Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Physically Plausible Vectorial Metrics for Polarization Information Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that conventional Mueller matrix polar decomposition (MMPD) describes a retarder as a circular retarder followed by a linear retarder, a choice that can misrepresent samples whose structure is not that fixed two-layer…

desk verdict Useful warning about conventional MMPD retarder decomposition and a sensible alternative parameterization, but the experiments never check the proposed elliptical-retarder parameters against known ground truth. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19811 v1 pith:I56OIB74 submitted 2025-05-26 physics.optics

Runchen Zhang , Xuke Qiu , Yifei Ma , Zimo Zhao , An Aloysius Wang , Jinge Guo , Ji Qin , Steve J. Elston
show 2 more authors
Stephen M. Morris Chao He
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics PACS 42.25.Ja42.25.Lc
keywords MuellermatrixpolarimetrypolardecompositionretardercharacterizationellipticalliquidcrystalpolarizationimagingbirefringencePoincarésphere
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the standard Mueller matrix polar decomposition (MMPD) description of a retarder as a circular retarder followed by a linear retarder can misrepresent real samples whose internal structure is not that particular two-layer stack. Reversing the multiplication order leaves the two retardance values unchanged but shifts the linear axis orientation by half the circular retardance, so the recovered fiber orientation depends on an arbitrary modeling choice. To avoid this, the authors propose characterizing any retarder by a single elliptical retarder with axis orientation $\phi$, degree of ellipticity $\chi$, and elliptical retardance $\rho$, computed from the retarder's fast-axis vector on the Poincaré sphere. They demonstrate the approach on layered and non-layered liquid crystal samples, including a chiral nematic droplet with spatially varying twist, and show it yields a structure-independent overall description. If accepted, this gives biomedical and materials polarimetry a way to report retarder properties without assuming a layer structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the elliptical retarder as a rotation on the Poincaré sphere: any pure retarder's Mueller matrix has a normalized fast-axis vector $S_R = (1, a_1, a_2, a_3)$ with $a_1 = \cos 2\phi \cos 2\chi$, $a_2 = \sin 2\phi \cos 2\chi$, $a_3 = \sin 2\chi$, and a retardance $\rho$ given by the trace of the $3\times 3$ submatrix. This replaces the conventional product $M_R = M_{LR} M_{CR}$ with a single rotation, so no layer ordering has to be assumed. The same formulas also expose the two ambiguities the paper acknowledges: the $2\pi$ phase-wrap window and the choice between the fast-axis and slow-axis representation.

What would settle it

Manufacture a two-layer stack with known layer properties, measure its Mueller matrix, and compare the elliptical retarder parameters recovered from Eqs. (4)-(7) with an independent determination of the stack's overall fast axis using dual-wavelength phase unwrapping. If the recovered $\phi$, $\chi$, $\rho$ do not reproduce the measured Mueller matrix, or if the recovered fast axis turns out to be the slow axis for a sample with retardance in $(\pi, 2\pi)$, the claimed structure-agnostic characterization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a retarder of unknown structure, the correct overall characterization is the elliptical retarder, whose rotation axis on the Poincaré sphere is the fast axis and whose rotation angle is the elliptical retardance. Concretely, the paper claims that the parameters $\phi = 0.5\,\mathrm{atan2}(a_2, a_1)$, $\chi = 0.5\,\sin^{-1}(a_3)$, and $\rho = \cos^{-1}\big[(\mathrm{tr}(m_R)-1)/2\big]$ extracted from the normalized fast-axis vector $(a_1, a_2, a_3)$ describe the full optical response of any retarder, with no need to decide whether circular or linear retardation comes first. The experiments with liquid crystal retarders are offered as evidence that this parameter set captures the polarization properties of both layered stacks and non-layered twisted media, whereas the conventional parameters produce a spurious circular retarder when two linear retarders with mismatched orientations are stacked. The paper frames this as avoiding misinterpretation rather than as a new physical effect.

