherency matrix performed through the appropriate rotation of the reference frame, provides the intrinsic coherency matrix O R characterized by the set of six  parameters   1 2 3 1 2 3 , , ; , , a a a n n n .  The  physical  information  contained  in O R can  also  be represented through the following alternative set of meaningful parameters: intensity  , degree I of  polarization 1 P ,  second  index  of  polarimetric  purity 2 P (i.e.,  the  relative  portion  of  the wave  obtained  once  the  3D  unpolarized  portion  has  been  subtracted);  the  degree  of directionality d P ,  the  degree  of  linear  polarization l P and  the  magnitude n of  the  angular momentum n .

In  summary,  the  approach  presented,  we  think,  constitutes  a  useful  tool  for  the  study, representation  and  interpretation  of  the  complete  variety  of  three-dimensional  states  of polarization in terms of appropriate and well-defined physical parameters.

## Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economía y Competitividad, Grant FIS2011-22496, and by the Gobierno de Aragón, group E99.

## References

- 1. T. Setälä, A. Shevchenko, M. Kaivola and A. T. Friberg, 'Degree of polarization for optical near fields' Phys. Rev. E 66 , 016615-7 (2002).
- 2. T. Setälä, M. Kaivola and A. T. Friberg, 'Degree of polarization on near fields of thermal sources: Effects of surface waves' Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 , 1239021-4 (2002)
- 3. J. J. Gil, J. M. Correas, P. A. Melero and C. Ferreira, 'Generalized polarization algebra' Monografías del Seminario Matemático García de Galdeano 31 , 161-167 (2004). Available from &lt;http://www.unizar.es/galdeano/actas\_pau/PDFVIII/pp161-167.pdf&gt;
- 4. J. Ellis and A. Dogariu, 'On the degree of polarization of random electromagnetic fields' Opt. Commun. 253 , 257-265 (2005).
- 5. A. Luis, 'Degree of polarization for three-dimensional fields as a distance between correlation matrices' Opt. Commun. 253 , 10-14 (2005)
- 6. A. Luis, 'Polarization distribution and degree of polarization for three-dimensional quantum light fields' Phys. Rev. A 71 , 063815-8 (2005)
- 7. C. Brosseau and A. Dogariu, 'Symmetry properties and polarization descriptors for an arbitrary electromagnetic wavefield,' in Vol. 49 of Progress in Optics , E. Wolf, ed. (Elsevier, 2006), Chap. 4.
- 8. M. R. Dennis, 'A three-dimensional degree of polarization based on Rayleigh scattering' J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24 , 2065-2069 (2007).
- 9. J. J. Gil, "Polarimetric characterization of light and media," Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 40 , 1-47 (2007).
- 10. I. San José and J. J. Gil, "Invariant indices of polarimetric purity. Generalized indices of purity for n×n covariance matrices" Opt. Commun. 284 , 38-47 (2011).

