Fourier transform channeled spectropolarimetry
in the MWIR
Michael W. Kudenov,1 Nathan A. Hagen, 1 Eustace L. Dereniak, 1 and Grant R. Gerhart2
1

College of Optical Science, The University of Arizona, 1630 E. University Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721
2
U.S. Army TACOM, 6501 E. 11 Miles Rd., Warren, MI 48397

Abstract: A complete Fourier Transform Spectropolarimeter in the MWIR
is demonstrated. The channeled spectral technique, originally developed by
K. Oka, is implemented with the use of two Yttrium Vanadate (YVO4)
crystal retarders. A basic mathematical model for the system is presented,
showing that all the Stokes parameters are directly present in theinterferogram. Theoretical results are compared with real data from thesystem, an improved model is provided to simulate the effects of absorption
within the crystal, and a modified calibration technique is introduced toaccount for this absorption. Lastly, effects due to interferometer instabilities
on the reconstructions, including nonuniform sampling and interferogramtranslations, are investigated and techniques are employed to mitigate them.
©2007 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (300.6340) Spectroscopy, infrared; (120.2130) Ellipsometry and polarimetry

References and links
1. P. Griffiths and J. D. Haseth, “Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry,” (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY,
1986).
2. K. Oka and T. Kato, “Spectroscopic Polarimetry with a Channeled Spectrum,” Opt. Lett. 24, 1475-1477(1999).
3. T. Kusunoki and K. Oka, “Fourier spectroscopic measurement of polarization using birefringent retarders,”
Jap. Soc. of Ap. Phys. 61, 871 (2000).
4. M. Kudenov, N. Hagen, H. Luo, et al, “Polarization acquisition using a commercial Fourier transform
spectrometer in the MWIR,” in Infrared Detectors and Focal Plane Arrays VII, E. Dereniak and R. Sampson,eds., Proc. SPIE 688401 (2006).
5. A. Taniguchi, K. Oka, H. Okabe, and M. Hayakawa, “Stabilization of a channeled spectropolarimeter by selfcalibration,” Opt. Lett. 31, 3279-3281 (2006).
6. J. Connes, “Aspen International Conference on Fourier Spectroscopy,” G.A. Vanasse, A.T. Stair, Jr., and D.J.
Baker, eds. (Air Force Cambridge Labs Report, No. 114), 83 (1970).
7. Dennis Goldstein, “Polarized Light” (Marcel Dekker, NY, 2003).
8. R. Bell, “Introductory Fourier Transform Spectroscopy,” (Academic Press, 1972).
9. D. Naylor, T. Fulton, P. Davis, I. Chapman et al, “Data processing pipeline for a time-sampled imaging
Fourier transform spectrometer,” in Imaging Spectrometry X, S. Shen and P. Lewis, eds., Proc. SPIE 560096(2004).
10. Vidi Saptari, “Fourier-transform spectroscopy instrumentation engineering,” (SPIE Press, Bellingham, WA,2004).
11. Q. H. Liu and N. Nguyen, “An accurate algorithm for nonuniform fast fourier transforms,” IEE Mic. Guid.
Wave Lett. 8, 18-20 (1998).
12. A. Dutt and V. Rokhlin, “Fast fourier transforms for nonequispaced data,” Siam J. Sci. Comput. 14, 1368-1393(1993).

1. Introduction
A Fourier Transform Spectrometer (FTS) has many advantages over other forms ofspectroscopic measurement, such as a diffraction grating spectrometer, in the MWIR.
Predominantly, the FTS maintains the throughput (Jacquinot) and multiplex (Fellgett)advantages [1]. Yet aside from this, the FTS has another unique benefit for working with the#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12792

channeled spectropolarimetric technique implemented by K. Oka, where the Stokes vector
information is modulated onto the spectrum via several carrier frequencies [2]. These carrier
frequencies can be observed as separate entities in the interferogram taken from an FTS,
thereby providing a more direct means of acquiring the spectropolarimetric data [3].
First, we will describe the theoretical model behind the spectropolarimetric techniquewith an FTS. This will be followed with our laboratory results obtained by a commercial FTS
in the MWIR using Yttrium Vanadate (YVO4) crystal retarders. Detailed error analyses areprovided, and an improved system model is discussed. Lastly, the improved model is used toprovide an enhanced calibration technique to remove the effect of the dichroism in the YVO4.
2. System model
The basic setup of the Fourier Transform Spectropolarimeter (FTSP) is shown in Fig. 1. It
consists of two high-order retarders R1 and R2 with thicknesses d1 and d2 followed by ananalyzer. The orientation of the retarder’s fast axes relative to the transmission axis of theanalyzer is 0° and 45° for R1 and R2, respectively. The output is then sent into aninterferometer and the data recorded.

Fig. 1. Basic FTSP block diagram.