Load-bearing premise

The parameter set is meaningful only if every retarder's Mueller matrix determines a unique elliptical fast axis and a unique retardance once a $2\pi$ window and one of the two fast/slow representations are chosen; the paper notes that uniqueness requires extra prior knowledge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users of MMPD can report $\phi$, $\chi$, and $\rho$ as the retarder metric and avoid any dependence on whether the circular or linear element is placed first in the model.
  • For two-layer stacks, the axis-orientation shift of $0.5\phi$ that occurs when the decomposition order is reversed will no longer contaminate fiber-orientation estimates.
  • Samples without any layered structure, such as chiral droplets with spatially varying twist, become characterizable by a compact three-parameter map instead of a forced bilayer model.
  • The residual ambiguities of phase wrapping and fast/slow-axis choice remain, so wavelength or absolute-phase information is still needed for a unique assignment.
  • Existing MMPD pipelines can adopt the new metrics immediately because they are computed from the same decomposed retarder matrix $M_R$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to use these vectorial metrics as a common reporting standard across polarimetry studies, so that tissue fiber-orientation maps from different groups become comparable even when their decomposition conventions differ.
  • The fast-axis orientation and ellipticity map should be sensitive to the local twist gradient in chiral samples, suggesting a testable method for non-contact measurement of chiral pitch with polarimetric imaging.
  • The paper does not test stacks with more than two layers; applying the same metric to a three-layer stack of known composition would quantify how much the single-elliptical-retarder model deviates as complexity grows.
  • The ambiguity discussion implies that combining ER parameters with dual-wavelength phase unwrapping would pin down both the retardance branch and the fast/slow choice, something the paper leaves as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the conventional MMPD retarder decomposition, which models the retarder as a circular retarder followed by a linear retarder, can lead to misinterpretations when the actual sample structure differs from this fixed order. As an alternative, the authors propose characterizing any retarder as a single elliptical retarder using three parameters: the elliptical axis orientation φ, the degree of ellipticity χ, and the elliptical retardance ρ. These are extracted from the 3×3 rotation submatrix of the retarder Mueller matrix via standard rotation-matrix formulas (Eqs. 4–7). The paper demonstrates that reversing the order of the circular and linear retarders in the conventional decomposition leaves φ and δ unchanged but shifts the linear axis orientation from θ to θ+0.5φ. Experiments on liquid-crystal samples—two layered configurations and one non-layered droplet—are used to support the claims. The paper also acknowledges in Section 4 that the ER representation is not unique due to the 2π phase wrapping and the fast/slow axis ambiguity.

