arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 26 Feb 2016

Transcription

1 Quantum-Cassica Non-Adiabatic Dynamics: Couped- vs. Independent-Trajectory Methods Federica Agostini, 1 Seung Kyu Min, 2 Ai Abedi, 3 and E. K. U. Gross 1 1 Max-Panck Institut für Mikrostrukturphysik, arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 26 Feb 216 Weinberg 2, D-612 Hae, Germany 2 Department of Chemistry, Schoo of Natura Science, Usan Nationa Institute of Science and Technoogy (UNIST), 5 UNIST-gi, Usan 44919, Repubic of Korea 3 Nano-Bio Spectroscopy group and European Theoretica Spectroscopy Faciity (ETSF), Dpto. Física de Materiaes, Universidad de País Vasco, Centro de Física de Materiaes CSIC-UPV/EHU-MPC and DIPC, Av. Toosa 72, E-218 San Sebastián, Spain Abstract Trajectory-based mixed quantum-cassica approaches to couped eectron-nucear dynamics suffer from we-studied probems such as the ack of (or incorrect account for) decoherence in the trajectory surface hopping method and the inabiity of reproducing the spatia spitting of a nucear wave packet in Ehrenfest-ike dynamics. In the context of eectronic non-adiabatic processes, these probems can resut in wrong predictions for quantum popuations and in unphysica outcomes for the nucear dynamics. In this paper we propose a soution to these issues by approximating the couped eectronic and nucear equations within the framework of the exact factorization of the eectron-nucear wave function. We present a simpe quantum-cassica scheme based on couped cassica trajectories, and test it against the fu quantum mechanica soution from wave packet dynamics for some mode situations which represent particuary chaenging probems for the above-mentioned traditiona methods. skmin@unist.ac.kr 1

2 I. INTRODUCTION Non-adiabatic effects often pay an important roe in the couped dynamics of eectrons and nucei. Typica exampes of processes whose description requires to expicity account for non-adiabatic eectronic transitions induced by the nucear motion are vision [1 3], photosynthesis [4, 5], photo-votaics [6 8], and charge transport through moecuar junctions. [9 12] In a these cases, the eectronic effect on the nucei cannot be expressed by a singe adiabatic potentia energy surface (PES), corresponding to the occupied eigenstate of the Born-Oppenheimer (BO) Hamitonian. The exact numerica treatment woud in fact require the incusion of severa adiabatic PESs that are couped via eectronic non-adiabatic transitions in regions of strong couping, such as avoided crossings or conica intersections. Based on this theoretica picture, numerica methods that retain a quantum description of the nucei have been successfuy empoyed in many appications, e.g. mutipe-spawning [13 15], muticonfiguration time-dependent Hartree [16 18], or non-adiabatic Bohmian dynamics [19 25], but actua cacuations become unfeasibe for systems comprising hundreds or thousands of atoms. Promising aternatives are therefore those approaches that invove a cassica or quasi-cassica treatment of nucear motion couped non-adiabaticay to the quantum mechanica motion of the eectrons [26 62]. There are two main chaenges that theory has to face in this context: (i) The spitting of the nucear wave packet induced by non-adiabatic coupings needs to be captured in the trajectory-based description. (ii) This requires a cear-cut definition of the cassica force in situations when more than a singe adiabatic PES is invoved. In the present paper, we attack these two points within the framework of the exact factorization of the eectron-nucear wave function [63, 64]. When the soution of the timedependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) is written as a singe product of a nucear wave function and an eectronic factor, which parametricay depends on the nucear configuration, two couped equations of motion for the two components of the fu wave function are derived from the TDSE. These equations contain the answer to the above questions. The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic procedure to deveop the necessary approximations when the nucei are represented in terms of cassica trajectories. The fina resut wi be a mixed quantum-cassica (MQC) agorithm [65] that we have impemented and tested in various non-adiabatic situations. The numerica scheme presented here is based on the anaysis 2

3 performed so far in the framework of the exact factorization. In previous work, we have first focused on the nucear dynamics, by anaysing the time-dependent potentias [66] of the theory, with particuar attention devoted to understanding the fundamenta properties that need to be accounted for when introducing approximations. Moreover, we have anayzed the suitabiity of the cassica and quasi-cassica treatment [67 69] of nucear dynamics, and we have proposed an independent-trajectory MQC scheme [6, 7] to sove the couped eectronic and nucear equations within the factorization framework approximatey. This resut can be viewed as the owest order version of the agorithm presented here, where refined and more accurate approximations have been introduced. The new agorithm[65], which is based on a couped-trajectory (CT) description of nucear dynamics, wi be presented (i) paying particuar attention to the physica justification of the approximations introduced, (ii) describing in detai the fundamenta equations of the CT- MQC scheme in the form they are impemented in practice, (iii) supporting the anaytica derivation with abundant numerica proof of the suitabiity of the procedure for simuating non-adiabatic dynamics. In particuar, we show how the CT procedure compares with the previous MQC [6, 7] agorithm based on the exact factorization and with the Ehrenfest [28] and trajectory surface hopping (TSH) [31] approaches. This comparison wi demonstrate that the CT scheme is abe (a) to propery describe the spitting of a nucear wave packet after the passage through an avoided crossing, reated to the steps [66] in the time-dependent potentia of the theory, overcoming the imitations of MQC and Ehrenfest, (b) to correcty account for eectronic decoherence effects, thus proposing a soution to the over-coherence probem [35, 36, 53, 71 84] affecting TSH. The paper is organized as foows. The first section focusses on the theory. We construct the agorithm, describe the used approximations and derive the equations that have been impemented. The foowing section gives a schematic overview of the agorithm, summarizing the resuts of the first section. The steps to be impemented are described here. The third section shows the numerica resuts for one-dimensiona two-state mode systems, representing situations of (a) singe avoided crossing, (b) dua avoided crossing, (c) extended couping with refection and (d) doube arch. Concusions are drawn in the fourth section. 3

4 II. COUPLED-TRAJECTORY MIXED QUANTUM-CLASSICAL ALGORITHM The exact factorization of the eectron-nucear wave function [63, 64] provides the theoretica background for the deveopment of the agorithm described and tested in this paper. Since the theory has been extensivey presented in previous work [6, 65 7, 85 91], we ony refer to Section SI.1 of the Supporting Information for a comprehensive review of the theory. It has been proved [63, 64] that the soution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) [ ˆT n + ĤBO]Ψ = i t Ψ of a combined system of eectrons and nucei can be written as the product: Ψ(r, R, t) = Φ R (r, t)χ(r, t). Here, χ(r, t) is the nucear wave function, which yieds the exact nucear many-body density and current density, whereas Φ R (r, t) is the eectronic conditiona wave function, which parametricay depends on the nucear configuration R. The squared moduus of Φ R (r, t) is normaized to unity R, t, thus Φ R (r, t) 2 can be interpreted as a conditiona probabiity. The equations of motion describing the time evoution of the two terms of the product are derived by determining the stationary variations [92 94] of the quantum mechanica action with respect to Φ R (r, t) and χ(r, t), yieding ( Ĥ BO + Ûen ( Nn ν=1 ) [ ] Φ R, χ ɛ(r, t) Φ R (r, t) = i t Φ R (r, t) (1) [ i ν + A ν (R, t) ] 2 2M ν + ɛ(r, t) Here the eectron-nucear couping operator (ENCO) is defined as ] Û en [Φ R, χ N n 1 M ν=1 ν = [[ i ν A ν (R, t) ] 2 2 ) χ(r, t) = i t χ(r, t). (2) ( i ν χ ( + + A ν (R, t)) i ν A ν (R, t)) ]. (3) χ The time-dependent vector potentia (TDVP) and time-dependent potentia energy surface (TDPES) are given by the expressions ( ) A ν R, t = Φ R (t) i ν Φ R (t) r ɛ(r, t) = Φ R (t) ĤBO + Û coup ΦR i t (t) en r (4), (5) respectivey. The numerica procedure referred to as couped-trajectory mixed quantumcassica (CT-MQC) agorithm, introduced in previous work [65] to sove Eqs. (1) and (2), 4

