Cargando…

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

[Image: see text] 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cook, Lauren E., Runeson, Johan E., Richardson, Jeremy O., Hele, Timothy J. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2023
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10536990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37704193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00709
_version_ 1785112998183960576
author Cook, Lauren E.
Runeson, Johan E.
Richardson, Jeremy O.
Hele, Timothy J. H.
author_facet Cook, Lauren E.
Runeson, Johan E.
Richardson, Jeremy O.
Hele, Timothy J. H.
author_sort Cook, Lauren E.
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10536990
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105369902023-09-29 Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics? Cook, Lauren E. Runeson, Johan E. Richardson, Jeremy O. Hele, Timothy J. H. J Chem Theory Comput [Image: see text] 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. American Chemical Society 2023-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10536990/ /pubmed/37704193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00709 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Cook, Lauren E.
Runeson, Johan E.
Richardson, Jeremy O.
Hele, Timothy J. H.
Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?
title Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?
title_full Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?
title_fullStr Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?
title_full_unstemmed Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?
title_short Which Algorithm Best Propagates the Meyer–Miller–Stock–Thoss Mapping Hamiltonian for Non-Adiabatic Dynamics?
title_sort which algorithm best propagates the meyer–miller–stock–thoss mapping hamiltonian for non-adiabatic dynamics?
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10536990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37704193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00709
work_keys_str_mv AT cooklaurene whichalgorithmbestpropagatesthemeyermillerstockthossmappinghamiltonianfornonadiabaticdynamics
AT runesonjohane whichalgorithmbestpropagatesthemeyermillerstockthossmappinghamiltonianfornonadiabaticdynamics
AT richardsonjeremyo whichalgorithmbestpropagatesthemeyermillerstockthossmappinghamiltonianfornonadiabaticdynamics
AT heletimothyjh whichalgorithmbestpropagatesthemeyermillerstockthossmappinghamiltonianfornonadiabaticdynamics