Significance. If the proposed ER parameter set were quantitatively validated, it could provide a useful alternative to the conventional MMPD retarder decomposition for samples with unknown or non-layered structure, which is relevant in biomedical imaging and material analysis. The derivation of the order-reversal shift (θ→θ+0.5φ) is clean and supported by the measurements, and the authors are transparent about the limitations of the approach. However, the central claim—that φ, χ, and ρ provide a correct and physically plausible overall characterization—is not currently backed by a quantitative comparison with ground truth. The paper also openly states the non-uniqueness issues in Section 4, which further weaken the claim as presented. The work is within the scope of the journal and has potential, but the experimental validation needs substantial strengthening.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3a, 3b, and Supplementary Material 5] The reported ER parameters are never compared with the equivalent elliptical retarder computed from the known individual retarder Mueller matrices. For example, in Section 3a the reference values θ=0.54°, δ=144.47°, and φ=64.986° are given, from which the expected ρ of the product M_R=M_CR M_LR can be calculated analytically; the measured value ρ=143.830°±1.205° is reported without such a comparison. The same omission occurs in Section 3b, where the two linear retarders are individually characterized but the expected φ, χ, and ρ of their combination are not provided. Without this ground-truth comparison, the experiments demonstrate only that the ER parameters can be extracted from data, not that they correctly or meaningfully represent the sample's overall retardance. Please include the theoretical ER parameters computed from the known layer properties (in the main text or in the supplementary material) and quantify the agreement with the measured values.
  2. [Section 4] The non-uniqueness of the ER representation is acknowledged but not resolved. The paper notes that within a 2π range there is a second retarder with the same Mueller matrix (the slow-axis counterpart with retardance 2π-ρ), and that a 2π range is assumed. However, it does not state which representation is used for the values reported in Section 3, nor does it give a criterion for selecting one. Since the claimed advantage of the ER parameters is that they are 'physically plausible' for unknown samples, the choice between equivalent representations is a central part of the method and should be specified. Without such a rule, the parameters are not uniquely defined for the intended use case, and the reported values in Section 3 are ambiguous.
  3. [Equation (7) and Section 4] There is an inconsistency between the mathematical definition and the stated range of ρ. Equation (7) defines ρ via cos⁻¹, whose principal value lies in [0, π], yet Section 4 states that a 2π range is assumed for the retardance. The manuscript should clarify whether the reported retardance values are principal values or have been unwrapped to (0, 2π), and if the latter, it should describe the unwrapping procedure. This is load-bearing because the fast/slow-axis ambiguity discussed in Section 4 is directly related to ρ vs 2π-ρ, and the reported numbers in Section 3 cannot be interpreted without knowing which convention was used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3a] The claim that the reverse-sequence linear axis orientation (θ=-1.298°) is 'close to the reference value' (θ=0.54°) is not fully supported by the stated standard deviation (0.362°); the difference is more than five standard deviations. Please discuss this discrepancy in the context of the stated error sources.
  2. [Section 3a] The measured circular retardance in the composite (70.614°) differs from the reference value (64.986°) by about 5.6°, which is not addressed in the main text. A comment on this deviation would be helpful for assessing the accuracy of the conventional decomposition results.
  3. [Section 3c] The non-layered droplet experiment has no independent validation. While the ER maps are visually suggestive, the claim that the parameters 'effectively characterize' a non-layered sample should be supported by a quantitative benchmark or a comparison with an independent measurement, or this should be explicitly framed as a qualitative demonstration.
  4. [Equations (2) and (3)] The matrix entries contain notation like 'cos2 2θ' and 'sin2 2θ', which should be typeset as cos²2θ and sin²2θ for clarity.
  5. [Section 2b] The ranges for φ and χ are stated in the text, but it would be helpful to explicitly note the modulo-π and modulo-π/2 ambiguities, as these connect directly to the discussion in Section 4 and to the non-uniqueness of the extracted parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the elliptical-retarder parameters are definitional transforms of the measured retarder matrix, not fitted outputs or self-citation-derived claims.

full rationale

The paper's central proposal is a re-parameterization of the retarder submatrix of a Mueller matrix. Given the retarder matrix, the fast axis is defined by Eq. (4), the axis orientation and ellipticity are computed directly from the fast-axis components via Eqs. (5) and (6), and the elliptical retardance is computed from the trace of the 3x3 rotation submatrix via Eq. (7). These are closed-form definitions using standard rotation-matrix algebra, with no parameter fitted to data and no quantity renamed as a prediction. The claimed order-dependent shift of the conventional linear axis by 0.5 times the circular retardance is a matrix-multiplication fact derived in Supplementary Material 2, not an input from the authors' prior work. The experimental sections compare conventional decomposition outputs with independently measured reference values, and the ER maps are presented as illustrations of the proposed parameterization; the absence of a quantitative ground-truth comparison for the ER parameters is a validation limitation, not a circular step. Section 4 explicitly acknowledges the phase-wrapping and fast-axis/slow-axis ambiguities, so the scope of the parameterization is not concealed. Self-citations such as refs. 29 and 30 are contextual and are not load-bearing for the derivation. Consequently, no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on classical Mueller matrix and rotation-matrix mathematics plus the domain assumption that MMPD extracts a meaningful retarder matrix. The only ad hoc choices are the phase-wrap range and fast/slow-axis selection, which the paper acknowledges are not data-driven.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption MMPD can isolate a retarder matrix M_R from a general Mueller matrix M via Eq. (1), assuming the sample can be represented as a product of nondepolarizing diattenuator, retarder, and depolarizer.
    The entire analysis starts from the MMPD extraction of the retarder component (Section 2a). This assumes the decomposition is applicable and that the extracted M_R is physically meaningful.
  • standard math Any non-depolarizing retarder can be represented as an elliptical retarder, meaning its bottom-right 3x3 submatrix is a proper rotation on the Poincaré sphere with a unique eigenaxis and eigenangle.
    Used to define φ, χ, ρ in Eqs. (4)-(7). This is a classical result, but the paper does not prove it and relies on it as background.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase-wrap ambiguity is resolved by assuming a 2π range, and the fast-axis representation is chosen over the slow-axis counterpart to obtain a single set of parameters.
    Section 4 states that these choices are needed for uniqueness but are not justified by the data alone; they require prior knowledge or additional measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physically Plausible Vectorial Metrics for Polarization Information Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I56OIB74