5 wi be presented here paying specia attention to justifying the approximations and describing the impementation of the agorithm. A. The Lagrangian frame Equations (1) and (2) can be represented on a fixed spatia grid and propagated in time, to compute the evoution of the eectronic and nucear wave functions. However, our aim is to represent the dynamics of quantum nucei via the motion of a set of couped cassica trajectories, R (I) (t), whose behavior can be assimiated to that of a moving grid. In turn, the dynamics of the eectrons is governed by Eq. (1) aong each nucear trajectory. Figure 1 shows the idea behind such representation of the nucei in terms of cassica trajectories: on the eft, a moecuar wave function (or better the density from a moecuar wave function) is potted on a fixed grid in r, R space; on the right, some information aong the R-direction is ost, since the wave function is avaiabe ony at the positions of the trajectories, ocated where the nucear density is arger. Therefore, it seems more natura to work in a reference frame that moves with the trajectories, the Lagrangian frame, rather than fixed Euerian frame, and to introduce the approximations starting from this picture. In the Lagrangian frame time-derivatives are cacuated aong the fow, thus a partia time-derivatives have to be repaced by tota derivatives, using the chain rue d/dt = t + ν V ν ν. Here, the quantity V ν is the veocity of the moving grid point, i.e. the veocity of each trajectory which can be determined from the equations beow. We introduce now the first approximation, namey we derive the cassica Newton s equation from the TDSE (2). We have previousy proposed [6, 65, 7] a derivation based on the compex phase-representation [95] of χ(r, t). Here, we present an aternative procedure [68], by writing the nucear wave function in poar form, χ(r, t) = χ(r, t) e (i/ )S(R,t). Then, the rea part of Eq. (2) yieds Nn t S(R, t) = ν=1 [ ν S(R, t) + A ν (R, t) ] 2 2M ν ɛ(r, t) + 2 N n ν=1 1 2 ν χ(r, t), (6) 2M ν χ(r, t) a Hamiton-Jacobi equation (HJE) in the presence of the TDVP A ν (R, t) and of a potentia term (ast term in Eq. (6)) known in the framework of Bohmian dynamics as quantum potentia. The imaginary part of Eq. (2) yieds a continuity equation for the nucear density. 5

6 CT-MQC mutipe FIG. 1. Fu moecuar wave function (eft) as function of eectronic (r) and nucear (R) coordinates and its approximation (right) on a set of nucear trajectories (R (I) (t) s). In this case, the moecuar wave function is known ony at the given positions R (I) (t). Negecting the quantum potentia, Eq. (6) becomes a (standard) cassica HJE, N n [[ ν S(R, t) + A ν (R, t) ] ] 2 Ṡ(R, t) = V ν ν S(R, t) ɛ(r, t), (7) 2M ν where ν=1 Ṡ stands for the fu time derivative of S. In previous work [6, 7], rather than S(R, t), the HJE contained S (R, t), the owest order term in an expansion of the compex phase in powers of Panck s constant. The comparison with this resut [69] aows us to define the canonica momentum of the moving grid M ν V ν = ν S (R, t) + A ν (R, t) = P ν. Taking the spatia derivative ν the characteristics Ṗ ν (t) R (I) (t) on both sides, Eq. (7) reduces to a cassica evoution equation for ) N n Pν (R, t) = ν (ɛ(r, t) + A ν (R, t) + Ȧν(R, t) ν =1 At time t a quantities are evauated at the grid point R (I) (t). M ν R (I) (t). (8) Eq. (8) identifies the cassica force used to evove the grid points R (I) (t). In the proposed impementation, (i) at the initia time N traj points wi be samped from the probabiity distribution associated to the initia nucear density χ(r, t = ) 2, (ii) the time-evoved of those points wi give information about the moecuar wave function in the regions of nucear configuration space of arge probabiity at every time, as shown in Fig. 1 (iii) the nucear density at time t can be reconstructed from a histogram [6, 68, 7] representing the distribution of cassica trajectories. 6

7 B. Choice of the gauge It is straightforward to prove, as described in Section SI.1 of the Supporting Information, that the product form the eectron-nucear wave function is invariant under a (R, t)-phase transformation of Φ R (r, t) and χ(r, t). In order to fix this gauge freedom, Eqs. (1) and (2) have to be soved with an additiona constraint, which is chosen in this case to be N n ɛ(r, t) + A ν (R, t) Pν(R, t) =. (9) M ν ν=1 This condition is imposed in both the eectronic and nucear equations. In particuar, Eq. (8) simpifies to Ṗν(t) = Ȧν(t). When the eectronic (1) and nucear (2) equations are integrated by imposing Eq. (9), this gauge condition is automaticay satisfied but it shoud be checked during the evoution in order to test the numerica accuracy. C. Time-dependent potentia energy surface The expression of the TDPES in the Lagrangian frame becomes ɛ apx (R, t) = Φ R (t) ĤBO Φ R (t) i Φ R (t) Φ R (t) r r N n ν=1 P ν M ν A ν (R, t), (1) where we have introduced here the second approximation, namey we have negected the first term on the right-hand-side in the definition (3) of the ENCO. This term contains secondorder derivatives of the eectronic wave function with-respect-to the nucear positions, whose cacuation requires a arger numerica effort than first-order derivatives. Studies have shown that this term is indeed negigibe [96] if compared to the eading contribution, i.e. the second term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (3). Furthermore, the term containing the second-order derivatives is the ony term that contributes to the TDPES, the other being identicay zero when averaged over Φ R (r, t). Therefore, in order to maintain gauge-invariance, the ENCO cannot appear [66, 67] in the expression of the TDPES, as it is cear in Eq. (1). Moreover, Eq. (1) is obtained by repacing the partia time-derivative from Eq. (5) with the tota time-derivative. The additiona term from the chain rue used above contains ν, which eads to the appearance of the TDVP when averaged over the eectronic wave function. 7

8 D. The Born-Huang expansion Cassica trajectories evove according to the force in Eq. (8), where the gauge condition (9) is imposed at each time, and are couped to an approximated form of the eectronic equation, namey i Φ R (r, t) = [ Ĥ BO + [ Nn N n M ν=1 ν ( ) ] 1 i ν χ(r, t) + A ν (R, t) P ν (t) ( i ν ) Φ R (r, t) χ(r, t) ( ) ] i ν χ(r, t) + A ν (R, t) A ν (R, t) + ɛ apx (R, t) Φ R (r, t), χ(r, t) M ν=1 ν 1 where we have repaced once again the partia time-derivative with the tota derivative, according to t Φ R (r, t) = Φ R (I) (t) R (r, t) N n P ν(t) ν=1 M ν (11) ν Φ R (r, t) R. Notice that a (I) (t) quantities in Eq. (11) are evauated aong the cassica trajectories R (I) (t) and that no further approximation than those described so far has been used to derive this expression. In the numerica scheme proposed here [65], the eectronic wave function is expanded according to the so-caed Born-Huang expansion in terms of the adiabatic states ϕ () R (r), which are eigenstates of the Hamitonian ĤBO with eigenvaues ɛ () BO (R). Inserting the expansion Φ R (r, t) = ( ) () C R, t ϕ R (r) (12) in Eq. (11), we derive a set of couped partia differentia equations for the coefficients C ( R, t ) [ Ċ (I) (t) = i ɛ ()(I) BO ɛapx(i) (t) N n ν=1 P (I) ν ] (t) + ip (I) ν (t) A ν (t) M ν N n ν=1 P (I) ν C (I) (t) + ip (I) ν (t) M ν N n (t) k ν=1 C (I) k ip (I) ν M ν (t) ν C (I) (t) (t)d(i) ν,k. (13) The non-adiabatic couping vectors (NACVs) have been introduced in the above expression, i.e. d (I) ν,k = ϕ() R (I) (t) νϕ (k) R (I) (t) r. We have used here a superscript (I) to indicate that a quantities depending on R are to be cacuated at the position R (I) (t) at time t. Henceforth, the spatia dependence wi ony be indicated by such superscript symbo. In deriving Eq. (13), we have empoyed the poar representation of the nucear wave function in Ûen of 8