To create a theoretical model of the above system, we utilize plane-wave propagation in a
typical Twyman-Green interferometer to observe the functional form of the interferogram
I(σ,z) [4]. Performing this analysis yields,
I (σ , z ) ∝(1 + cos(φz ))[ S0 + S1 cos(φ2 ) + S 2 sin(φ1 ) sin(φ2 ) − S3 cos(φ1 ) sin(φ2 )]2(1)

where S0, S1, S2, and S3 are the Stokes parameters related to the intensity, linear 0° or 90°,
linear +45° or -45°, and right or left circular polarizations, respectively. The phase terms
φ1 , φ2 , and φz are implicitly dependent upon wavenumber σ (λ-1) and are defined as
φ1 (σ ) = 2π B(σ )d1σ(2)φ2 (σ ) = 2π B(σ ) d 2σ

(3)φz (σ ) = 2πΔzσ(4)where Δz is the optical path difference (OPD) from the interferometer, B(σ ) = ( ne (σ ) − no (σ ) )is the birefringence of the crystal, and d1, d2 are the aforementioned retarder thicknesses.
Expansion of Eq. 1 can be seen in Eq. 5. Here the constant offset has been suppressed since
it’s independent of Δz; it provides no viable spectral information in the Fourier transform.
I (σ , z ) ∝S0Scos(φz ) + 1 ( cos(φz + φ2 ) + cos(φz − φ2 ) ) +2
4S2[cos(φz + φ1 + φ2 ) + cos(φz − φ1 − φ2 ) − cos(φz + φ1 − φ2 ) − cos(φz − φ1 + φ2 )] +8
S3[sin(φz + φ1 + φ2 ) − sin(φz − φ1 − φ2 ) − sin(φz + φ1 − φ2 ) + sin(φz − φ1 + φ2 )]8#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA(5)Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12793

From Eq. 5, there are seven distinct channels which contain the data related to the input
polarization parameters S0, S1, S2, and S3. These channels can be seen superimposed onto real
data from the instrument in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the data in this figure is Eq. 5
integrated over σ from 2000 cm-1 to approximately 4100 cm-1.
0.025
0.02

C0

S0
cos (φ z )2

S2Scos (φz + φ1 + φ2 ) + 3 sin (φz + φ1 + φ2 )
8
8

S2
S
cos (φz − φ1 − φ2 ) − 3 sin (φ z − φ1 − φ2 )
8
8

0.015
0.01

Intensity

0.005
0

C1

-0.005

C2

C3

-0.01
-0.015S1
cos (φz + φ2 )4

-0.02
-0.025

-1.5

−

S2
S
cos (φ z − φ1 + φ2 ) + 3 sin (φz − φ1 + φ2 )
8
8

-1

-0.5

−

S2
S
cos (φ z + φ1 − φ2 ) − 3 sin (φ z + φ1 − φ2 )880
OPD (mm)

0.5

S1
cos (φ z − φ2 )
4

1

1.5

Fig. 2. The 7 channels in the interferogram are separated in OPD space by the retardances φ1
and φ2. Shown is a real channeled interferogram with the functional forms of each channel
listed, along with the relative channel widths indicated by the boxes. Spacing between eachchannel is for a 2:1 thickness ratio (d2:d1) using our setup, which will be described in §4.

Demodulation of the spectral Stokes vectors can now be performed by filtering thedesired channels, followed by a Fourier transformation. Performing this on channels C0, C2,
and C3 per Fig. 2 yields,
1
2

(6)

F ( C2 ) = S1 (σ ) exp ( − jφ2 )(7)

1( S2 (σ ) − jS3 (σ ) ) exp ( − jφ1 ) exp ( − jφ2 )8(8)

F ( C0 ) = S0 (σ )14F ( C3 ) =Hence, by measuring a known state of polarization (SOP), the modulating phase factors in C2
and C3 can be calibrated out and the unknown values reconstructed. This model shows that wecan perform reconstructions directly from the interferogram, which is two steps closer to thereconstruction than if we were using a diffraction grating. Here, the interferometer eliminatesa wavelength to wave-number interpolation (when using a fast Fourier transform) in addition
to an inverse Fourier transform to convert the spectrum from frequency space into the time
domain.
3. Reference beam calibration
A method for calibration of the channeled spectropolarimeter is known as the “reference beam
calibration technique” [5]. In this form of calibration, the phase factors exp ( − jφ1 ) andexp ( − jφ2 ) found in channels C2 and C3 are measured by use of a known input SOP. These“reference data” are then divided by the unknown sample data per Eq. 9 through Eq. 13
below,#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

S0, reference (σ ) = F ( C0,reference,22.5° )(9)S0, sample (σ ) = F ( C0, sample )(10)

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12794

⎡S1, sample (σ ) = ℑ ⎢⎢⎣S0, reference ⎤F ( C3, sample )S0, reference ⎤

(11)

⎥

F ( C2, reference ,22.5° ) S0, sample ⎥⎦⎡S2, sample (σ ) = ℜ ⎢

⎢F
⎣

⎡

S3, sample (σ ) = ℑ ⎢F ( C2, sample )

⎢F
⎣

⎥
⎥
⎦

(C

)S

F ( C3, sample )S0, reference ⎤3, reference ,22.5°(C3, reference ,22.5°)S0, sample

