Stephen J. Cotton

Symmetrical Windowing for Quantum States in Quasi-Classical Trajectory Simulations

A microscopically reversible approach toward computing reaction probabilities via classical trajectory simulation has been developed that bins trajectories symmetrically on the basis of their initial and final classical actions. The symmetrical quasi-classical (SQC) approach involves defining a classical action window function centered at integer quantum values of the action, choosing a width parameter that is less than unit quantum width, and applying the window function to both initial reactant and final product vibrational states. Calculations were performed using flat histogram windows and Gaussian windows over a range of width parameters. Use of the Wigner distribution function was also investigated as a possible choice. It was demonstrated for collinear H + H2 reactive scattering on the BKMP2 potential energy surface that reaction probabilities computed via the SQC methodology using a Gaussian window function of 1/2 unit width produces good agreement with quantum mechanical results over the 0.4-0.6 eV energy range relevant to the ground vibrational state to the ground vibrational state reactive transition.

Symmetrical windowing for quantum states in quasi-classical trajectory simulations: Application to electronically non-adiabatic processes

A recently described symmetrical windowing methodology [S. J. Cotton and W. H. Miller, J. Phys. Chem. A 117, 7190 (2013)] for quasi-classical trajectory simulations is applied here to the Meyer-Miller [H.-D. Meyer and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 70, 3214 (1979)] model for the electronic degrees of freedom in electronically non-adiabatic dynamics. Results generated using this classical approach are observed to be in very good agreement with accurate quantum mechanical results for a variety of test applications, including problems where coherence effects are significant such as the challenging asymmetric spin-boson system.

Communication: Wigner functions in action-angle variables, Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization, the Heisenberg correspondence principle, and a symmetrical quasi-classical approach to the full electronic density matrix.

It is pointed out that the classical phase space distribution in action-angle (a-a) variables obtained from a Wigner function depends on how the calculation is carried out: if one computes the standard Wigner function in Cartesian variables (p, x), and then replaces p and x by their expressions in terms of a-a variables, one obtains a different result than if the Wigner function is computed directly in terms of the a-a variables. Furthermore, the latter procedure gives a result more consistent with classical and semiclassical theory-e.g., by incorporating the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition (quantum states defined by integer values of the action variable) as well as the Heisenberg correspondence principle for matrix elements of an operator between such states-and has also been shown to be more accurate when applied to electronically non-adiabatic applications as implemented within the recently developed symmetrical quasi-classical (SQC) Meyer-Miller (MM) approach. Moreover, use of the Wigner function (obtained directly) in a-a variables shows how our standard SQC/MM approach can be used to obtain off-diagonal elements of the electronic density matrix by processing in a different way the same set of trajectories already used (in the SQC/MM methodology) to obtain the diagonal elements.

On the adiabatic representation of Meyer-Miller electronic-nuclear dynamics

The Meyer-Miller (MM) classical vibronic (electronic + nuclear) Hamiltonian for electronically non-adiabatic dynamics-as used, for example, with the recently developed symmetrical quasiclassical (SQC) windowing model-can be written in either a diabatic or an adiabatic representation of the electronic degrees of freedom, the two being a canonical transformation of each other, thus giving the same dynamics. Although most recent applications of this SQC/MM approach have been carried out in the diabatic representation-because most of the benchmark model problems that have exact quantum results available for comparison are typically defined in a diabatic representation-it will typically be much more convenient to work in the adiabatic representation, e.g., when using Born-Oppenheimer potential energy surfaces (PESs) and derivative couplings that come from electronic structure calculations. The canonical equations of motion (EOMs) (i.e., Hamiltons equations) that come from the adiabatic MM Hamiltonian, however, in addition to the common first-derivative couplings, also involve second-derivative non-adiabatic coupling terms (as does the quantum Schrödinger equation), and the latter are considerably more difficult to calculate. This paper thus revisits the adiabatic version of the MM Hamiltonian and describes a modification of the classical adiabatic EOMs that are entirely equivalent to Hamiltons equations but that do not involve the second-derivative couplings. The second-derivative coupling terms have not been neglected; they simply do not appear in these modified adiabatic EOMs. This means that SQC/MM calculations can be carried out in the adiabatic representation, without approximation, needing only the PESs and the first-derivative coupling elements. The results of example SQC/MM calculations are presented, which illustrate this point, and also the fact that simply neglecting the second-derivative couplings in Hamiltons equations (and presumably also in the Schrödinger equation) can cause very significant errors.