@misc{pith2026250519811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physically Plausible Vectorial Metrics for Polarization Information Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I56OIB74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19811}
}
abstract

The Mueller Matrix Polar Decomposition method decomposes a Mueller matrix into a diattenuator, a retarder, and a depolarizer. Among these elements, the retarder, which plays a key role in medical and material characterization, is modelled as a circular retarder followed by a linear retarder when using this approach. However, this model may not accurately reflect the actual structure of the retarder in certain cases, as many practical retarders do not have a layered structure or consist of multiple (unknown) layers. Misinterpretation, therefore, may occur when the actual structure differs from the model. Here we circumvent this limitation by proposing to use a physically plausible parameter set that includes the axis orientation angle $\phi$, the degree of ellipticity $\chi$, and the elliptical retardance $\rho$. By working with this set of parameters, an overall characterization of a retarder is provided, encompassing its full optical response without making any assumptions about the structure of the material. In this study, experiments were carried out on liquid crystalline samples to validate the feasibility of our approach, demonstrating that the physically plausible parameter set adopted provides a useful tool for a broader range of applications in both biomedical imaging and optical material analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19811 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure of a multi-layer retarder and two separate analysis models. Here, circles, ellipses, and lines are used to represent different fast axis properties of each ‘layer’. The left part shows the general structure of an unknown retarder sample, which may consist of multiple discrete layers or a continuous, non-layered structure that can be approximated as having an infinite number of layers. The upper right part … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Complex structured light generation using printed liquid crystal droplets

    physics.optics 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Printed liquid crystal droplets, with internal director patterns tuned by alignment layer and chiral pitch, generate structured light beams including skyrmionic OAM-2 beams, radial/azimuthal vector beams, and polariza...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    He, H. et al. Mueller Matrix Polarimetry—An Emerging New Tool for Characterizing the Microstructural Feature of Complex Biological Specimen. J. Lightwave Technol. 37, 2534–2548 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Tissue polarimetry: concepts, challenges, applications, and outlook

    Ghosh, N. Tissue polarimetry: concepts, challenges, applications, and outlook. J. Biomed. Opt 16, 110801 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    & Elson, D

    Qi, J. & Elson, D. S. Mueller polarimetric imaging for surgical and diagnostic applications: a review. J. Biophotonics 10, 950–982 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Tuchin, V. V. Polarized light interaction with tissues. J. Biomed. Opt 21, 071114 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Chen, D. et al. Mueller matrix polarimetry for characterizing microstructural variation of nude mouse skin during tissue optical clearing. Biomed. Opt. Express 8, 3559 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    & Otani, Y

    Mukherjee, P., Horiguchi, T., Shibata, S., Hagen, N. & Otani, Y. Quantitative discrimination of biological tissues by micro-elastographic measurement using an epi- illumination Mueller matrix microscope. Biomed. Opt. Express 10, 3847 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    & Vitkin, A