0, sample

(12)

⎥
⎥
⎦

(13)

In most cases, reference data collected with a linear polarizer oriented at 22.5° is
sufficient for the reference data set. However, this is not sufficient if dichroism in the retarders
is present, as will be described in §6. It should be noted that this method was chosen over the
more sophisticated self-calibration technique since our retarders are not setup appropriately(in a compact enclosure and in contact) to make the necessary assumption that both retarders
experience identical environmental changes. Additionally, the dichroism in the retarders also
complicates the self-calibration technique by modulating S2 and S3 directly into one of thechannels (for a 2:1 ratio). This is also highlighted in §6.
4. Experimental setup
The FTS equipment that is used for our experiments is an Oriel MIR8000 with an 80026 MCT
detector and 80007 Silicon Carbide source. The crystal retarders are made from YVO4 and are
AR coated for 4 μm. The thickness ratio used is 2:1 for d2:d1 where d2 = 4 mm and d1 = 2 mm.
The experimental setup can be seen in Fig. 3; it consists of a wire-grid generating polarizer(G) to allow known SOP input for calibration and sample data measurements. This is followedby the two retarders (R1 and R2), wire-grid analyzer (A), and finally the FTS.
The use of the linear polarizer as a target in this instance enables the collection of wellknown and stable reference data and input states. However, this generator lacks the ability to
produce nonzero S3. It is already well established that the system configuration canreconstruct this component [2]. Instead, this paper will use the fact that S3 is zero to examine
phase errors due to the interferometer’s mechanical instabilities, which is described in §7.
For all of the experiments, data were averaged over 128 consecutive interferograms andobtained for the generating polarizer at orientations ranging from 0° to 180° in 10°
increments. Reference data were acquired after each measurement so that thermal effects
would not obscure the error analysis. Thermal calibration drift is described in detail in Ref. [5]and correction algorithms exist if certain assumptions about the system setup can be made.
80026 Detector(MCT)

2:1 Beam Reducer(3-5 μm)
80007
Source

2 mm

G

R1

θ

0°

MIR 8000 FTS

4 mm

A

R2

s
f

s

f
45°

0°

Fig. 3. The experimental setup consists of the MWIR source, generating polarizer G, the tworetarders R1 and R2, the Analyzer A, and the FTS with the MCT detector.

#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12795

5. Experimental results
Using the above model for our reconstructions, we obtained experimental data for thegenerated state of polarization (SOP) at various rotation angles of the generating polarizer (θin Fig. 3). In this case, all reconstructions were performed with double-sided interferograms
that have been phase-corrected so that they are symmetric using the square-root phasecorrection technique [6]. The data obtained as a function of polarizer rotation angle andwavelength, portrayed in contour plots, can be seen below in Fig. 4 along with its error in Fig.
5. Here we note that the contours of the data in Fig. 4 should ideally consist of straight lines
for S1 and S2. Furthermore, if one wavelength is chosen and the Stokes vector visualized as afunction of rotation angle, S1 should appear cosinusoidal and S2 should appear sinusoidal.
S /S
1

S /S

0

2

180

1

S /S

0

3

1

0

1

0

0
-0.2

0.02

-0.4
0.8

160

0.8

-0.6

0.6

-0.8
0.4

140

-1
-1

0

Polarizer angle (degrees)

-0.02

0.2
-1

-0.2

0.6

-0.02
-0.04

-0.02
-0.04

-1

0.4

-0.4

120

-0.8

-0.6

-0.04

0.2

-0.6

-0.8

100

-0.4
-0.2
-1

0

80

0.2

0
-0.6

40

0.02

0.04
1

1

-0.4

1

0

0.2

-0.2

0.8

0

-0.2

0

0.02

0.02

0.6

-0.4

0.02

0.02

0.4

-0.8

60

0

-0.02

1

0.02

-0.6

0.4
0.6

20

0.8

0

0.8

0.02

0.6

0.04

0.4

-0.02

-0.8

0.02

0.2

0

3

3.5

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

0

5

0

3

3.5

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

3

3.5

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

-1

Fig. 4. Contour plots of the initial reconstruction results for the normalized Stokes parameters
S1, S2, and S3 using the model per §2 with channels C0, C2, and C3. The spectral resolution isapproximately 72 cm-1.
S Percent Error

S Percent Error

1

2

180

70

4
4

2

2

2
4

160
2

15
2

Polarizer angle (degrees)

2
4

120

2

4
2

4
2

30

2

60

4

50

2

140 4 4

30

30 30
15
2

50

2

15

50

2

4

15
30

100

2

4

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

60
40

50

2

30
4

2

30
15

2

0

0

0

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

4
4
2

4

3.5

4

20
4

20

3

30

4
2

15

2

2

3

4

30
4

0

4

40

4

2

2

15 30

2

2

2

0

15
4
30
15
4 24

15

15

2

80 42 4

4

4

4 2

2

3.5

15
30

4
Wavelength (μm)

10

2
4
2

2

4.5

5

0

Fig. 5. Contour plots of the percent error in the reconstruction for S1 and S2. The relative
percent error is undefined for S2 at 0°, 90°, and 180°. Therefore it has been set to zero for thesevalues.