9 Eq. (3), i.e. i ν χ (I) (t) χ (I) (t) + A (I) ν χ (I) (t) (t) = [ ν S (I) (t) + A (I) ν (t) ] + i ν χ (I) (t) = P (I) ν (t) + ip (I) ν (t). (14) This equation contains the quantities P (I) ν beow. (t) and P (I) (t), which wi be discussed in detai Let us now introduce the gauge condition (9) in Eq. (13), namey [ ] Ċ (I) (t) = i Nn ɛ ()(I) BO ip (I) ν (t) N n A ν (t) C (I) (t) M ν ν=1 N n ν=1 ν ν=1 P ν (t) + ip (I) ν (t) M ν ip (I) ν M ν k (t) ν C (I) (t) C (I) k (t)d(i) ν,k. (15) This preserves the norm of the eectronic wave function aong the time evoution. On the right-hand-side of Eq. (15), the terms not containing P (I) ν (t) are exacty the same as in other agorithms, i.e. Ehrenfest and TSH. The additiona terms foow from the exact factorization and are a proportiona to P (I) ν (t), the so-caed quantum momentum, that wi be discussed beow. Moreover, since the coefficients in the expansion (12) depend on nucear positions, spatia derivatives of such coefficients need to be taken into account. E. Spatia dependence of the coefficients of the Born-Huang expansion The coefficients C (I) (t) of the Born-Huang expansion of the eectronic wave function are written in terms of the their moduus C (I) (t) and phase γ (I) (t), ν C (I) (t) = ν C (I) (t) + i (t) νγ (I) (t) C (I) (t). (16) C (I) The third approximation introduced to derive the CT-MQC agorithm consists in (i) negecting the first term on the right-hand-side of the above equation and (ii) negecting a terms depending on the NACVs in the expression of the remaining term. Based on the anaysis reported in previous work [66 68], the contribution of the first term is indeed negigibe if compared to the spatia derivative of the phase γ (I) (t). We wi present our argument beow and we wi give the expression of the remaining term. A semicassica anaysis is provided in Section SI.2 of the Supporting Information. 9

10 Based on the soution of the fu TDSE [66 68] for one-dimensiona systems, we have observed that at a given time the quantities C (R, t) are either constant functions of R or present a sigmoid shape [68]. In particuar, this second feature appears when the nucear wave packet spits after having crossed a region of strong couping. In regions where the C (R, t) s are constant, their derivatives are zero, thus our approximation hods perfecty; in the sigmoid case, C (R, t) is constant, i.e. either or 1, far from the step of the sigmoid function, and inear around the center of the step. Furthermore, the center of the step is the position where the nucear density spits [66], and ony in this region the gradient of C (R, t) can be significanty different from zero. We have anayticay demonstrated that these properties are generay vaid [68] in the absence of externa time-dependent fieds. It is important to keep in mind that the nucear density is reconstructed from the distribution of cassica trajectories, thus it seems reasonabe to assume that when the nucear density spits into two or more branches, the probabiity of finding trajectories in the tai regions is very sma. It foows that ν C (I) / C (I) = is an approximation ony for few trajectories, ocated in the tai regions, whie it is true for a other trajectories. Therefore, we expect that such an approximation wi not affect drasticay the fina (averaged over a trajectories) resuts. We now come back to the expression of ν γ (I) (t). First of a, et us show the time derivative of γ (I) (t), namey γ (I) (t) = ɛ (),(I) BO + non-adiabatic terms. The derivation of the additiona non-adiabatic terms, containing the NACVs is tedious and ony requires the knowedge of Eq. (15). If we assume that the NACVs are ocaized in space, that is an approximation which is vaid in many physicay reevant situations [59, 97 99], we can simpy write ν γ (I) (t) = ν ɛ () BO or, equivaenty, t ν γ (I) (t) = dt ν ɛ (),(I) BO = f (I),ν (t). (17) Therefore, the approximate form of the spatia derivative of the coefficient of the Born-Huang expansion becomes ν C (I) (t) = (i/ )f (I),ν (t)c(i) (t). The quantity f (I),ν (t), the time-integrated adiabatic force, can be determined by ony computing eectronic adiabatic properties. It foows that the eectronic evoution equation (15) is no onger a partia differentia equation, but rather an ordinary differentia equation. Reated to the discussion just presented, we can now give the expicit expression of the 1

11 TDVP in terms of the adiabatic eectronic properties, namey with ρ (I) k (t) = C(I) A (I) ν (t) = N st =1 ρ (I) (t)f (I) Nst,ν (t) + Im,k=1 (t)c (I) (t) the eements of the eectronic density matrix. k ρ (I) k (t)d(i) ν,k, (18) F. Quantum momentum The crucia difference between standard Ehrenfest-type approaches and our new quantumcassica agorithm for non-adiabatic dynamics is the appearance of the quantum momentum in the equations of motion. In the framework of the exact factorization, the eectronic equation (1) contains the exact couping to the nucei, which is expressed in terms of i ν χ/χ. As in Eq. (14), this dependence on the nucear wave function is written as i ν χ (I) (t) χ (I) (t) + A (I) ν (t) = P (I) ν (t) + ip (I) ν (t). (19) In writing the first term on the right-hand-side, we are using the first approximation introduced above, where the gradient of the phase of the nucear wave function (see Eq. (14) for comparison) is truncated at the zero-th order term in the -expansion. The second term is the quantum momentum, reated to the spatia variation of the nucear density (notice that the reation ν χ / χ = ν χ 2 /(2 χ 2 ) hods). This term, which has the dimension of a momentum and is purey imaginary, is a known quantity in the context of Bohmian mechanics [1]. When presenting the numerica resuts, it wi become cear that the quantum momentum is the source of decoherence effects on eectronic dynamics. In the nucear equation (7) we have discarded the quantum potentia, whie in the eectronic equation (15) we have taken the quantum momentum into account. On the one hand, the quantum potentia appears O( 2 ), whie the correction to the nucear momentum is O( ), thus our approximations are consistent up to within this order in Panck s constant. On the other hand, we have aready shown [7] that negecting the quantum momentum in the eectronic equation from the exact factorization produces an Ehrenfest-ike evoution, where the spatia spitting of the nucear wave packet cannot be captured. The introduction of the quantum momentum is thus essentia. Further studies on incorporating the quantum potentia in Eq. (7) foowing the strategies such as the ones discussed in the context of Bohmian dynamics [19, 11] are indeed a route to be investigated. 11

12 The cacuation of the quantum momentum requires cacuation of the spatia derivatives of the nucear density, which is known numericay ony at the positions of the cassica trajectories. Therefore, in order to evauate such derivative at the position R (I) (t), nonoca information about the position of neighboring trajectories R (J) (t) is necessary. This requirement is what makes the agorithm based on Eqs. (8) and (15) a couped-trajectory scheme. The procedure to cacuate the quantum momentum used in the current impementation of the agorithm is described beow for a two-eve system, since a numerica tests are performed on such mode situations. The extension to a muti-eve system is presented in Section SI.3 of the Supporting Information. 1. Two-eve system The nucear density can be expressed as the sum of BO-projected densities. In Section SI.1 of the Supporting Information it is proved that if the fu wave function Ψ is expanded on the adiabatic basis with coefficients F (R, t), then the factorization Ψ = Φ R χ impies that χ 2 = F 2 and F = C χ. Therefore, in a two-eve system the quantum momentum becomes P(R, t) = 2 ν χ(r, t) 2 χ(r, t) 2 = ν F 1 (R, t) 2 + ν F 2 (R, t) 2 2 F1 (R, t) 2 + F2 (R, t) 2. (2) We now assume that each BO-projected nucear wave packet is a singe Gaussian. Notice that we make this approximation ony to evauate the quantum momentum, whereas the nucear dynamics wi sti be represented in terms of cassica trajectories. This is the fourth approximation introduced to derive the CT-MQC agorithm. We write ( ) F R, t 2 = ρ (t) 1 N n N ν=1 exp [ R ν R () ν (t) σ 2 (t) ] 2 ) = ρ (t)g σ (R R () (t) (21) where σ (t) and R () ν (t) are the time-dependent variance and mean vaue, respectivey, of the normaized Gaussian G σ. ρ (t) accounts for the normaization (the integra over R of the function F ( R, t ) 2 is the popuation of the corresponding BO state; see for this Section SI.3 of the Supporting Information) and N is the normaization constant. Computing 12

