Fig. 1. IPP space representation. The P1P2 (P3=1) surface, where the pure polarization–anisotropy depolarizers are represented, is shaded in the picture.

Fig. 2. Solvable domain of the PRT space.

Fig. 3. Distributions of diattenuator-based (red color) depolarizers and retarder-based (green color) depolarizers represented in the studied depolarizing spaces. (a) IPP space. (b) PRT space. (c) Plane of P3=1. (d) T=0 in the PRT space.

Fig. 4. Representation of the simulated diattenuator-based depolarizers in different representation spaces. (a) PRT space. (b) IPP space.

Fig. 5. Retarder-based depolarizers corresponding to different control parameters represented at the P1P2 and RT spaces. (a) RT space with full range. (b) P1P2 space with full range. Depolarizers spatial variation with σ2 in the (c) RT space with retardance ϕ smaller than 0.5π and the (d) P1P2 space with retardance ϕ smaller than 0.5π.

Fig. 6. Scheme of the MM polarimeter.

Fig. 7. Comparison between simulations and experiments in the studied space for different samples with varying σ2. (a) Distributions with σ2 for diattenuator-based depolarizers in PRT space. (b) Distributions with σ2 for retarder-based depolarizers in PRT space. (c) Distributions with σ2 for diattenuator-based depolarizers in IPP space. (d) Distributions with σ2 for retarder-based depolarizers in IPP space.

Fig. 8. Relation between the measured polarimetric and physical characteristics for diattenuator-based depolarizers. (a) Relation between D and R at different σ2. (b) Relation between PP and σ2 at different D.

Fig. 9. Relation between the measured polarimetric and physical characteristics for retarder-based depolarizers. (a) Relation between ϕ and R at different σ2. (b) Relation between σ2 and T at different ϕ.