As can be noted from the reconstruction results, there are several abnormalities in thedata. The first corresponds to an expected aliasing anomaly located at 4.28 μm from the sharp
CO2 absorption line, which can always be reduced by nitrogen purging the instrument’s air
path if required. Other problems with the data occurs around 4 μm and 4.8 μm that are due toabsorption features in the YVO4 crystal (e.g. dichroism) that is not accounted for by the initialmodel. To see how the error can be explained by the dichroism, a transmission plot for our 2
mm thick YVO4 retarder for the fast and slow axes, as well as the transmission difference, canbe seen in Fig. 6. The error observed in S1 follows the dichroism very closely, indicating that
it is related to the observed phenomena in the reconstructed data.

#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12796

Fast and slow axis transmission percentages

Percent difference between the fast and slow axis transmissions

100

40

95

35

AR Coated
Non AR Coated7030

S 1 Error at 40°

60

80
75
70
Fast-Axis (AR)Fast-Axis (No AR)
Slow-Axis (AR)Slow-Axis (No AR)

65
60
55

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8
4
4.2
Wavelength (μm)

4.4

4.6

4.8

25

50

20

40

15

30

10

20

5

10

0

0

-5

-10

-10

5

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8
4
4.2
Wavelength (μm)

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

-20

S 1 Error (Percent)85

Percent Difference

Percent Transmission

90

80

3

Fig. 6. (Left) Percent transmission of the AR coated 2 mm retarder and a 0.73 mm non-AR
coated YVO4 retarder. The absorption feature is present in both. (Right) Percent difference
between the fast and slow axis transmission for the AR coated and non-AR coated samples, aswell as a scaled overlay of the S1 error at 40° to visualize how well its features correspond to
the dichroism.

6. Improved model
The model described in §2 works well for crystal materials such as calcite and quartz in thevisible spectrum. However, when experiments are carried out in the infrared, dichroism cancontribute significant error to the reconstructions. This is an issue since it creates polarization
leakage between the Stokes parameters. To investigate this more closely, an improved model
was produced by placing theoretical diattenuators behind both retarders per Fig. 7 below.

Fig. 7. Improved system model layout. Partial polarizers P1 and P2 with transmission
attenuation coefficients Tx1, Tx2, Ty1, and Ty2 have been included to simulate the effects of thevarying transmission on the reconstructed results.

It should be noted that the position of the diattenuators in the system, either before or after theretarders, is of no consequence on-axis since the dichroism is aligned to the eigenvectors of
the crystal. Using Muller calculus leads us to Eq. 14 below [7].

(

)(

)

(

)

(

)(

)

(

)

⎡ S0 ⎛ 1⎤⎞
Tx1 + Ty1 Tx 2 + Ty 2 + Tx 2Ty 2 Tx1 − Ty1 cos(φ2 ) ⎟ +
⎜
⎢
⎥
4 ⎝2
⎠
⎢
⎥
⎢ S1 ⎛ 1⎥⎞
Tx1 − Ty1 Tx 2 + Ty 2 + Tx 2Ty 2 Tx1 + Ty1 cos(φ2 ) ⎟ +⎢ ⎜⎥(1 + cos(φx )) ⎢ 4 ⎝ 2⎠⎥I (σ ) ∝⎢ S2 ⎛ 12⎞ ⎥Tx1Ty1 Tx 2 − Ty 2 cos(φ1 ) + Tx1Ty1Tx 2Ty 2 sin(φ1 )sin(φ2 ) ⎟ + ⎥⎢⎜⎠ ⎥⎢ 2 ⎝2⎢S ⎛ 1⎞ ⎥3
Tx1Ty1 Tx 2 − Ty 2 sin(φ1 ) − Tx1Ty1Tx 2Ty 2 cos(φ1 )sin(φ2 ) ⎟ ⎥⎢⎜⎠ ⎦⎣ 2 ⎝2

(

)

(

)

(14)

Analysis of this equation yields three key results:#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12797

1.

2.

3.

The S0 and S1 components are mixing between each other in spectral locations where
there are differences between Tx1 and Ty1, as can be seen from the difference terms in
the first and second lines.
Portions of S2 and S3 are directly modulated by φ1, and consequently their energy
appears as an additional modulation in the C1 channel (see Fig. 3). This complicatesthe channel’s ability to reconstruct data accurately. Here we note that in a 1:3 ratio
design (d2:d1), these data would appear in an empty channel, meaning all channels
still remain usable. It would also preserve the self-calibration technique outlined by
Oka without requiring further calibration steps.
S2 and S3 can be reconstructed and calibrated in the traditional sense if one uses
channel C3 or its conjugate (e.g. (φ1 + φ2) or –(φ1 + φ2)). However, error will still bepresent in the reconstruction of these channels due to the normalization of S2 and S3
to S0. This is due to mixing between S1 and S0 when S1 is nonzero.