13 the gradient of the Gaussians, the quantum momentum becomes [ ] P(R, t) = R ν R () ν (t) σ 2(t) C (R, t) 2 (22) =1,2 and this expression can be cacuated anayticay if the mean position and variance are determined from the distribution of the cassica trajectories, according to [68] R () ν (t) = 1 ρ (t) σ 2 (t) = 2 ρ (t) N ( ) traj dr R F ν R, t 2 I=1 R (I) ν (t) dr [ R ν R () ν (t) ] 2 Ntraj ( ) F R, t 2 Here, we have used the foowing approximations N ( ) F R, t 2 1 traj N traj I=1 ρ (I) (t) Ntraj J=1 ρ(j) I=1 (t) [ R (I) ν (t) R () ν (t) ] 2 ( ) ρ (I) (t)δ R R (I) (t) ρ (I) (t) Ntraj J=1 ρ(j) (23) (t). (24) (25) ρ (t) 1 N traj ρ (I) (t), (26) N traj I=1 with N traj the tota number of trajectories. The first equation associates a weight, ρ (I) (t), to each trajectory, in order to reconstruct the BO-projected densities from the histogram, i.e. N 1 traj I δ(r R(I) (t)), which approximates the fu nucear density. The second equation is instead used to determine the popuation of the adiabatic state as an average of the coefficients associated with each trajectory. of each trajectory, chosen to be constant. The pre-factor N 1 traj stands for the weight In Eqs. (25) and (26), the integras over the positions R have been repaced by the sum over trajectories since the nucear density, for each trajectory, is a δ-function centered at the position of the trajectory itsef. An additiona simpification can be introduced at this point, based on the foowing observations. If the quantum momentum P ν (R, t) is negected in the eectronic equation (15), then the quantum-cassica equations derived from the exact factorization yied Ehrenfest dynamics: the nucear wave packet propagates coherenty and its spatia spitting cannot be reproduced [7]. In this case the spatia distribution [68] of the coefficients C (I) (t) is not correcty reproduced, as they are more or ess constant. The ack of spatia distribution is reated to the ack of decoherence: the indicator used in the foowing anaysis to quantify 13

14 decoherence (see Eq. (3)) depends in fact on the shape of C (I) (t). Aso, we have seen in previous studies [68] that steps deveoping in the exact TDPES, bridging regions of space where it has adiabatic shapes, is instead abe to induce the spitting of the nucear density. Outside the step region, the force is then simpy adiabatic (i.e. the gradient of an adiabatic surface). The region of the step is where the additiona force, beyond the adiabatic force, acts. Furthermore, the steps in the TDPES appear in the region where C (R, t), the modui of the coefficients in the Born-Huang expansion (12), are neither nor 1 (remember that C (R, t) is either constant in space or has a sigmoid shape between the vaues and 1 [66 68]). Therefore, it seems natura to assume that an additiona effect, responsibe for the spitting of the nucear density, shoud be ocaized in space in the region of the steps in the TDPES, meaning in the region between the two Gaussian-shaped BO densities. There, P ν (R, t) can be represented, approximatey, as a inear function, which can be determined anayticay. Notice that an anaogous treatment of the quantum momentum, which foows from the hypothesis that the nucear density can be approximated as a sum of Gaussians, has aready been discussed in the context of Bohmian mechanics [1]. Due to this approximation, however, the couped eectronic and nucear equations do not fufi some fundamenta properties, i.e. popuation exchange between eectronic states might be observed even when the NACVs are zero. The inear function used to approximate the quantum momentum is determined by associating two parameters to it: a y-intercept, R, by imposing in Eq. (15) that no popuation variation sha be observed if the NACVs are zero, and a sope, α, determined anayticay from Eq. (22) evauated at R. The first parameter is determined by setting the terms containing the NACVs in Eq. (15) to zero and then imposing that the remaining part, ρ (I) = ν (I) [2P ν /( M ν )] [A (I) ν f (I),ν ]ρ(i), has to be zero when summed up over the trajectories. When imposing this condition, the expression used for the quantum momentum is simpy P (I) ν = α(r (I) ν R ν). As indicated above, once the y-intercept is known, it is inserted into Eq. (22) and the sope is obtained anayticay, yieding the quantum momentum as P (I) ν ( ) C R, t 2 (t) = σ 2(t) =1,2 R ν (t) R (I) ν (t) J 14 R (J) ν (t) ( ρ (J) 11 (t)ρ (J) 22 (t) J ρ(j) 11 (t)ρ (J) 22 (t) f (J) ) 1,ν (t) f (J) 1,ν (t) ( f (J) 1,ν (t) f (J) 1,ν (t) (27) )

15 This expression is ony used in the region between the centers of the BO-projected densities, R () ν (t). Outside this region, the quantum momentum is set zero. III. NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION In this section, we present the numerica impementation of the CT-MQC agorithm. First, we summarize the fina expressions of the cassica force, used to generate the trajectories, and the evoution equation for the coefficients of the Born-Huang expansion of the eectronic wave function. The CT-MQC equations are cast beow in such a way that the first ine in both expressions is exacty the same as in Ehrenfest-ike approaches, whie the corrections, in the second ine of each expression, are (i) proportiona to the quantum momentum, (ii) do not contain the NACVs, i.e. the competing effects of popuation exchange induced by the NACVs and of decoherence induced by the quantum momentum have been separated (this is the fifth approximation introduced in the equations (1) and (2) to derive the CT-MQC agorithm). The cassica force Ṗ (I) ν (t) = k ρ (I) kk (t) νɛ (k),(i) BO k, ρ (I) (t) ( Nn ν =1 2 M ν ( ρ (I) k (t) ɛ (k),(i) BO P (I) ν (t) f (I),ν (t) ) [ k ) ɛ (),(I) BO d (I) ν,k (28) C (I) k ] (t) 2 (I) (I) f k,ν (t) f,ν (t), is used in Hamiton s equations, providing positions and momenta at each time, thus yieding trajectories in phase-space. The veocity-veret agorithm is used to integrate Hamiton s equations. The ordinary differentia equation for the evoution of the coefficients in the eectronic wave function expansion is Ċ (I) (t) = i ɛ()(i) BO N n ν=1 C(I) (t) k [ P (I) ν (t) M ν k C (I) k C (I) k Nn (t) ν=1 (t) 2 f (I) k,ν P ν (t) M ν which is integrated using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta agorithm. d (I) ν,k (29) ] (I) (t) f,ν (t) C (I) (t), As stated above, the CT-MQC equations of motion are simiar to Ehrenfest equations, apart from the decoherence terms, i.e. those proportiona to P (I) ν (t), in both the nucear and eectronic equations. There, the quantum momentum is determined at each time t using a mutipe-trajectory scheme. Therefore, the time integration has to be performed 15

16 for a trajectories simutaneousy, eading to a procedure sighty different from the traditiona independent-trajectory approach of the TSH method. In Fig. 2, we give a schematic description of the steps to be performed to impement the CT-MQC agorithm, namey: 1. we seect a set of nucear positions and momenta, and the initia running BO state. The initia phase-space distribution can be obtained either by constructing the Wigner distribution corresponding to an initia quantum nucear wave packet (as done in the resuts reported beow), or by samping the Botzmann distribution at a given temperature, for instance via a moecuar dynamics run in the canonica ensembe; 2. (a) the information about the nucear positions is distributed on mutipe processors, and (b) for each trajectory the static eectronic Schrödinger equation is soved to obtain BO potentia energies ɛ (),(I) BO, their gradients νɛ (),(I) BO, and NACVs among the BO states d (I) ν,k ; 3. we compute f (I),ν (t) by accumuating up to time t the BO force, νɛ (),(I) BO ; 4. (a) we gather the information about a nucear trajectories R (I), BO popuations ρ (I), and f (I),ν to (b) compute the quantum momentum from Eq. (27); 5. (a) we cacuate the nucear force and (b) the time derivative of BO coefficients according to Eqs. (28) and (29), respectivey, for each nucear trajectory; 6. we perform the time integration for both trajectories and BO coefficients, to get the initia conditions for the foowing time-step. We repeat the procedure starting from point 2. unti the end of the simuation. Step 4. in the impementation is what distinguishes the CT-MQC approach from independent mutipe-trajectory methods. For a trajectories, the time integration has to be performed simutaneousy, since the BO popuations, the positions of the trajectories and the time-integrated BO forces have to be shared among a trajectories to compute the quantum momentum. The paraeization of the agorithm is thus essentia for numerica efficiency. One of the advantages of the CT-MQC agorithm compared to the TSH agorithm is that it is not stochastic. The eectronic equation yieds the proper popuation of the BO states,[12] incuding decoherence effects, since it has been derived from the exact factorization equations. Therefore, even a sma number of trajectories is abe to provide reiabe 16

17 and accurate resuts. The (computationa) botteneck of the agorithm is that the eectronic properties (BO energies, NACVs and BO forces) are necessary at each time for a adiabatic states, whereas in TSH ony running state information and the scaar product between the nucear veocity and the NACVs are necessary. START 1. t = : Initia distribution of nucear trajectories & BO popuations 2(a). Distribute information over a processors 2(b). Cacuate BO state & NACVs 3. Cacuate 4(a). Gather information from a trajectories 4(b). Cacuate quantum momentum: Eq. (26) 5(a). Cacuate nucear forces: Eq. (28) 5(b). Cacuate : Eq. (29) 6. Update Yes END No FIG. 2. Fowchart describing the numerica impementation of the CT-MQC. 17

