Which Electronic Structure Method to Choose in Trajectory Surface Hopping Dynamics Simulations? Azomethane as a Case Study

Nonadiabatic dynamics simulations have become a standard approach to explore photochemical reactions. Such simulations require underlying potential energy surfaces and couplings between them, calculated at a chosen level of theory, yet this aspect is rarely assessed. Here, in combination with the popular trajectory surface hopping dynamics method, we use a high-accuracy XMS-CASPT2 electronic structure level as a benchmark for assessing the performances of various post-Hartree–Fock methods (namely, CIS, ADC(2), CC2, and CASSCF) and exchange–correlation functionals (PBE, PBE0, and CAM-B3LYP) in a TD-DFT/TDA context, using the isomerization around a double bond as test case. Different relaxation pathways are identified, and the ability of the different methods to reproduce their relative importance and time scale is discussed. The results show that multireference electronic structure methods should be preferred, when studying nonadiabatic decay between excited and ground states. If not affordable, TD-DFT with TDA and hybrid functionals and ADC(2) are efficient alternatives but overestimate the nonradiative decay yield and thus may miss deexcitation pathways.