Therefore it can be presumed that error due to the dichroism can be compensated for if one
knows Tx1, Ty1, Tx2, and Ty2, information which can be extracted from the data in Fig. 6.
6.1 Improved calibration procedure
The modified calibration procedure that will be described here requires measuring thetransmission of the fast and slow axes of the first retarder (R1), in addition to collecting
reference data with a linear polarizer at 0° and 45°. If we start by taking the sample data for S0
and S1, along with the reference spectra taken at 0°, we have,S0, sample (σ ) = F ( C0, sample ) = ( S0γ + S1ε )F ( C2,sample ) F ( C0,reference,0° ) ⎤ S0ε + S1γ⎥=⎢ F ( C2, reference ,0° ) F ( C⎥
S0 γ + S1ε)0, sample
⎣
⎦

(15)

⎡

S1, sample (σ ) = ℜ ⎢(16)

Here, Eq. (14) has allowed us to write out the analytical form of the calibrated channels withthe absorption terms, where γ = Tx1 + Ty1 and ε = Tx1 − Ty1 . We now wish to extract the original
input, S1 and S0. Solving for these terms yields,
S0 = S0, sample

S1 = S0, sample

ε S1, sample − γ(ε − γ )22ε − γ S1, sample(ε − γ )
2

2

(17)

(18)

Note that the above S1 is un-normalized. The final normalized output is then,S1, corrected =

S1
S0

(19)

We now have a corrected measurement for S1. Since S2 and S3 don’t suffer additional error
from the dichroism (as long as channel C3 is used for reconstruction in a 2:1 ratio system)
except from the normalization to S0, we only need to correct the S0 that’s seen in the S2 and S3
reference data. This is where the 45° reference data is used since S1 is zero for this input,
meaning that the S0 component has the form,#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12798

S0, reference (σ ) = F ( C0, reference ,45° ) = S 0′γ(20)

where the prime is used to indicate that this is not the same S0 as in Eq. (17). Now, we only
have to divide by γ to correct S2 and S3,⎡

S2,corrected = ℜ ⎢⎢F⎣F ( C3, sample ) S0, reference (σ ) ⎤ 1(C3, reference ,45°)

S 0 (σ )⎥⎥γ⎦

F ( C3, sample ) S0, reference (σ ) ⎤ 1⎡

S3, corrected = ℑ ⎢

(C

⎢F
⎣

3, reference ,45°)

S 0 (σ )

⎥
⎥γ
⎦

(21)

(22)

Hence the Stokes vectors S1, S2, and S3 can have the dichroic contribution from the retarders
fully corrected with this method.
7. Interferometer instability
An explanation as to why data are present in the S3 reconstruction, peaking on the order of 4%
when it should be closer to zero, is likely due to mechanical instabilities in the interferometer.
Here, two forms of interferometer instability will be analyzed, namely displacement of thecenter-burst from zero OPD and unevenly spaced sampling of the interferogram.
7.1 Displaced center-burst
If the center burst location of the interferogram differs between the reference and sample databy some OPD Δz, then the reconstructed spectra will suffer a phase change of Δφ = 2πΔz λ .
This term will appear in the Fourier transform as an additional exponential phase factor,
which will cause the real and imaginary components of the reconstruction to alias. Ourreference and sample data Fourier transforms becomeF ( C2,reference ) = S1 (σ ) exp ( − jφ2 (σ ) )1
4F ( C3,reference ) =1( S2 (σ ) − jS3 (σ )) exp ( − jφ1 (σ ) ) exp ( − jφ2 (σ ) )8F ( C2,sample ) = S1 (σ ) exp ( − jφ2 (σ ) ) exp ( j Δφ )1
4

F ( C3,sample ) =1( S2 (σ ) − jS3 (σ ) ) exp ( − jφ1 (σ ) ) exp ( − jφ2 (σ ) ) exp ( jΔφ )
8

(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)

Division between the sample and reference data of channels C2 and C3 while taking the realand imaginary parts where appropriate yields⎡ℜ⎢

F ( C2, sample )

⎣⎢

⎡

ℜ⎢

F ( C3, sample )

⎣⎢
⎡

ℑ⎢
⎣⎢

F ( C3, sample )⎤= S1 (σ ) cos ( Δφ )

(27)

⎤

= S 2 (σ ) cos ( Δφ )

(28)

⎤

= S3 (σ ) sin ( Δφ )(29)

F ( C2,reference )⎥⎦⎥F ( C3, reference ) ⎥⎦⎥F ( C3,reference )⎥⎦⎥

Hence, the Stokes components S1, S2, and S3 are multiplied by a sinusoidal error term
proportional to the phase offset between the reference and sample data. Fortunately, this issue#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12799

can be resolved relatively well by phase-correcting the interferogram (for double-sided
interferograms) in the following way,W ' (σ ) = F ⎣⎡ I (σ , z ) ⎦⎤ = WR (σ ) + jWI (σ )

(30)

(

(31)