18 IV. NUMERICAL TESTS Numerica resuts wi be presented for one-dimensiona mode systems [31, 72] that have nowadays become standard tests for any new quantum-cassica approach to dea with non-adiabatic probems. Resuts of the CT-MQC are compared not ony with an exact wave packet propagation scheme, but aso with other quantum-cassica approaches, namey Ehrenfest [28, 13, 14], TSH [3 32] and independent-trajectory MQC [6, 7] (the zeroth order version of the agorithm proposed here). It wi be cear from the resuts that the use of couped trajectories, rather than independent trajectories, which a approaches but CT-MQC are based on, is indeed the key to eectronic decoherence in non-adiabatic processes. The modes discussed beow are (a) singe avoided crossing, (b) dua avoided crossing, (c) extended couping region with refection, (d) doube arch. The diabatic Hamitonians are presented in Section SI.4 of the Supporting Information, whie adiabatic PESs and NACVs are shown in Fig. 3. In presenting the numerica resuts, particuar attention is devoted to decoherence. In order to quantify decoherence, we use as indicator ρ 12 (t) 2 = 1 N traj C (I) 1 (t) 2 (I) C 2 (t) 2, (3) N traj I=1 which is an average over the trajectories of the (squared modui of the) off-diagona eements of the eectronic density matrix in the adiabatic basis. The corresponding quantum mechanica quantity is ρ 12 (t) 2 = as proven in Section SI.4 of the Supporting Information. dr C1 ( R, t ) 2 C2 ( R, t ) 2 χ ( R, t ) 2, (31) A. (a) - Singe avoided crossing A Gaussian wave packet is prepared on the ower adiabatic surface and aunched from the far negative region with positive initia momentum towards the avoided crossing. Two vaues of the mean momentum are shown in the figures beow, namey k = 1 a.u. and k = 25 a.u. We have computed the popuations of the adiabatic states as functions of 18

19 energy/nac (a.u.) (a) ε BO (1) (b) ε BO (2) NAC R (a.u.).2 (c) (d) R (a.u.) FIG. 3. BOPESs (first, red ine, and second, bue ine) and NACVs (dashed green ine) for the four mode systems studied in the paper. The panes correspond to the probems of (a) singe avoided crossing, (b) dua avoided crossing, (c) extended couping region with refection and (d) doube arch. In pane (a) the curve representing the NACV has been reduced 5 times, in (b) 3 times. A quantities are shown in atomic units (a.u.). time (upper panes in Fig. 4), aong with the indicator for the decoherence (ower panes in Fig. 4), given in Eq. (3). Fig. 4 shows those quantities for the ow initia momentum (eft) and for the high initia momentum (right). Numerica resuts are shown for exact wave packet propagation (red ines), TSH (bue ines), Ehrenfest dynamics (mean fied, MF, cyan ine), MQC (the independent trajectory version of the agorithm proposed here, orange) and CT-MQC (based on Eqs. (28) and (29), green ines). Whie a methods correcty predicted the eectronic popuation after the passage through the avoided crossing, ony the CT-MQC 19

20 popuations 1.5 k = 1 a.u. exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC popuations 1.5 k = 25 a.u. exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC.15 coherence.1.5 coherence time (a.u.) time (a.u.) FIG. 4. (Left) Upper pane: popuations of the BO states as functions of time, computed via exact wave packet dynamics (red) and via the approximate schemes, TSH (bue), Ehrenfest MF (cyan), MQC (orange) and CT-MQC (green), for mode (a). Lower pane: indicator of decoherence as function of time. The coor code is the same as in the upper pane. The resuts are shown for mode (a) using the vaue k = 1 a.u. for the initia momentum. (Right) Same as in the eft panes but for the vaue k = 25 a.u. of the initia momentum. scheme is abe to quaitativey account for eectronic decoherence effects. CT-MQC resuts are not in perfect agreement with the exact ones, but indeed the agorithm captures a trend that is competey missed by the other methods. As we have derived the CT-MQC scheme from the exact factorization, we have access to the time-dependent potentias of the theory, i.e. the TDPES and the TDVP. In Fig. 5 (eft panes) we report the gauge-invariant part of the TDPES (red ine), ɛ GI in the figures, and we compare it with the same quantity computed with the CT-MQC procedure (bue dots), ɛ (I) in the figures, for both initia momenta at a given time-step as indicated in the figure. The gauge-invariant part of the TDPES is given by the first two terms in the definition (5) of ɛ(r, t), whose approximation in the quantum-cassica case is simpy the first term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (1). In Fig. 5, the adiabatic PESs are shown for reference as 2

21 energy (a.u.) k = 1 a.u. t = 27 a.u. (1) ε BO ε GI ε (I) nucear density.4.2 k = 1 a.u. F 1 2 F 2 2 F (I) 1 2 F (I) 2 2 t = 27 a.u. χ ε BO (2).15 k = 25 a.u. t = 114 a.u..5 k = 25 a.u. t = 114 a.u. energy (a.u.) nucear density R (a.u.) -1 1 R (a.u.) FIG. 5. (Left) Snapshots (at time t = 27 a.u. for the ow initia momentum k = 1 a.u., upper pane, and at time t = 114 a.u. for the high initia momentum k = 25 a.u., ower pane) of the gauge-invariant part of the TDPES (ɛ GI ), shown as red ines for mode (a). The back ines represent the BO surfaces, ɛ (1) BO and ɛ(2) BO. The bue dots are the quantum-cassica approximation to the potentia. The regions highighted in the green boxes are the regions where the cacuation of the TDPES is reiabe, since the nucear density is different from zero. Outside this region the density is (numericay) zero and the resuts are affected by numerica noise. (Right) Snapshots at the same time-steps indicated in the eft pane of the nucear density (back ines) and of the BOprojected densities ( F 1 2 orange ines and F 2 2 cyan ines) for the two initia momenta (upper pane k = 1 a.u. and ower pane k = 25 a.u.). The coored dots represent the quantum-cassica approximation of the BO-projectes densities. back ines. If we observe the shape of the TDPES and of its approximation highighted by the box (region where the nucear density is significanty different from zero, thus it aows for the cacuation of the TDPES), we see that the steps are reproduced very we in the quantum-cassica picture. Since the CT-MQC correcty captures the shape of the potentia, the nucear density and the BO-projected densities are we reproduced. This is shown in the right panes in Fig. 5, for both initia momenta and at the same time-steps indicated in the eft panes. Here, the nucear density is indicated in back, whie the BO-projected densities F 2 with = 1, 2, are indicated as coored ines (exact) and dots (CT-MQC). 21

22 It is important to notice that the quantity shown in Fig. 5, the gauge-invariant part of the TDPES, is the ony meaningfu quantity that can be compared with exact resuts. For instance, the TDVP, being a gauge-dependent potentia, is different if different gauges are used within the exact factorization. In particuar, in the exact case we have chosen to work in a gauge where the TDVP is aways zero, whie quantum-cassica cacuations are performed in the gauge defined by Eq. (9). B. (b) - Dua avoided crossing The same initia conditions as for mode (a) have been used for the dua avoided crossing, with k = 16 a.u. and k = 3 a.u. chosen as initia momenta. We notice in Fig. 6 that for ow initia momentum the new agorithm is not abe to correcty reproduce the fina popuation of the adiabatic states after the two consecutive passages thorough the avoided crossings. For both momentum vaues, aso decoherence is not correcty captured. 1 1 popuations.5 k = 16 a.u. exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC popuations.5 k = 3 a.u coherence.1.5 coherence.1 exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC time (a.u.) time (a.u.) FIG. 6. (Left) Same as in Fig. 4 but for the mode system (b) and for the vaue k = 16 a.u. of the initia momentum. (Right) Same as in the eft pane but for the vaue k = 3 a.u. of the initia momentum. 22

