 to recent [*ab initio*]{} calculations [@PhysRevLett.105.266806], the averaged degree of spin polarization of the TSSs, $$P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}=\left|
\left<\psi(n,{\bf k})\right|{\bf s}\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>
\right|\,,
\label{eq:Pave}$$ where $\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ is the two-component spinor wavefunction, is roughly 50%. Because $\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ is not an eigenstate of a spin operator $\hat{t}\cdot{\bf s}$ for any $\hat{t}$, the degree of spin polarization for the TSSs had to be defined as an averaged quantity. On the contrary, the degree of spin polarization of the photoelectrons $P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] is 100% and that is so even if we take into account the imaginary part of the self energies of the involved electronic states because the detector probes the spin character (of the photoexcited states) at ${\bf R}_D$ instead of taking its average over the entire space. If the imaginary part of the initial-state self energy is considered, the condition that “the initial electronic state is not degenerate” is naturally modified to “there are no other initial electronic states in the energy window within the width of the imaginary part of the initial-state self energy.”

This result tells us that a direct comparison between $P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] and $P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:Pave\])\] is not meaningful, and solves the apparent puzzle that the former from experiments [@PhysRevLett.106.257004; @PhysRevB.84.165113] is higher than the latter from theory ($\sim50$%) [@PhysRevLett.105.266806]. Although the predicted degree of spin polarization of the photoelectrons from the TSSs is 100%, the measured value will always be lower than this due, e.g., to spin-unpolarized background signals and finite resolution of the apparatus.

Equation (\[eq:detected\]) and our discussion based on it are not confined to topological insulators and can provide a guidance for the interpretation of any spin-resolved photoemission experiment using fully-polarized light.


to recent [ * ab initio * ] { } calculations   [ @PhysRevLett.105.266806 ], the averaged degree of tailspin polarization of the toxic shock, $ $ P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}=\left| 
 \left<\psi(n,{\bf k})\right|{\bf s}\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right > 
 \right|\, , 
 \label{eq: Pave}$$ where $ \left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ is the two - part spinor wavefunction, is roughly 50% . Because $ \left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ is not an eigenstate of a spin operator $ \hat{t}\cdot{\bf s}$ for any $ \hat{t}$, the academic degree of spin polarization for the TSSs had to be specify as an averaged quantity. On the reverse, the academic degree of spin polarization of the photoelectrons $ P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq.   (\[eq: pol\])\ ] is 100% and that is indeed even if we take into account the imaginary share of the self energies of the byzantine electronic states because the detector probe the tailspin character (of the photoexcited states) at $ { \bf R}_D$ instead of take its average over the entire space. If the fanciful part of the initial - country self energy is consider, the condition that “ the initial electronic state is not degenerate ” is naturally change to “ there are no other initial electronic states in the energy window within the width of the imaginary part of the initial - state self energy. ” 

 This result tells us that a direct comparison between $ P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq.   (\[eq: pol\])\ ] and $ P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}$ \[Eq.   (\[eq: Pave\])\ ] is not meaningful, and solves the apparent puzzle that the former from experiments   [ @PhysRevLett.106.257004; @PhysRevB.84.165113 ] is higher than the latter from theory ($ \sim50$%)   [ @PhysRevLett.105.266806 ]. Although the predict degree of spin polarization of the photoelectron from the toxic shock is 100% , the measured value will always be lower than this due, for example, to spin - unpolarized setting signals and finite resolution of the apparatus. 

 equality   (\[eq: detected\ ]) and our discussion based on it are not confined to topological insulators and can provide a guidance for the interpretation of any spin - resolved photoemission experiment using fully - polarized light.
 to recent [*ab initio*]{} calculxtions [@PhysRevLejt.105.266806], the ateraged degree uf spin polarization of the VSSs, $$P^{\rm UFS}_{\rm ave}=\left|
\left<\psk(n,{\bf k})\rigjt|{\bf s}\ledt|\psm(n,{\bf k})\right>
\right|\,,
\label{eq:Pave}$$ whsve $\leyt|\'si(n,{\bf k})\right>$ ix the two-cmmponent spinos darefunction, is roughly 50%. Because $\left|\pfi(n,{\bf k})\tihht>$ is not an gigenxeate of a spin operator $\hat{t}\cdot{\bf s}$ fkr any $\iat{t}$, the degree of spin polarization for hhe HSSs had to be deflned as an qverwted quantity. On the contrary, the dggree of spin polarization of thd phocoelectrons $P_{\em ldx}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] ms 100% anq that is so even if we takr into account thx imqginary part of the sxlf energies of the ynvolved alzctronic states becauwe the getewtor proces tie apin cjarecter (of ths photoexcired states) at ${\bf R}_D$ igwtead of takihg its aderage over the entire space. If the imacinzry part of the initial-wtate self energy is fonsidereq, the condition that “the initial electronic state is nkg dtgckeragw” ls naturally modified to “there are no other igjtoak electronic sbates in the energu aimqow within thg width of the imaginary parh of thg initual-state felf energy.”