W (σ ) = W ' (σ ) = W R2 (σ ) + WI2 (σ ))12This is the square-root method alluded to earlier. Here WR(σ) and WI(σ) are the real andimaginary parts of the interferogram’s Fourier transform, respectively. Taking the absolutevalue of the spectrum will yield the magnitude spectrum |W(σ)|, which contains no phaseerrors sans small noise non-linearity’s [1]. The symmetric interferogram, I’(z), can then be
obtained by an inverse Fourier transform of the magnitude spectrum,
I ' ( z ) = F -1 ⎡⎣W (σ )⎤⎦(32)

We now have a phase-corrected interferogram that is real and symmetric. This process
will remove any phase errors associated with a displaced center-burst assuming the centerburst begins close to zero OPD [8]. It also provides an additional benefit in that phase
discrepancies between the reference and sample data caused by the temporal drift of theinterferometer (usually thermal effects) are also corrected.
7.2 Uneven interferogram sampling
It is known that rapid-scan interferometers, such as the one used for our experiments, can havesignificant errors introduced into spectra from uneven sampling of the interferogram [9]. Thisis caused by velocity jitter over the course of a scan; it typically contains both random andperiodic components. Since the channeled spectropolarimetric technique is sensitive to subpixel misregistration between the sample and reference data, it can be a significant problem
when trying to perform accurate reconstructions. Here, the misregistration occurs due to theprimary assumption in the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm: that all data are sampled
uniformly.
If we configure the FFT algorithm with an arbitrary sampling function s(z), where z is inunits of OPD, we have,
U (k) =∑ I (b ⋅ s ( z )) exp j 2Nπ bk

N / 2 −1b =− N / 2

⎛
⎜
⎝

⎞
⎟
⎠

(33)

where N is the total number of samples, I is the interferogram, and U is the FFT of I. If s(z) isa constant, we have the ideal sampling situation (e.g. s(z) = 316.4 nm, the nominal value in
our interferometer). However, if s(z) varies linearly, randomly, or otherwise, error can be
introduced into the reconstructed spectrum. Such error usually manifests itself as a form ofaliasing and affects data at higher frequencies more than lower [10]. For instance, real spectral
data from our FTS using two consecutive measurements yields the two magnitude spectra in
Fig. 8.
As can be seen, the modulations in the dashed line are severely attenuated and distorted
compared to the solid line. It must be emphasized here that such low-visibility spectral
measurements from our instrument are rare; however they can occur during the course of data
averaging hundreds of interferograms.

#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12800

Spectra of Two Consecutive Measurements, 3.5-3.7 μm

7

7

6

6
Magnitude (Arb Units)

Magnitude (Arb Units)

Spectra of Two Consecutive Measurements, 3-5 μm

5
4
3

5
4
3

2

2

1

1

0

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8
4
4.2
Wavelength (μm)

4.4

4.6

4.8

0
3.5

5

Correct Modulation
Uneven Modulation

3.52

3.54

3.56

3.58
3.6
3.62
Wavelength (μm)

3.64

3.66

3.68

3.7

Fig. 8. Two consecutive spectral measurements taken with our FTS of a linear polarizer at
22.5°. The solid (blue) line indicates a relatively evenly sampled interferogram, whereas thedashed (green) line is indicative of uneven sampling occurring.

7.3 Correction of nonuniformally sampled interferograms
Although it can not be tested experimentally with our current interferometer, it is envisionedthat the best way to correct the remaining error due to nonuniform sampling in the data is touse a Nonuniform Fast Fourier Transform (NuFFT) or a spline-interpolation algorithm[11,12]. Unfortunately, this requires a priori knowledge of how the interferogram has beensampled in order for the algorithm to convert it to a uniformly sampled dataset. But we caninvestigate the algorithm’s effectiveness of correcting a channeled interferogram’s
nonuniform sampling in simulation. Here, we chose to investigate the NuFFT algorithm.
Using an arbitrary sampling function defined as
⎡

⎛

⎣

⎝

bs ( z ) = 316.4 ×10−9 ⎢b − 10 ⎜ 1 −4b 2 ⎞ ⎤NN≤ b ≤ −1⎟⎥ , −
22
N 2 ⎠⎦(34)

and defining the error as the difference between the ideal sampling, bs ( z ) = 316.4 × 10−9 b andEq. (34) gives,
⎡

⎛

⎣

⎝

ε = 316.4 × 10−9 ⎢10 ⎜ 1 −4b 2 ⎞ ⎤NN≤ b ≤ −1⎟⎥ , −
N 2 ⎠⎦
2
2(35)This yields the quadratic sampling error versus sample index (b) seen in Fig. 9. Here it can beseen that the error is large with a peak of 3.16 μm (10 pixels) at the center of theinterferogram.
Quadratic OPD Sampling Error0

Sampling Error (μm)

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3
-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000
0
1000
Sample Index (b)

2000

3000

4000

5000

Fig. 9. Quadratic sampling error used for the simulated
nonuniformally sampled interferogram.