23 We observe however a sight deviation of the CT-MQC resuts from the other (independenttrajectory) agorithms, since the green ines in the ower panes of Fig. 6 decay, but such decay is much sower than the expected behavior predicted by quantum mechanica resuts (red ines). In mode (b) the avoided crossing regions are very cose to each other. Therefore, the overa effect of NACVs is not ocaized in space, in constrast to what we have assumed in deriving Eq. (17). Furthermore, in the fifth approximation introduced above we have assumed that popuation exchange due to the NACVs and decoherence due to the quantum momentum are separated effects. Mode (b), at ow initia momentum, is a situation where this does not happen. The nucear wave packet encounters the first avoided crossing and branches on different surfaces. Then decoherence starts appearing, but at this point the wave packets cross the second non-adiabatic region. The combined effect of NACVs and quantum momentum is thus not competey taken into account by the CT-MQC equations. It foows that the CT-MQC scheme does not capture correcty the adiabatic popuations. However, we do capture the separation of the nucear wave packet on different BO surfaces, as described beow. energy (a.u.) ε BO (1) ε BO (2) k = 16 a.u. t = 17 a.u. ε (I) ε GI nucear density.4.2 k = 16 a.u. F 1 2 F 2 2 F (I) 1 2 F (I) 2 2 t = 17 a.u. χ energy (a.u.) k = 3 a.u. t = 59 a.u. nucear density.5.25 k = 3 a.u. t = 59 a.u R (a.u.) -1 1 R (a.u.) FIG. 7. (Left) Same as in Fig. 5, but the snapshots are shown at time t = 17 a.u. for the ow initia momentum k = 16 a.u. (upper pane) and at time t = 59 a.u. for the high initia momentum k = 3 a.u. (ower pane), for mode (b). Fig. 7 shows the gauge-invariant part of the TDPES (eft panes) and the nucear den- 23

24 sities (right panes) for both initia momenta. Despite the deviations of quantum-cassica resuts from exact resuts for the eectronic properties, the time-dependent potentia and, consequenty, the nucear dynamics are correcty reproduced in the approximate picture. C. (c) - Extended couping region with refection This and the foowing mode systems represent critica tests of decoherence. In both cases, the structure of the adiabatic surfaces, one with a we and one with a barrier, is responsibe for yieding a high probabiity of refection, especiay at ow initia momenta. In the case when one branch of the nucear wave packet is refected and the other is transmitted, the two wave packets propagate aong diverging paths in nucear space thus they ose memory of each other. This effect can be accounted for in a couped-trajectory picture but not if independent trajectories are used, since the eectronic equations are propagated fuy coherenty aong each (independent from each other) trajectory. Figs. 8 and 9 show resuts for two vaues of the initia momentum, namey k = 1 a.u. and k = 3 a.u., for mode system (c), in anaogy to what has been presented in the previous exampes. In particuar, we notice that for the ow initia momentum, the CT-MQC is abe to reproduce the time-dependence of the adiabatic popuations in very cose agreement with exact resuts, yieding a better agreement than TSH. The popuation exchange occurring after 4 a.u. (upper eft pane of Fig. 8) is not captured by Ehrenfest and the MQC agorithm, since these approaches cannot reproduce nucear dynamics aong diverging paths, as aready discussed in previous work [6, 7]. Such second non-adiabatic event is observed when the refected wave packet crosses for the second time the extended couping region. This channe is not accessibe in Ehrenfest and MQC cacuations. The CT-MQC yieds decoherence effects in strikingy good agreement with exact resuts. The eectronic equations in TSH and Ehrenfest are given by the first two terms on the righthand-side of Eq. (29) and, as shown in the ower panes in Fig. 8, those procedures competey miss the decay of coherence predicted by wave packet propagation. The additiona term in Eq. (29) containing the quantum momentum is sufficient to correct for this effect. As expected, aso the TDPES and the nucear densities are very we reproduced by the CT-MQC procedure, when compared to exact cacuations. 24

25 1 1 k = 1 a.u. k = 3 a.u. popuations.5 popuations.5 coherence.2.1 exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC coherence.2.1 exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC time (a.u.) time (a.u.) FIG. 8. (Left) Same as in Fig. 4 but for the mode system (c) and for the vaue k = 1 a.u. of the initia momentum. (Right) Same as in the eft pane but for the vaue k = 3 a.u. of the initia momentum. D. (d) - Doube arch The doube arch mode has been introduced [72] to enhance decoherence effects on eectronic dynamics. For ow initia momenta, this mode is simiar to mode (c), since the nucear wave packet is partiay transmitted and partiay refected. After the spitting though, both components go a second time through a region of extended couping, thus they experience once again a non-adiabatic event. We observe this behavior when k = 2 a.u. is chosen as initia momentum. By contrast, at higher initia momentum, i.e. k = 4 a.u., both wave packets are transmitted and propagate in the positive region unti they recombine. Capturing correcty the dynamics of the recombination is what makes this mode system a chaenge for the incusion of decoherence effects. After the two transmitted wave packets propagate independenty of each other on the two (very different) adiabatic surfaces, they recombine with some time-deay, therefore decoherence shoud first decay and then reappear as consequence of the recombination. Fig. 1 shows that a features reated to decoherence discussed above are indeed captured 25

26 energy (a.u.) k = 1 a.u. t = 285 a.u. nucear density k = 1 a.u. t = 285 a.u. F 1 2 F 2 2 F (I) 1 2 F (I) 2 2 χ 2 energy (a.u.) k = 3 a.u. t = 13 a.u (1) ε BO ε GI (I) ε (2) ε BO R (a.u.) nucear density.4 k = 3 a.u. t = 13 a.u R (a.u.) FIG. 9. Same as in Fig. 5, but the snapshots are shown at time t = 285 a.u. for the ow initia momentum k = 1 a.u. (upper pane) and at time t = 13 a.u. for the high initia momentum k = 3 a.u. (ower pane), for mode (c). by the CT-MQC agorithm, in very good agreement with exact resuts, and are competey missed by a other methods. At high initia momentum, ony TSH and CT-MQC are abe to reproduce the eectronic popuation after the second non-adiabatic event after 1 a.u. (as shown in Fig. 1 upper right pane), but ony CT-MQC resuts are in perfect agreement with exact resuts. The non-adiabatic process represented in mode (d), as we as in mode (c), presents very different BO surfaces. Therefore, the correct nucear dynamics cannot be captured by methods, such as Ehrenfest and MQC, reying on a singe potentia energy surface which is (or is cose to) an average potentia. Such an average potentia cannot reproduce the very different forces that are experienced by the nucear trajectories in different regions of space. By contrast, the singe TDPES from the exact factorization is abe to capture very different shapes because of the steps [66] that bridge piecewise adiabatic shapes. At a given time, depending on where the cassica trajectory is ocated, it can experience very different forces. This is ceary shown in Fig

27 popuations 1.5 k = 2 a.u. popuations 1.5 k = 4 a.u. exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC coherence.2.1 exact TSH MF MQC CT-MQC coherence time (a.u.) time (a.u.) FIG. 1. (Left) Same as in Fig. 4 but for the mode system (d) and for the vaue k = 2 a.u. of the initia momentum. (Right) Same as in the eft pane but for the vaue k = 4 a.u. of the initia momentum. E. Dependence on the initia momentum It is interesting to investigate the dependence of the fina transmission/refection probabiities on the initia momentum of the nucear nucear wave packet for the four mode systems studied here. Simiar studies have been aready reported in the iterature [31, 35, 72, 11], focussing on the performance of TSH in comparison to quantum propagation techniques. Here, we wi ony benchmark the CT-MQC agorithm against exact resuts. We refer to the above-mentioned references for TSH resuts, since we are considering the same initia conditions used there. Moreover, we wi not show the resuts for Ehrenfest and for the independent-trajectory version of the MQC agorithm derived from the exact factorization. The reason is that neither method is capabe of foowing the evoution of nucear wave packets aong diverging paths (at east with the initia conditions chosen beow), as we have previousy discussed [7]. In a cases, the initia variance of the nucear wave packet is chosen as σ = 2/( k ). The initia conditions for the cassica trajectories are samped in position space from a Gaussian 27

28 energy (a.u.) k = 2 a.u. t = 16 a.u. ε BO (2) ε GI ε BO (1) ε (I) nucear density k = 2 a.u. t = 16 a.u. F 1 2 F 2 2 F (I) 1 2 F (I) 2 2 χ energy (a.u.) k = 4 a.u. t = 8 a.u. nucear density.4.2 k = 4 a.u. t = 8 a.u R (a.u.) R (a.u.) FIG. 11. (Left) Same as in Fig. 5, but the snapshots are shown at time t = 16 a.u. for the ow initia momentum k = 2 a.u. (upper pane) and at time t = 8 a.u. for the high initia momentum k = 4 a.u. (ower pane), for mode (d). distribution with variance σ, whie the same momentum, k, is assigned to a trajectories. For mode (d), we have ony chosen arge vaues of k, since for ower vaues mode (d) is simiar to mode (c). Figure 12 shows a good agreement between exact and quantum-cassica resuts for modes (a), (c) and (d). As expected from the resuts reported for mode (b) in Fig. 6 at ow initia momentum, the CT-MQC is not abe to reproduce the fina probabiities up to k = 2 a.u., but it improves at higher vaues. Sti, it sighty underestimates the non-adiabatic popuation exchange up to a vaue of k = 26 a.u. of the initia momentum. Aso, it is worth noting that the (we-known) unphysica osciations in mode (c), observed for the refection channes in TSH [31, 72], are not present in our CT-MQC resuts. In TSH, the osciations appear when the initia momenta are not samped from a distribution [15] but a fixed vaue of k is assigned to a trajectories, as done here. They are due to the phase coherence between the first and the second passage of the wave packet through the region of extended couping. The CT-MQC agorithm correcty eiminates any sign of spurious coherence, that is in agreement with quantum mechanica resuts. In mode (d), the fina probabiities shown in Fig. 12 sighty osciate around the exact 28