This result tells us that a direbt cimparison between $'_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:'ol\])\] anc $P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:Pave\])\] is uot mezningful, anf solves ffe apparent puzzue nhat the former from experimenes [@PhysRevOett.106.257004; @PhysRexB.84.165113] ix highqr than thf latbar from theory ($\sim50$%) [@OhysRgvLett.105.266806]. Although hhe predicted degree of spin polarization of jhe phmtoelectxons fvom the TSSs is 100%, the measured value cill auways be lkwer then this due, q.g., to spin-unpmparized backjround sidnalw ane finitd resolution of the appagauus.

Equatiob (\[eq:detected\]) and ouv diszhssion based on it are not confinrd go eoiolpgywal insulatoss avd zsn pruvide a guibavce gor the interpretatimn or any spin-resolved pmotoemissuon expewiment using gully-polarized ligjt.


to recent [*ab initio*]{} calculations [@PhysRevLett.105.266806], the of polarization of TSSs, $$P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm \right|\,, where $\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ the two-component spinor is roughly 50%. Because $\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ not an eigenstate of a spin operator $\hat{t}\cdot{\bf s}$ for any $\hat{t}$, the of spin polarization for the TSSs had to be defined as an averaged On contrary, degree spin polarization of the photoelectrons $P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] is 100% and that is so even we take into account the imaginary part of self energies of the electronic states because the detector the character (of photoexcited at R}_D$ instead of its average over the entire space. If the imaginary part of the initial-state self energy is considered, condition that electronic state not is modified to “there other initial electronic states in the the width of the imaginary part of the self energy.” result tells us that a direct between $P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] and $P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm \[Eq. (\[eq:Pave\])\] is not meaningful, and solves the apparent puzzle that the former from experiments is higher than the from theory ($\sim50$%) Although predicted of polarization of photoelectrons from the TSSs is 100%, the measured value will always lower than this due, e.g., to spin-unpolarized background signals and of apparatus. Equation (\[eq:detected\]) our discussion based on are confined to topological insulators provide guidance of spin-resolved experiment using fully-polarized light.
 to recent [*ab initio*]{} calculatiOns [@PhysRevlett.105.266806], tHe aVerAgEd deGree Of spin polarizaTIon oF the TSSs, $$P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}=\lefT|
\left<\PsI(N,{\bf k})\RIgHt|{\bf s}\Left|\psi(N,{\Bf K})\RIghT>
\rIgHt|\,,
\lAbEL{eQ:Pave}$$ WheRe $\left|\pSi(n,{\bf k})\righT>$ is ThE two-componenT SpInor wavefuNctIon, is roughly 50%. becAuse $\leFt|\Psi(N,{\Bf k})\riGht>$ Is not An eigeNState oF a spin opeRaTOr $\hat{t}\CDot{\bf s}$ fOR AnY $\hat{T}$, the degree of spin pOLaRIzation for the TsSs had To BE dEFIneD as An averaged QuAntitY. on the coNTrARY, The DEgree of spin poLarization oF The PhotoeLeCtrONs $P_{\rm mAx}$ \[Eq. (\[eQ:pOL\])\] is 100% And that is so Even If we take iNto accOUnt the iMAginary Part of The SelF eneRGiEs Of tHe INvoLVeD elECtrOnic statEs BeCause The dETECTor pRobEs thE spin Character (of thE phOtoeXCitEd staTes) at ${\Bf R}_D$ InStead Of takiNg its AvErage over the entIre sPace. If the ImaGiNarY pArt of THe initIal-StaTe self eNergy is COnsIdERED, tHe condition that “the InITIaL electroNic staTE iS nOT degenerAtE” is NatuRALly moDifiED tO “there arE no othER iNiTial eleCtRonic sTaTes In tHe eneRGy wiNdow wiThin the wIdth oF The imaginary paRT of the initial-STaTE SeLF eneRgy.”

this result tElls US thaT a diREcT coMParisOn betWeEN $P_{\RM max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] and $P^{\rm TSs}_{\rM ave}$ \[Eq. (\[Eq:PavE\])\] is not meaningFul, and solvES THe appareNt puZZlE That the former fRom exPeriments [@PHYsRevLetT.106.257004; @PhysrevB.84.165113] is hiGher than tHE Latter frOm tHeoRy ($\sIm50$%) [@PHYSREvLett.105.266806]. AlthougH THe prEdIcted deGreE of spin PolAriZatIon Of The photoeLectrons FrOm ThE TsSs Is 100%, the MEasured vAlUe wIlL alWays bE Lower tHan thIs duE, e.G., tO SpiN-unpolaRIzED BackGrOuNd siGnaLs And fiNite REsoLution oF the apparAtuS.

equaTiOn (\[Eq:detecTed\]) and our discUsSion based oN iT arE not coNFIned to toPological insulators and cAN providE a gUidanCe foR the interPreTation Of aNY spin-rEsolveD photOeMisSIOn expERImEnt UsIng fully-poLARizEd ligHt.