- 11. J. M.  Auñón  and  Manuel  Nieto-Vesperinas,  "On  two  definitions  of  the  threedimensional  degree  of  polarization  in  the  near  field  of  statistically  homogeneous partially coherent sources," Opt. Lett. 38 , 58-60 (2013)
- 12. O. Gamel and D. F. V. James, "Majorization and measures of classical polarization in three dimensions," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 31 , 1620-1626 (2014).
- 13. M. R. Dennis, 'Geometric interpretation of the three-dimensional coherence matrix for nonparaxial polarization' J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 6 , S26-S31 (2004).
- 14. J. H. Hannay, 'The Majorana representation of polarization, and the Berry phase of light' J. Mod Opt. 45 , 1001-1008 (1998).
- 15. T. Saastamoinnen, J. Tervo, 'Geometric approach to the degree of polarization for arbitrary fields' J. Mod. Opt. 51 , 2039-2045 (2004).
- 16. T. Carozzi, R. Karlsson and J. Bergman, 'Parameters characterizing electromagnetic wave polarization,' Phys. Rev. E 61 , 2024-2028 (2000).
- 17. J. J. Gil, I. San José, "3D polarimetric purity," Opt. Commun. 283 , 4430-4434 (2010).
- 18. C. J. R. Sheppard, "Partial polarization in three dimensions," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 28 , 2655-2659 (2011).
- 19. C. J. R. Sheppard, "Geometric representation for partial polarization in three dimensions" Opt. Lett. 37 , 2772-2774 (2012).
- 20. R. M. A. Azzam, "Three-dimensional polarization states of monochromatic light fields," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 28 , 2279-2283 (2011)
- 21. J. J. Gil and I. San José, "Polarimetric subtraction of Mueller matrices," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30 , 1078-88 (2013).
- 22. R. Dändliker, P. Tortora, L. Vaccaro and A. Nesci, 'Measuring three-dimensional polarization with scanning optical probes' J. Opt. A Pure Appl. Opt. 6 , S18-S23 (2004)
- 23. J. Ellis and A. Dogariu, 'Optical Polarimetry of Random Fields' Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 , 203905-4 (2005)
- 24. J. Ellis, A. Dogariu, S. Ponomarenko and E. Wolf, 'Correlation matrix of a completely polarized, statistically stationary electromagnetic field' Opt. Lett. 29 1536-1538 (2004)
- 25. J. Ellis and A. Dogariu, S. Ponomarenko and E. Wolf, 'Degree of polarization of statistically stationary electromagnetic fields' Opt. Commun. 248 , 333-337 (2005).
- 26. F. T. Hioe, 'Isotropy and polarization in a statistically stationary electromagnetic field in three-dimensions' J. Mod. Opt. 53 , 1715-1725 (2006)
- 27. P. Réfrégier, M. Roche and F. Goudail, 'Invariant polarimetric contrast parameters of light with Gaussian fluctuations in three dimensions' J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 23 , 124-133 (2006)
- 28. P. Réfrégier, V. Wasik, K. Vynck and R. Carminati, "Analysis of coherence properties of partially polarized light in 3D and application to disordered media," Opt. Lett. 39 , 2362-2365 (2014).
- 29. A. Luis, 'Quantum polarization for three-dimensional fields via Stokes operators' Phys. Rev. A. 71 , 1023810-7 (2005)
- 30. U. Fano, 'Description of states in quantum mechanics by density matrix and operator techniques,' Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 , 74-93 (1957).

- 31. J.C. Samson, 'Description of the polarization states of vector processes: Applications to ULF magnetic fields' Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 34 , 403-419 (1973).
- 32. R. Barakat, ' n -Fold polarization measures and associated thermodynamic entropy of N partially coherent pencils of radiation' Opt. Acta 30 , 1171-1182 (1983).
- 33. J. J. Gil and I. San José, R. Ossikovski, 'Serial-parallel decompositions of Mueller matrices," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30 , 32-50 (2013).
- 34. J. J. Gil, " Review on Mueller matrix algebra for the analysis of polarimetric measurements," J. Appl. Remote Sens. 8 , 081599 (2014).
- 35. F. Snik, J. Craven-Jones, M. Escuti, S. Fineschi, D. Harrington, A. de Martino, D. Mawet, J, Riedi and J. S. Tyo, "An overview of polarimetric sensing techniques and technology with applications to different research fields," Proc. SPIE 9099 , Polarization: Measurement, Analysis, and Remote Sensing XI, 90990B (May 21, 2014)
Jose J. Gil
Interpretation of the coherency matrix for three-dimensional polarization states
From an appropriate parameterization of the three-dimensional (3D) coherency
matrix R, that characterizes the second-order, classical states of
polarization, the coherency matrices are classified and interpreted in terms of
incoherent decompositions. The relevant physical quantities derived from R, as
the intensity, the degree of polarimetric purity, the indices of polarimetric
purity, the angular momentum, the degree of directionality and the degree of
linear polarization are identified and interpreted on the light of the case
study performed. The information provided by R about the direction of
propagation is clarified and it is found that coherency matrices with, does not
always represent states with a well-defined direction of propagation. Moreover,
it is demonstrated the existence of 3D mixed states that cannot be decomposed
into a superposition of a pure state, a 2D unpolarized state, and a 3D
unpolarized state. Appropriate representation and interpretation for all the
different types of 3D coherency matrices is provided through physical
consistent criteria. Under the approach proposed, the conventional
two-dimensional model arises naturally.