#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12801

Simulating the interferometer with the same input spectrum as our experimental setup yields
the following output results per Fig. 10.
Ideal and FFT Uncorrected Spectra

Ideal and NuFFT Corrected Spectra

1

1
Ideal
FFT

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8
4
4.2
Wavelength (μm)

4.4

4.6

4.8

Ideal
NuFFT

0.9

Magnitude (Arb Units)

Magnitude (Arb Units)

0.9

5

0

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8
4
4.2
Wavelength (μm)

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

Fig. 10. Ideal channeled spectra and the spectra reconstructed after nonuniform sampling with(left) the normal FFT (which assumes uniform spacing) and (right) the NuFFT (setup with anover-sampling factor of m = 2 and q = 8).

The spectral reconstruction done with the NuFFT is superior to that of the FFT.
Comparison between the NuFFT and the ideal spectra in a Stokes vector reconstruction yields
a maximum error of approximately 1.6% in S1 from channel C2, 0.4% in S23 from channel C1
and 3.6% in S23 from channel C3. This confirms that the higher frequency data, as is seen in
the outermost channel, is affected the most by the nonuniform sampling. It also emphasizes
the algorithm’s ability to compensate for the nonuniform sampling given a channeledspectrum.
7.4 Further phase calibration
All of the aforementioned issues play a roll in the errors contributed to the reconstruction.
These phenomena typically manifest themselves as errors in the phase between the reference
and sample data consisting of a small linear term plus some constant offset. To illustrate thiseffect, the residual phase from the 0° S1 reconstruction (before taking the real part of theFourier transform) is shown in Fig. 11.
Residual Phase in the S 1 Reconstruction for 0° Linear Polarization
0.024
0.023
0.022

Phase (rad)

0.021
0.02
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8
4
4.2
Wavelength (μm)

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

Fig. 11. Residual phase in the S1 reconstruction. It consists of alinear term in addition to a constant offset.

Such error causes some of the information about the Stokes vectors to be lost (in the case of
S1) or aliased (in the case of S2 and S3) when the real or imaginary parts are extracted.
In order to alleviate the residual phase error, it was initially assumed that the function in
Fig. 11 could be approximated by a static translation in phase between the reference andsample channels. Additionally, we are making the assumption that the temperature change of#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12802

the retarders is negligible between sample and reference data, such that most of the phaseerror is due to the mechanical instabilities of the instrument. The static phase error can bemodeled using the formulas of §6.1. The goal is to approximate this phase difference (Δφ)
using only the reference and sample data provided. Beginning by dividing Eq. (25) by (23)and (26) by (24) yields,

F ( C2, sample )F ( C3,sample )F ( C3,reference ,45° )= S1 (σ ) exp ( jΔφ0° )(36)= ( S 2 (σ ) − jS3 (σ ) ) e j Δφ45° = S 23 (σ ) exp ( − jφ23 ) exp ( j Δφ45° )(37)

F ( C2,reference,0° )where the additional subscripts, 0° and 45°, indicate which set of reference data are being used
(e.g. the reference linear polarizer’s orientation). Hence, any phase error that exists between
the reference and sample data is isolated in the C2 channel for the S1 reconstruction, while it iscombined with the S23 phase in the C3 channel for the S2 and S3 reconstructions. Therefore,
any imaginary part in the S1 reconstruction can be attributed to an error resulting from amisregistration between the reference and sample data. This phase difference can beapproximated as long as there is enough signal in the S1 state during the measurement.
Fortunately, this is always true due to the dichroism of the YVO4 retarders. From Eq.
(14), we see that the dichroic contribution from S0 to S1 is largest where (Tx1 − Ty1 ) is largest.

This occurs from 3.9-4.1 μm (2577-2419 cm-1) (see Fig. 6, right). As a result, the phase offset
can be approximated by averaging the phase difference in this spectral region over wavelengthand the conjugate of this phase can be applied to the entire spectrum to correct it. Thisdichroic contribution is extremely important for the 45° S23 reference data, considering no
signal in the S1 channel is ideally present in the absence of the dichroism.
In the following equations, the < > operation indicates that the arithmetic mean has beentaken and the subscripts R and I refer to the real and imaginary parts of the output,
respectively. We first obtain for the S1 reconstruction,
S1′ (σ ) =φ0′

F ( C2,sample )⎛S(σ )atan ⎜ 1, I ,0°⎝F ( C2,reference,0° )⎞S1, R ,0° (σ ) ⎟⎠= S1, R ,0° (σ ) + jS1, I ,0° (σ )(38)

( 2419 ≤ σ ≤ 2577 cm )

(39)

−1

,

S1 (σ ) = S1′ (σ ) exp ( − jφ0′ )(40)

Similarly, for S23,
S1′ (σ ) =F ( C2, sample )F ( C2, reference,45° )′ (σ ) =S23⎛S

φ45′ = atan ⎜ 1, I ,45°⎝

(σ )F ( C3, sample )⎞S1, R ,45° (σ ) ⎟⎠= S1, R ,45° (σ ) + jS1, I ,45° (σ )(42)

