Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States.
Laboratory of Physical Chemistry, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.
J Chem Theory Comput. 2020 May 12;16(5):2883-2895. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01267. Epub 2020 Apr 14.
Quasi-classical mapping Hamiltonian methods have recently emerged as a promising approach for simulating electronically nonadiabatic molecular dynamics. The classical-like dynamics of the overall system within these methods makes them computationally feasible, and they can be derived based on well-defined semiclassical approximations. However, the existence of a variety of different quasi-classical mapping Hamiltonian methods necessitates a systematic comparison of their respective advantages and limitations. Such a benchmark comparison is presented in this paper. The approaches compared include the Ehrenfest method, the symmetrical quasi-classical (SQC) method, and five variations of the linearized semiclassical (LSC) method, three of which employ a modified identity operator. The comparison is based on a number of popular nonadiabatic model systems; the spin-boson model, a Frenkel biexciton model, and Tully's scattering models 1 and 2. The relative accuracy of the different methods is tested by comparing with quantum-mechanically exact results for the dynamics of the electronic populations and coherences. We find that LSC with the modified identity operator typically performs better than the Ehrenfest and standard LSC approaches. In comparison to SQC, these modified methods appear to be slightly more accurate for condensed phase problems, but for scattering models there is little distinction between them.
准经典映射哈密顿方法最近作为一种模拟电子非绝热分子动力学的有前途的方法出现。这些方法中整体系统的类经典动力学使得它们在计算上可行,并且可以基于明确定义的半经典近似来推导。然而,由于存在各种不同的准经典映射哈密顿方法,因此需要对它们各自的优点和局限性进行系统比较。本文提出了这样的基准比较。所比较的方法包括 Ehrenfest 方法、对称准经典 (SQC) 方法以及线性化半经典 (LSC) 方法的五种变体,其中三种方法使用了修改后的恒等算子。比较基于许多流行的非绝热模型系统;自旋玻色子模型、Frenkel 双激子模型和 Tully 的散射模型 1 和 2。通过将电子群体和相干性的动力学的量子力学精确结果与不同方法的相对精度进行比较来测试。我们发现,带有修改后的恒等算子的 LSC 通常比 Ehrenfest 和标准 LSC 方法表现更好。与 SQC 相比,这些改进的方法对于凝聚相问题似乎更准确,但对于散射模型,它们之间几乎没有区别。