 to recent [*ab initio*]{}  calculati ons [ @Ph ysR ev Lett .105 .266806], thea vera ged degree of spin pol ariza ti o n of th e TSS s, $$P^ { \r m TSS }_ {\ rmav e }= \left |
\ left<\p si(n,{\bfk}) \r ight|{\bf s} \ le ft|\psi(n, {\b f k})\right> 
\r ight|\ ,, 
\l a bel{e q:P ave}$ $ wher e  $\lef t|\psi(n, {\ b f k})\ r ight>$i s  t he t wo-component spin o rw avefunction, i s roug hl y  5 0 % . B eca use $\left |\ psi(n , {\bf k} ) \r i g h t>$ is not an eig enstate ofa  sp in ope ra tor $\hat{ t}\cd ot { \bf  s}$ for an y $\ hat{t}$,the de g ree ofs pin pol arizat ion  fo r th e  T SS s h ad tob edef i ned  as an a ve ra ged q uant i t y .  Onthe  con trary , the degreeofspin pol ariza tionof t he  phot oelect rons$P _{\rm max}$ \[E q. ( \[eq:pol\ ])\ ]is10 0% an d  thatissoeven if  we tak e  in to a c co unt the imaginarypa r t  o f the se lf ene r gi es of the i nv olv ed e l e ctron ic s t at es becau se the de te ctor pr ob es the  s pin  ch aract e r (o f thephotoexc iteds tates) at ${\b f  R}_D$ instea d  o f ta k ingits  average ov er t h e en tire sp ace .  If t he im ag i na r y part of the initi al -state  self  energy is co nsidered,t h e  conditi on t h at “the initial e lectr onic state is not d egene rate” is  naturall y modified  to  “t her e a r e  n o other initi a l  ele ct ronic s tat es in t heene rgy  wi nd ow within  the wid th  o fth e i magin a ry partof  th eini tial- s tate s elf e nerg y. ”Thi s resul t  t e l ls u sth at a  di re ct co mpar i son  betwee n $P_{\rm  ma x }$ \ [E q.  (\[eq: pol\])\] and$P ^{\rm TSS} _{ \rm  ave}$ \ [Eq. (\[ eq:Pave\])\] is not mea n ingful,  an d sol vesthe appar ent  puzzl e t h at the  forme r fro mexp e r iment s [@ Phy sR evLett.106 . 2 570 04; @ Ph ysRe vB.84.1 65113] is higher t h anthe latter fr omtheo r y  ( $\s i m5 0 $%)  [ @ Phy s R evLett.105.2668 06]. Altho ug h  t he predict e d d eg ree ofspin po lariz a tion of  the phot oelectron sfrom t heTSSs is 10 0%, themeasuredv aluew il l alw ays  be lo we r t han t his du e , e .g.,to spi n- unpola rized  b ackgroun d signals and finite re soluti on of  th e apparat us. 
Eq uation (\ [eq: detected\] ) a ndour d isc u ssion  bas e doni t are  not confinedt otop o l og ical insula t o r s a nd ca n p r ovidea gu idance for the in t erpretation of  any s pin -re s olve dphotoemissionexp er i m ent usin gfully-polar ized lig ht . 


 to_recent [*ab_initio*]{} calculations [@PhysRevLett.105.266806], the averaged_degree of_spin_polarization of_the_TSSs, $$P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm_ave}=\left|
\left<\psi(n,{\bf k})\right|{\bf s}\left|\psi(n,{\bf_k})\right>
\right|\,,
\label{eq:Pave}$$ where $\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$_is the two-component_spinor_wavefunction, is roughly 50%. Because $\left|\psi(n,{\bf k})\right>$ is not an eigenstate of a spin_operator_$\hat{t}\cdot{\bf s}$_for_any_$\hat{t}$, the degree of spin_polarization for the TSSs had_to be_defined as an averaged quantity. On the contrary,_the_degree of spin_polarization of the photoelectrons $P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\] is 100%_and that is so even if_we take into_account_the_imaginary part of the_self energies of the involved electronic_states because the detector probes the_spin character (of the photoexcited states) at_${\bf R}_D$ instead of taking its_average over the entire space._If the_imaginary part of the initial-state_self energy is_considered, the_condition that “the_initial electronic state is not degenerate”_is naturally modified_to “there are no other initial_electronic_states in the_energy_window_within the_width of the_imaginary_part of_the_initial-state self energy.”

This result tells us_that_a direct comparison between $P_{\rm max}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:pol\])\]_and $P^{\rm TSS}_{\rm ave}$_\[Eq. (\[eq:Pave\])\]_is not meaningful, and_solves the apparent puzzle that_the former from experiments [@PhysRevLett.106.257004; @PhysRevB.84.165113] is_higher than_the latter_from theory ($\sim50$%) [@PhysRevLett.105.266806]. Although the predicted degree of spin polarization of_the photoelectrons from the TSSs is_100%, the measured value_will always_be_lower than this_due,_e.g., to_spin-unpolarized background signals and finite resolution of_the apparatus.

Equation (\[eq:detected\])_and our discussion based on it_are not confined to_topological_insulators and can provide a guidance_for the interpretation of any spin-resolved_photoemission experiment using fully-polarized light.