    Alali, S. & Vitkin, A. Polarized light imaging in biomedicine: emerging Mueller matrix methodologies for bulk tissue assessment. J. Biomed. Opt 20, 061104 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    He, C. et al. Polarisation optics for biomedical and clinical applications: a review. Light Sci Appl 10, 194 (2021). 17

    work page 2021

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    & Elson, D

    Qi, J. & Elson, D. S. A high definition Mueller polarimetric endoscope for tissue characterisation. Sci Rep 6, 25953 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    C., Saytashev, I

    Ramella-Roman, J. C., Saytashev, I. & Piccini, M. A review of polarization-based imaging technologies for clinical and preclinical applications. J. Opt. 22, 123001 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    He, C. et al. Characterizing microstructures of cancerous tissues using multispectral transformed Mueller matrix polarization parameters. Biomed. Opt. Express 6, 2934 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Sun, M. et al. Characterizing the microstructures of biological tissues using Mueller matrix and transformed polarization parameters. Biomed. Opt. Express 5, 4223 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Dong, Y. et al. Deriving Polarimetry Feature Parameters to Characterize Microstructural Features in Histological Sections of Breast Tissues. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 68, 881– 892 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Liu, X. et al. Discrimination and quantification of scar tissue by Mueller matrix imaging with machine learning. J. Innov. Opt. Health Sci. 16, 2241003 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Pierangelo, A. et al. Ex-vivo characterization of human colon cancer by Mueller polarimetric imaging. Opt. Express 19, 1582 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Ghosh, N., Wood, M. F. G. & Vitkin, I. A. Mueller matrix decomposition for extraction of individual polarization parameters from complex turbid media exhibiting multiple scattering, optical activity, and linear birefringence. J. Biomed. Opt. 13, 044036 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Ghosh, N. et al. Mueller matrix decomposition for polarized light assessment of biological tissues. Journal of Biophotonics 2, 145–156 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Antonelli, M.-R. et al. Mueller matrix imaging of human colon tissue for cancer diagnostics: how Monte Carlo modeling can help in the interpretation of experimental data. Opt. Express 18, 10200 (2010). 18

    2010

  11. [19]

    & Validire, P

    Novikova, T., Pierangelo, A., De Martino, A., Benali, A. & Validire, P. Polarimetric Imaging for Cancer Diagnosis and Staging. Optics & Photonics News 23, 26 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Zhang, Z. et al. Analysis and optimization of aberration induced by oblique incidence for in-vivo tissue polarimetry. Opt. Lett., OL 48, 6136–6139 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Zhang, Z. et al. Analyzing the influence of oblique incidence on quantitative backscattering tissue polarimetry: a pilot ex vivo study. J. Biomed. Opt. 28, (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Deng, L. et al. A Dual-Modality Imaging Method Based on Polarimetry and Second Harmonic Generation for Characterization and Evaluation of Skin Tissue Structures. IJMS 24, 4206 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Shao, C. et al. Analyzing the Influence of Imaging Resolution on Polarization Properties of Scattering Media Obtained From Mueller Matrix. Front. Chem. 10, 936255 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Gil, J. J. Polarimetric characterization of light and media: Physical quantities involved in polarimetric phenomena. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 1–47 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Losurdo, M. et al. Spectroscopic ellipsometry and polarimetry for materials and systems analysis at the nanometer scale: state-of-the-art, potential, and perspectives. J Nanopart Res 11, 1521–1554 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Chang, J. et al. Optimization of GRIN lens Stokes polarimeter. Appl. Opt. 54, 7424 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    He, C. et al. Complex vectorial optics through gradient index lens cascades. Nat Commun 10, 4264 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    & Booth, M

    He, C. & Booth, M. Extraordinary Beam Modulation with Ordinary GRIN Lenses. Optics & Photonics News 31, 47 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    He, C. et al. Revealing complex optical phenomena through vectorial metrics. Adv. Photon. 4, (2022). 19

    2022

  22. [30]

    He, C. et al. A universal optical modulator for synthetic topologically tuneable structured matter

  23. [31]