F ( C3,reference,45° ),( 2419 ≤ σ ≤ 2577 cm )′ (σ ) exp ( − jφ45
′ )S 23 (σ ) = S 23

(41)

−1

(43)
(44)

This method works in general in the laboratory, although care in selecting the lower limit on σ
in Eq. (39) and (43) must be taken to avoid the CO2 absorption line for larger air paths (ours is#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12803

~1 m). This is important since the peak dichroic region of the YVO4 is close to the CO2
absorption band.
8. Results with improved calibration
Using the improved model to calibrate the system reveals a marked improvement in thereconstruction. The new reconstruction can be seen in Fig. 12 along with its error in Fig. 13.
S /S
1

S /S

0

2

180

1

S /S

0

3

1

0

1

0

0

-0.2

-0.4
0.8

160

-0.6

0.6

0.8

0.02

-0.8
-0.02

0.4

Polarizer angle (degrees)

140

0.2
0

-1-1

-0.2

0.02

-0.4

120

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.02

100

-0.02

0.2

-0.4

-0.2

-0.02

-1
0.2

80

0

-0.2

0.6

-0.6

60

0.8

0

-0.4
-0.2

-0.4

1
0

40

1

0.2

0

0.02

0.4

0

0.6
0.2
0

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

3

3.5

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

0

0.02

-0.02

0.4

3.5

-0.6

0.02

0.8

0.6
0.8

3

0

0

0.4
-0.8

0

0.4

-0.02

-0.6

-0.8

20

0.6

-0.02

-1

3

3.5

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

-0.8
-1

Fig. 12. Contour plots of the reconstruction results for the normalized Stokes parameters S1, S2,
and S3 using the improved model per. §6 and §7.4. The spectral resolution is approximately 72
cm-1.
S Percent Error

S Percent Error

1

2

180

70
2

4
4

160

2

2

2

2
2

2

2

2

2

4

60
4

Polarizer angle (degrees)

140 42 2
4
2

120

2

2
2

2

2

2
2

2

2

4

2

50

2

4

4

100

4

4

40

4

4

2

2

2

80 2 4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

2

4

30

2 2

4

60
4

24
2

40

24

4
4

4
4

4

2

4

4

20

2

4
4

4

10

20

4
44

0

3

3.5

4
Wavelength (μm)

4.5

5

3

4

4

2

3.5

2

2
2

2
2 4 4

4
Wavelength (μm)

4
2

4
2

4.5

5

0

Fig. 13. Contour plots of the percent error in the improved reconstructions. Large error is stillpresent near the CO2 absorption line.

The abnormalities in the data around 4 μm and 4.8 μm are significantly diminished, reducing
the error around the crystal’s dichroic regions by nearly 20 times. Additionally, the S3
reconstruction is improved by use of the modified calibration (§7.4). For these measurements,
positioning error of the generating polarizer (+/- 0.10°) is expected to account for negligible
error (< 0.01%) when S1 or S2 are at their maxima and 2% when at their minima.
9. Conclusion
From the above analysis and experimentation in the laboratory, it is apparent that there areseveral issues when operating a channeled spectropolarimeter in the infrared which contributeto an increase in error. These include:
1.

Aliasing effects. These will always limit the maximum achievable accuracy of thistechnique. This was seen to some extent in the CO2 absorption line and can be asignificant issue if a priori knowledge of aliasing effects cannot be obtained (e.g. via
subtraction of an unpolarized reference spectrum).

#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12804

2.

Dichroism in the retarders. This phenomenon can create significant error; however
the improved calibration technique can be utilized to compensate for its effect on thereconstructions.

Other issues directly related to the use of an interferometer highlight the importance of taking
into consideration issues with the mechanical instabilities of the system. Primarily, these canbe addressed by double-sided interferogram phase correction (by using the magnitude
spectrum) and compensating in some way for the nonuniform sampling (through interpolationor the NuFFT).
Ultimately the average absolute system error outside of the CO2 absorption line, focusing
on the regions with the largest dichroism (4.4-5.0 μm and 3.7-4.1 μm) over all themeasurements was brought down from 8.72% for S1 and 2.84% for S2 to 1.07% for S1 and1.06% for S2. Additionally, the average absolute error of S3 was brought down from 2.2% to1.06%. Since our generating polarizer has an extinction ratio of around 100:1, this isessentially the limit of our equipment. This demonstrates that the Fourier transform
spectropolarimetric technique shows significant promise in the infrared wavelengths for
performing spectropolarimetric measurements.
Further improvements to the system that can be accomplished include moving to a 1:3
ratio between the retarder thicknesses such that all channels can be used in the reconstruction.
Another improvement would be to mount the retarders close together in a small enclosure.
These two changes would then enable the use of the self-calibration technique (or a modified
version thereof that takes into account the dichroism), which would make the systemcalibration relatively insensitive to temperature changes in the retarders.

#83298 - $15.00 USD(C) 2007 OSA

Received 22 May 2007; revised 13 Sep 2007; accepted 14 Sep 2007; published 21 Sep 2007

1 October 2007 / Vol. 15, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 12805