29 1 mode (a) R1 T1 R2 T2 mode (b).5 Probabiity mode (c) mode (d) R1 T1 R2 T initia momentum (a.u.) FIG. 12. Dependence of the fina transmission/refection probabiities on the initia momentum k. Transmission probabiities at the fina times on the ower and upper surfaces are indicated as T1 and T2, respectivey; simiary, the refection probabiities are indicated as R1 and R2. The ines refer to exact cacuations, the dots to the resuts of the CT-MQC agorithm. The initia variance of the nucear wave packet is chosen as σ = 2/( k ). vaue, but the deviation is not arger than 1%. The mode has been initiay introduced [72] to enhance the over-coherence probem of TSH and to investigate possibe correction strategies. Some studies have been reported [72, 11] where the initia width of the nucear wave packet is arger than the cases above, i.e. σ = 1/( k ), which yieds a very ocaized wave packet in momentum space. We have simuated aso this situation, foowing the same protoco as described above for samping cassica initia conditions, for the same range of k. In a recent work [11], Curchod and Tavernei have shown that TSH (i) is not abe to reproduce the osciations in the transmitted probabiities, if the initia positions and momenta of the cassica trajectories are samped from Gaussian distributions, and (ii) captures the osciatory behavior of the transmitted probabiities (even though not the correct one), if the same positions and momenta are chosen for a trajectories, which wi then differ 29

30 from each other at ater times, due to the stochastic jumps. In the CT-MQC agorithm, if option (ii) is chosen, a trajectories wi foow the same path and no spitting wi be observed. This is intrinsic of the deterministic nature of the agorithm. Therefore, we chose the option to sampe the initia positions from a Gaussian distribution and we assigned the same initia momentum k to a trajectories. As it can be seen in Fig. 13, the CT-MQC agorithm is not abe to match the exact resuts. Here, we woud ike to emphasise that this 1 mode (d) Probabiity initia momentum (a.u.) FIG. 13. Dependence of the fina transmission/refection probabiities on the initia momentum k for mode (d). The initia variance of the nucear wave packet is chosen as σ = 1/( k ). a very pathoogica situation, introduced to exaggerate the over-coherence issue of TSH. Further studies and more accurate approximations might be necessary to cure this probem in CT-MQC. V. CONCLUSIONS We have presented a detaied derivation of the CT-MQC scheme [65] to non-adiabatic dynamics starting from the exact factorization of the eectron-nucear wave function. When compared to the independent-trajectory MQC [6, 7], the CT-MQC offers a cear improvement, since the new method is now abe to correcty reproduce eectronic decoherence and the spatia spitting of the nucear wave packet, which in turn is connected to the abiity of reproducing the steps [66 68] in the gauge-invariant part of the TDPES. In the proposed scheme, the cassica trajectories are indirecty couped through the eectronic equation. This 3

31 feature is therefore different from the direct interaction among trajectories provided by the quantum potentia in Bohmian dynamics. Two key features have been incuded here, that go beyond our previous owest order agorithm, (i) the quantum momentum appears in the eectronic equation, when considering O( ) terms in the expression of the ENCO depending on the nucear wave function, and (ii) the spatia dependence of the coefficients in the Born-Huang expansion of the eectronic wave function has been taken into account to eading order, whie it was competey negected in our previous work. In the new picture we have been abe to distinguish the two effects induced by nucear motion on eectronic dynamics, popuations dynamics and decoherence. On the one hand, non-adiabatic transitions are induced by the nucear momentum, the zero-th order term of the -expansion, which coupes to the NACVs. On the other hand, decoherence effects are controed by the quantum momentum, the first-order term of the -expansion, which is an imaginary correction to the nucear momentum in the ENCO. In turn, the effect of the eectrons on nucear dynamics is represented by the TDPES and the TDVP. As discussed in previous work [66 68], being abe to reproduce their features, such as the steps, in an approximate scheme resuts in the correct description of the nucear wave packet behavior. In this paper the anaytica deveopment of the agorithm is supported by tests performed on some mode systems [31, 72] which are typica exampes of eectronic non-adiabatic processes. The comparison of the CT-MQC resuts with wave packet dynamics has shown that indeed we are abe to predict the correct physica picture, capturing the dynamica detais of both eectronic and nucear subsystems. Moreover, we have proved that the new agorithm, being a couped-trajectory scheme, is abe to overcome the issues that are encountered when other methods, based on an independent-trajectory picture, are empoyed. Further deveopments are envisaged, mainy focusing on the appication of the method to more reaistic probems and on the semicassica treatment of nucear dynamics, possiby aowing the treatment of nucear interference effects. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Partia support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 762) and from the European Commission (FP7-NMP-CRONOS) is gratefuy acknowedged. This work was sup- 31

32 ported by the 215 Research Fund ( ) of UNIST (Usan Nationa Institute of Science & Technoogy) A. A. gratefuy acknowedges the support by the European Research Counci Advanced Grant DYNamo (ERC- 21-AdG ) and Grupo Consoidado UPV/EHU de Gobierno Vasco (IT578-13). SUPPORTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE Section SI.1 of the Supporting Information introduces the exact factorization framework, recaing the genera theory and the equations that are the starting point for the approximations deveoped in the main text. Section SI.2 justifies the approximations eading to Eq. (17) by using semicassica arguments. Moreover, we reca there the anaysis of the coefficients C (R, t) of the Born-Huang expansion of the eectronic wave function that we presented in previous work [66]. The equations to compute the quantum momentum in a muti-eve system are derived in Section SI.3 of the Supporting Information and are presented as a generaization of the two-eve case discussed in the main text. Finay, Section SI.4 gives the computationa detais for the numerica tests. This information is avaiabe free of charge via the Internet at [1] D. Poi, P. Atoè, O. Weingart, K. M. Spiane, C. Manzoni, D. Brida, G. Tomaseo, G. Orandi, P. Kukura, R. A. Mathies, M. Garavei, and G. Ceruo, Nature 467, 44 (21). [2] S. Hayashi, E. Tajkhorshid, and K. Schuten, Biophys. J. 416, 43 (29). [3] W. C. Chung, S. Nanbu, and T. Ishida, J. Phys. Chem. B 116, 89 (212). [4] E. Tapavicza, A. M. Meyer, and F. Furche, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 2986 (211). [5] T. Brixner, J. Stenger, H. M. Vaswani, M. Cho, R. E. Bankenship, and G. R. Feming, Nature 434, 625 (25). [6] C. A. Rozzi, S. M. Fake, N. Spaanzani, A. Rubio, E. Moinari, D. Brida, M. Maiuri, G. Ceruo, H. Schramm, J. Christoffers, and C. Lienau, Nature Comm. 4, 162 (213). [7] C. Siva, Nature Mat. 12, 5 (213). 32

