Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?

A common strategy to simulate mixed quantum-classical dynamics is by propagating classical trajectories with mapping variables, often using the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss (MMST) Hamiltonian or the related spin-mapping approach. When mapping the quantum subsystem, the coupled dynamics reduce to a set o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of chemical theory and computation 2023-09, Vol.19 (18), p.6109-6125
Hauptverfasser: Cook, Lauren E., Runeson, Johan E., Richardson, Jeremy O., Hele, Timothy J. H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A common strategy to simulate mixed quantum-classical dynamics is by propagating classical trajectories with mapping variables, often using the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss (MMST) Hamiltonian or the related spin-mapping approach. When mapping the quantum subsystem, the coupled dynamics reduce to a set of equations of motion to integrate. Several numerical algorithms have been proposed, but a thorough performance comparison appears to be lacking. Here, we compare three time-propagation algorithms for the MMST Hamiltonian: the Momentum Integral (MInt) (J. Chem. Phys., 2018, 148, 102326), the Split-Liouvillian (SL) (Chem. Phys., 2017, 482, 124–134), and the algorithm in J. Chem. Phys., 2012, 136, 084101 that we refer to as the Degenerate Eigenvalue (DE) algorithm due to the approximation required during derivation. We analyze the accuracy of individual trajectories, correlation functions, energy conservation, symplecticity, Liouville’s theorem, and the computational cost. We find that the MInt algorithm is the only rigorously symplectic algorithm. However, comparable accuracy at a lower computational cost can be obtained with the SL algorithm. The approximation implicitly made within the DE algorithm conserves energy poorly, even for small timesteps, and thus leads to slightly different results. These results should guide future mapping-variable simulations.
ISSN:1549-9618
1549-9626
1549-9626
DOI:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00709