    Wang, A. A. et al. Topological protection of optical skyrmions through complex media. Light Sci Appl 13, 314 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    & Arce-Diego, J

    Ortega-Quijano, N. & Arce-Diego, J. L. Mueller matrix differential decomposition. Opt. Lett. 36, 1942 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Differential matrix formalism for depolarizing anisotropic media

    Ossikovski, R. Differential matrix formalism for depolarizing anisotropic media. Opt. Lett. 36, 2330 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    He, H. et al. A possible quantitative Mueller matrix transformation technique for anisotropic scattering media/Eine mögliche quantitative Müller-Matrix-Transformations- Technik für anisotrope streuende Medien. Photonics & Lasers in Medicine 2, (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    & Chipman, R

    Lu, S.-Y. & Chipman, R. A. Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 1106 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    & Booth, M

    Hu, Q., Dai, Y., He, C. & Booth, M. J. Arbitrary vectorial state conversion using liquid crystal spatial light modulators. Optics Communications 459, 125028 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Dai, Y. et al. Active compensation of extrinsic polarization errors using adaptive optics. Opt. Express 27, 35797 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    & Booth, M

    Hu, Q., He, C. & Booth, M. J. Arbitrary complex retarders using a sequence of spatial light modulators as the basis for adaptive polarisation compensation. J. Opt. 23, 065602 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Lin, J. et al. Full Poincaré polarimetry enabled through physical inference. Optica 9, 1109 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    & Booth, M

    He, C. & Booth, M. J. Vectorial adaptive optics: correction of polarization and phase. in Imaging and Applied Optics Congress 2022 (3D, AOA, COSI, ISA, pcAOP) (2022), paper OTh3B.4 OTh3B.4 (Optica Publishing Group, 2022). doi:10.1364/AOA.2022.OTh3B.4. 20

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Shen, Y. et al. Polarization Aberrations in High-Numerical-Aperture Lens Systems and Their Effects on Vectorial-Information Sensing. Remote Sensing 14, 1932 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Mi, C., Shao, C., He, H., He, C. & Ma, H. Evaluating Tissue Mechanical Properties Using Quantitative Mueller Matrix Polarimetry and Neural Network. Applied Sciences 12, 9774 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Hao, R. et al. Discrepancy of coordinate system selection in backscattering Mueller matrix polarimetry: exploring photon coordinate system transformation invariants. Opt. Express 32, 3804 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Xu, A. et al. Laser-Written Tunable Liquid Crystal Aberration Correctors. ACS Photonics 10, 3401–3408 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Jin, Y. et al. Zwitterion-doped liquid crystal speckle reducers for immersive displays and vectorial imaging. Light Sci Appl 12, 242 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Wang, A. A. et al. Unlocking new dimensions in photonic computing using optical Skyrmions. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16311 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Hao, R. et al. Polarization feature fusion and calculation of birefringence dynamics in complex anisotropic media. Opt. Lett. 49, 2273 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Xuan, T. et al. Self-registration of constant-step rotating Mueller matrix polarimeters. Opt. Lett. 47, 5797 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Dong, Y. et al. Characterizing the Effects of Washing by Different Detergents on the Wavelength-Scale Microstructures of Silk Samples Using Mueller Matrix Polarimetry. IJMS 17, 1301 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Chang, J. et al. Division of focal plane polarimeter-based 3 × 4 Mueller matrix microscope: a potential tool for quick diagnosis of human carcinoma tissues. Journal of biomedical optics 21, 056002–056002 (2016). 21

    2016

  43. [51]

