Cargando…

What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm

[Image: see text] The field of nonadiabatic dynamics has matured over the last decade with a range of algorithms and electronic structure methods available at the moment. While the community currently focuses more on developing and benchmarking new nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms, the underlying el...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Janoš, Jiří, Slavíček, Petr
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2023
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37939301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00908
_version_ 1785152130654404608
author Janoš, Jiří
Slavíček, Petr
author_facet Janoš, Jiří
Slavíček, Petr
author_sort Janoš, Jiří
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] The field of nonadiabatic dynamics has matured over the last decade with a range of algorithms and electronic structure methods available at the moment. While the community currently focuses more on developing and benchmarking new nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms, the underlying electronic structure controls the outcome of nonadiabatic simulations. Yet, the electronic-structure sensitivity analysis is typically neglected. In this work, we present a sensitivity analysis of the nonadiabatic dynamics of cyclopropanone to electronic structure methods and nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms. In particular, we compare wave function-based CASSCF, FOMO-CASCI, MS- and XMS-CASPT2, density-functional REKS, and semiempirical MRCI-OM3 electronic structure methods with the Landau–Zener surface hopping, fewest switches surface hopping, and ab initio multiple spawning with informed stochastic selection algorithms. The results clearly demonstrate that the electronic structure choice significantly influences the accuracy of nonadiabatic dynamics for cyclopropanone even when the potential energy surfaces exhibit qualitative and quantitative similarities. Thus, selecting the electronic structure solely on the basis of the mapping of potential energy surfaces can be misleading. Conversely, we observe no discernible differences in the performance of the nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms across the various methods. Based on the above results, we discuss the present-day practice in computational photodynamics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10688183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106881832023-12-01 What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm Janoš, Jiří Slavíček, Petr J Chem Theory Comput [Image: see text] The field of nonadiabatic dynamics has matured over the last decade with a range of algorithms and electronic structure methods available at the moment. While the community currently focuses more on developing and benchmarking new nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms, the underlying electronic structure controls the outcome of nonadiabatic simulations. Yet, the electronic-structure sensitivity analysis is typically neglected. In this work, we present a sensitivity analysis of the nonadiabatic dynamics of cyclopropanone to electronic structure methods and nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms. In particular, we compare wave function-based CASSCF, FOMO-CASCI, MS- and XMS-CASPT2, density-functional REKS, and semiempirical MRCI-OM3 electronic structure methods with the Landau–Zener surface hopping, fewest switches surface hopping, and ab initio multiple spawning with informed stochastic selection algorithms. The results clearly demonstrate that the electronic structure choice significantly influences the accuracy of nonadiabatic dynamics for cyclopropanone even when the potential energy surfaces exhibit qualitative and quantitative similarities. Thus, selecting the electronic structure solely on the basis of the mapping of potential energy surfaces can be misleading. Conversely, we observe no discernible differences in the performance of the nonadiabatic dynamics algorithms across the various methods. Based on the above results, we discuss the present-day practice in computational photodynamics. American Chemical Society 2023-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10688183/ /pubmed/37939301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00908 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 Janoš, Jiří
Slavíček, Petr
What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm
title What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm
title_full What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm
title_fullStr What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm
title_full_unstemmed What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm
title_short What Controls the Quality of Photodynamical Simulations? Electronic Structure Versus Nonadiabatic Algorithm
title_sort what controls the quality of photodynamical simulations? electronic structure versus nonadiabatic algorithm
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37939301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00908
work_keys_str_mv AT janosjiri whatcontrolsthequalityofphotodynamicalsimulationselectronicstructureversusnonadiabaticalgorithm
AT slavicekpetr whatcontrolsthequalityofphotodynamicalsimulationselectronicstructureversusnonadiabaticalgorithm