33 [8] A. E. Jaiaubekov, A. P. Wiard, J. R. Tritsch, W.-L. Chan, N. Sai, R. Gearba, L. G. Kaake, K. J. Wiiams, K. Leung, P. J. Rossky, and X.-Y. Zhu, Nature Mat. 12, 66 (213). [9] J. Repp, P. Lijeroth, and G. Meyer, Nature Phys. 6, 975 (21). [1] F. Reckermann, J. Spettstoesser, and M. R. Wegewijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, (21). [11] R. Härte, M. Butzin, O. Rubio-Pons, and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 4682 (211). [12] D. Dundas, E. J. McEniry, and T. N. Todorov, Nature Nano. 4, 99 (29). [13] T. J. Martínez and R. D. Levine, Chem. Phys. Lett. 259, 252 (1996). [14] T. J. Martínez, M. Ben-Nun, and R. D. Levine, J. Phys. Chem. 1, 7884 (1996). [15] T. J. Martínez, Acc. Chem. Res. 39, 119 (26). [16] H.-D. Meyer, U. Manthe, and L. S. Cederbaum, Chem. Phys. Lett. 165, 73 (199). [17] I. Burghardt, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 2927 (1999). [18] M. Thoss, W. Domcke, and H. Wang, Chem. Phys. 296, 217 (24). [19] B. F. E. Curchod, I. Tavernei, and U. Rothisberger, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 3231 (211). [2] I. Tavernei, Phys. Rev. A 87, 4251 (213). [21] G. Abareda, H. Appe, I. Franco, A. Abedi, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 833 (214). [22] G. Abareda, J. M. Bofi, I. Tavernei, F. Huarte-Larrañaga, F. Ias, and A. Rubio, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6, 1529 (215). [23] R. E. Wyatt, C. L. Lopreore, and G. Parant, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 5113 (21). [24] C. L. Lopreore and R. E. Wyatt, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 1228 (22). [25] B. Poirier and G. Parant, J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 14 (27). [26] P. Pechukas, Phys. Rev. 181, 166 (1969). [27] P. Pechukas, Phys. Rev. 181, 174 (1969). [28] P. Ehrenfest, Zeitschrift für Physik 45, 455 (1927). [29] D. V. Shaashiin, J. Chem. Phys. 13, (29). [3] J. C. Tuy and R. K. Preston, J. Chem. Phys. 55, 562 (1971). [31] J. C. Tuy, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 161 (199). [32] D. Kohen, F. H. Stiinger, and J. C. Tuy, J. Chem. Phys. 19, 4713 (1998). [33] J. C. Burant and J. C. Tuy, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 697 (2). [34] O. V. Prezhdo and C. Brooksby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3215 (21). 33

34 [35] N. Shenvi, J. E. Subotnik, and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 134, (211). [36] J. E. Subotnik, W. Ouyang, and B. R. Landry, J. Chem. Phys. 139, (213). [37] R. Kapra and G. Ciccotti, J. Chem.Phys. 11, 8916 (1999). [38] R. Kapra, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 57, 129 (26). [39] F. Agostini, S. Caprara, and G. Ciccotti, Europhys. Lett. 78, 31 (27). [4] Q. Shi and E. Geva, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 3393 (24). [41] I. Horenko, B. Schmidt, and C. Schütte, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 5733 (21). [42] C. C. Martens and J.-Y. Fang, J. Chem. Phys. 16, 4918 (1997). [43] S. Bonea and D. Coker, Chem. Phys. 268, 189 (21). [44] P. Huo and D. F. Coker, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A535 (212). [45] X. Sun and W. H. Mier, J. Chem. Phys. 16, 916 (1997). [46] G. Stock and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 578 (1997). [47] N. Ananth, C. Venkataraman, and W. H. Mier, J. Chem. Phys. 127, (27). [48] W. H. Mier, J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 145 (29). [49] M. Thoss and H. Wang, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 55, 299 (24). [5] M. F. Herman, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 45, 83 (1994). [51] Y. Wu and M. F. Herman, J. Chem. Phys. 123, (25). [52] A. W. Jasper, C. Zhu, S. Nangia, and D. G. Truhar, Faraday Discuss. 127, 1 (24). [53] A. W. Jasper, S. Nangia, C. Zhu, and D. G. Truhar, Acc. Chem. Res. 39, 11 (26). [54] D. Bousquet, K. H. Hughes, D. A. Micha, and I. Burghardt, J. Chem. Phys. 134, (211). [55] S. Jang, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A536 (212). [56] T. Zimmermann and J. Vanicek, J. Chem. Phys. 136, 9416 (212). [57] K. Hanasaki and K. Takatsuka, Phys. Rev. A 81, (21). [58] S. Bonea and D. F. Coker, J. Chem. Phys. 122, (25). [59] N. L. Dotsinis and D. Marx, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, (22). [6] A. Abedi, F. Agostini, and E. K. U. Gross, Europhys. Lett. 16, 331 (214). [61] O. V. Prezhdo and P. J. Rossky, J. Chem. Phys. 17, 825 (1997). [62] N. Zamstein and D. J. Tannor, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A518 (212). [63] A. Abedi, N. T. Maitra, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 1232 (21). [64] A. Abedi, N. T. Maitra, and E. K. U. Gross, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A53 (212). 34

35 [65] S. K. Min, F. Agostini, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 731 (215). [66] A. Abedi, F. Agostini, Y. Suzuki, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 2631 (213). [67] F. Agostini, A. Abedi, Y. Suzuki, and E. K. U. Gross, Mo. Phys. 111, 3625 (213). [68] F. Agostini, A. Abedi, Y. Suzuki, S. K. Min, N. T. Maitra, and E. K. U. Gross, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 8433 (215). [69] F. Agostini, S. K. Min, and E. K. U. Gross, Ann. Phys. 527, 546 (215). [7] F. Agostini, A. Abedi, and E. K. U. Gross, J. Chem. Phys. 141, (214). [71] N. Shenvi and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A528 (212). [72] J. E. Subotnik and N. Shenvi, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 2415 (211). [73] N. Shenvi, J. E. Subotnik, and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 134, (211). [74] J. E. Subotnik, J. Phys. Chem. A 115, 1283 (211). [75] A. V. Akimov, R. Long, and O. V. Prezhdo, J. Chem. Phys. 14, (214). [76] T. Neson, S. Fernandez-Aberti, A. E. Roitberg, and S. Tretiak, J. Chem. Phys. 138, (213). [77] O. V. Prezhdo, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 8366 (1999). [78] E. R. Bittner and P. J. Rossky, J. Chem. Phys. 13, 813 (1995). [79] E. R. Bittner and P. J. Rossky, J. Chem. Phys. 17, 8611 (1997). [8] S. C. Cheng, C. Zhu, K. K. Liang, S. H. Lin, and D. G. Truhar, J. Chem. Phys. 129, (28). [81] M. J. Bedard-Hearn, R. E. Larsen, and B. J. Schwartz, J. Chem. Phys. 123, (25). [82] G. Granucci and M. Persico, J. Chem. Phys. 126, (27). [83] G. Granucci, M. Persico, and A. Zoccante, J. Chem. Phys. 133, (21). [84] J. J. Bajo, G. Granucci, and M. Persico, J. Comput. Chem. 14, (214). [85] N. I. Gidopouos and E. K. U. Gross, Phi. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, (214). [86] S. K. Min, A. Abedi, K. S. Kim, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 2634 (214). [87] R. Requist, F. Tandetzky, and E. K. U. Gross, arxiv: v3 [physics.chem-ph]. [88] Y. Suzuki, A. Abedi, N. T. Maitra, K. Yamashita, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. A 89, 451(R) (214). [89] Y. Suzuki, A. Abedi, N. T. Maitra, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, (215). [9] E. Khosravi, A. Abedi, and N. T. Maitra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 2632 (215). 35

36 [91] A. Schid, F. Agostini, and E. K. U. Gross, Accepted in J. Phys. Chem. A (216), DOI: 1.121/acs.jpca.5b [92] J. Frenke, Wave mechanics: Advanced genera theory, (1934) p. 253, Carendon, Oxford ed. [93] J. L. Aonso, J. Cemente-Gaardo, P. Echeniche-Robba, and J. A. Jover-Gatier, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 8711 (213). [94] A. Abedi, N. T. Maitra, and E. K. U. Gross, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 8712 (213). [95] J. H. van Veck, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 14, 178 (1928). [96] A. Scherrer, F. Agostini, D. Sebastiani, E. K. U. Gross, and R. Vuieumier, J. Chem. Phys. 143, 7416 (215). [97] E. Tapavicza, I. Tavernei, and U. Rothisberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 621 (27). [98] G. A. Worth, P. Hunt, and M. A. Robb, J. Phys. Chem. A 26, 613 (23). [99] I. Burghardt, L. S. Cederbaum, and J. T. Hynes, Faraday Discuss. 127, 395 (24). [1] S. Garashchuk and V. A. Rassoov, Chem. Phys. Lett. 376, 358 (23). [11] B. F. E. Curchod and I. Tavernei, J. Chem. Phys. 138, (213). [12] If the squared modui of the coefficients are mutipied by the nucear density and integrated over nucear space, as proven in Section SI.1 of the Supporting Information. [13] J. C. Tuy, Faraday Discuss. 11, 47 (1998). [14] K. Drukker, J. Comput. Phys. 153, 225 (1999). [15] J. E. Subotnik and N. Shenvi, J. Chem. Phys. 134, (211). TABLE OF CONTENTS GRAPHIC 36

37 37