    Wang, Y. et al. Mueller matrix microscope: a quantitative tool to facilitate detections and fibrosis scorings of liver cirrhosis and cancer tissues. J. Biomed. Opt 21, 071112 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Dong, Y. et al. Quantitatively characterizing the microstructural features of breast ductal carcinoma tissues in different progression stages by Mueller matrix microscope. Biomed. Opt. Express 8, 3643 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Chen, B. et al. Analysis and calibration of linear birefringence orientation parameters derived from Mueller matrix for multi-layered tissues. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 146, 106690 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Shi, Y. et al. A quantitative technique to analyze and evaluate microstructures of skin hair follicles based on mueller matrix polarimetry. Front. Phys. 10, 847656 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Zhai, H. et al. Distinguishing tissue structures via polarization staining images based on different combinations of Mueller matrix polar decomposition parameters. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 152, 106955 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Deng, L. et al. Influence of hematoxylin and eosin staining on linear birefringence measurement of fibrous tissue structures in polarization microscopy. J. Biomed. Opt. 28, (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Jiao, W. et al. Complex Spatial Illumination Scheme Optimization of Backscattering Mueller Matrix Polarimetry for Tissue Imaging and Biosensing. Biosensors 14, 208 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Dubreuil, M. et al. Mueller matrix polarimetry for improved liver fibrosis diagnosis. Opt. Lett. 37, 1061 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Sheng, W. et al. Quantitative Analysis of 4 × 4 Mueller Matrix Transformation Parameters for Biomedical Imaging. Photonics 6, 34 (2019). 22

    2019

  52. [60]

    Liu, T. et al. Distinguishing structural features between Crohn’s disease and gastrointestinal luminal tuberculosis using Mueller matrix derived parameters. Journal of Biophotonics 12, e201900151 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Pierangelo, A. et al. Multispectral Mueller polarimetric imaging detecting residual cancer and cancer regression after neoadjuvant treatment for colorectal carcinomas. J. Biomed. Opt 18, 046014 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    Novikova, T. et al. The origins of polarimetric image contrast between healthy and cancerous human colon tissue. Applied Physics Letters 102, 241103 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Pierangelo, A. et al. Polarimetric imaging of uterine cervix: a case study. Opt. Express 21, 14120 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Wang, Y. et al. Differentiating characteristic microstructural features of cancerous tissues using Mueller matrix microscope. Micron 79, 8–15 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    McNichols, R. J. & Coté, G. L. Optical glucose sensing in biological fluids: an overview. J. Biomed. Opt. 5, 5 (2000)

    2000

  58. [66]

    L., Huynh, T

    Le, D. L., Huynh, T. N., Nguyen, D. T. & Vo, T. V. Characterization of healthy and nonmelanoma-induced mouse utilizing the Stokes–Mueller decomposition. J. Biomed. Opt. 23, 1 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    W., Taberner, A

    Dixon, A. W., Taberner, A. J., Nash, M. P. & Nielsen, P. M. F. Quantifying optical anisotropy in soft tissue membranes using Mueller matrix imaging. J. Biomed. Opt. 26, (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    & Pradhan, A

    Zaffar, M. & Pradhan, A. Mapping of retardance, diattenuation and polarizance vector on Poincare sphere for diagnosis and classification of cervical precancer. Journal of Biophotonics 13, e201960139 (2020). 23

    2020

  61. [69]

    Wang, W., Chen, G. & Li, Y. Distinguishing Malignant Melanoma and Benign Nevus of Human Skin by Retardance Using Mueller Matrix Imaging Polarimeter. Applied Sciences 13, 6514 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Ushenko, V. et al. 3D Mueller-Matrix Diffusive Tomography of Polycrystalline Blood Films for Cancer Diagnosis. Photonics 5, 54 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Manhas, S. et al. Mueller matrix approach for determination of optical rotation in chiral turbid media in backscattering geometry. Opt. Express 14, 190 (2006)

    2006

  64. [72]

    & Pau, S

    Miller, S., Jiang, L. & Pau, S. Generalized elliptical retarder design and construction using nematic and cholesteric phase liquid crystal polymers. Opt. Express 30, 16734 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Song, J., Guo, W., Zeng, N. & Ma, H. Polarization phase unwrapping by a dual- wavelength Mueller matrix imaging system. Opt. Lett. 48, 2058 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Nguyen, T. L. et al. Quantitative Phase Imaging: Recent Advances and Expanding Potential in Biomedicine. ACS Nano 16, 11516–11544 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.