* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Flow of zero-point energy and exploration of phase space in
Basil Hiley wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Molecular Hamiltonian wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Franck–Condon principle wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Quantum cognition wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
© Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS VOLUME 111, NUMBER 1 1 JULY 1999 Flow of zero-point energy and exploration of phase space in classical simulations of quantum relaxation dynamics. II. Application to nonadiabatic processes Uwe Müller and Gerhard Stock Faculty of Physics, University Freiburg, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany ~Received 10 March 1999; accepted 7 April 1999! The unphysical flow of zero-point energy ~ZPE! in classical trajectory calculations is a consequence of the fact that the classical phase-space distribution may enter regions of phase space that correspond to a violation of the uncertainty principle. To restrict the classically accessible phase space, we employ a reduced ZPE ge ZP , whereby the quantum correction g accounts for the fraction of ZPE included. This ansatz is based on the theoretical framework given in Paper I @G. Stock and U. Müller, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 65 ~1999!, preceding paper#, which provides a general connection between the level density of a system and its relaxation behavior. In particular, the theory establishes various criteria which allows us to explicitly calculate the quantum correction g. By construction, this strategy assures that the classical calculation attains the correct long-time values and, as a special case thereof, that the ZPE is treated properly. As a stringent test of this concept, a recently introduced classical description of nonadiabatic quantum dynamics is adopted @G. Stock and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 578 ~1997!#, which facilitates a classical treatment of discrete quantum degrees of freedom through a mapping of discrete onto continuous variables. Resulting in negative population probabilities, the quasiclassical implementation of this theory significantly suffers from spurious flow of ZPE. Employing various molecular model systems including multimode models with conically intersecting potential-energy surfaces as well as several spin-boson-type models with an Ohmic bath, detailed numerical studies are presented. In particular, it is shown, that the ZPE problem indeed vanishes, if the quantum correction g is chosen according to the criteria established in Paper I. Moreover, the complete time evolution of the classical simulations is found to be in good agreement with exact quantum-mechanical calculations. Based on these studies, the general applicability of the method, the performance of the classical description of nonadiabatic quantum dynamics, as well as various issues concerning classical and quantum ergodicity are discussed. © 1999 American Institute of Physics. @S0021-9606~99!01925-X# I. INTRODUCTION which, for example, discard trajectories not satisfying predefined criteria. However, most of these techniques share the problem that they manipulate individual trajectories, whereas the conservation of ZPE should correspond to a virtue of the ensemble average of trajectories. In a preceding paper,7 henceforth referred to as Paper I, we have proposed an alternative strategy to tackle the ZPE problem. The basic idea is that an appropriate classical description should explore at least roughly the same phasespace volume as the quantum description. Since in general this condition does not hold ~for then there would be no ZPE problem to begin with!, it has been suggested to use a reduced ZPE ge ZP (0< g <1) to accomplish this goal. Performing a theoretical analysis that connects level densities and the long-time relaxation behavior of a quantum system, we have established several criteria which may be employed to determine the optimal quantum correction g. Although the connection between ZPE excitation and relaxation dynamics has been discussed previously,4 this analysis has provided clear criteria how much the ZPE should be reduced in order to get the correct quantum-mechanical relaxation behavior. In Paper I we have introduced the general theory and studied simple model problems which allow for an analytical treat- Quasiclassical trajectory calculations are a wellestablished tool to simulate the dynamics of molecular systems.1 In this approach, the evaluation of the dynamics is performed on a purely classical level ~i.e., \50), while the quantum nature of the system is mimicked through a sampling of the probability distribution of the quantummechanical initial state. As a consequence, quantum fluctuations such as the zero-point energy ~ZPE! are introduced which would vanish on a purely classical level. Although its necessity for a successful classical description of quantum dynamics is generally accepted, this somewhat inconsistent strategy may give rise to spurious flow of ZPE.2–6 This is because in classical mechanics energy can flow between modes without restriction, while in quantum mechanics each oscillator mode must hold an amount of energy that is larger or equal to its ZPE. This flaw of the quasiclassical description may result in quite unphysical behavior such as ZPEinduced dissociation of the system. Numerous approaches have been proposed to fix the ZPE problem.2–6 These include a variety of ‘‘active’’ methods @i.e., the flow of ZPE is controlled and ~if necessary! manipulated during the course of individual trajectories3# and several ‘‘passive’’ methods4,5 0021-9606/99/111(1)/77/12/$15.00 77 © 1999 American Institute of Physics © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics 78 J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 U. Müller and G. Stock ment. However, these models do not undergo relaxation and are therefore not suited to directly reveal the connection between level densities and the relaxation behavior observed in a dynamical simulation. To illustrate the concept and to demonstrate the capability of the approach, this work presents detailed numerical studies of multimode molecular systems that undergo irreversible relaxation. As a serious challenge of the method, we adopt a recently introduced classical description of nonadiabatic quantum dynamics.8,9 In this formulation, an N-level system is mapped onto a system of N oscillators which are constrained to their ground and first excited state, thus rendering the correct treatment of ZPE flow crucial. After briefly reviewing the mapping formalism and the main results of Paper I, computational results are presented for two types of molecular systems: First, we are concerned with the relaxation behavior of strongly coupled few-mode systems. Hereby, a two-state three-mode model of pyrazine undergoing ultrafast internal conversion is adopted, which has been employed by several authors as a standard example of ultrafast electronic relaxation.10–16 The model is amenable to a complete quantum-mechanical evaluation of all quantities of interest, thus allowing for a comprehensive discussion of all criteria suggested in Paper I. Furthermore, we consider the relaxation behavior of weakly coupled many-mode systems, whereby various spin-boson-type models modeling photoinduced electron transfer are employed.17–19 Based on these studies, we discuss the practical applicability of our concept to constrain the flow of classical ZPE, the general performance of the mapping approach to classically describe nonadiabatic relaxation processes, as well as various issues concerning classical and quantum ergodicity. II. RELAXATION IN CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS Let us consider an isolated nondegenerate quantummechanical system H, which at time t50 is prepared in the nonequilibrium state r 0 . The system may be characterized by its level density D ~ e ! 5Tr d ~ e 2H ! , ~2.1! and the spectral density S( e ) associated with the initial preparation r 0 S ~ e ! 5Tr r 0 d ~ e 2H ! . t→` E ^ P k& 5 E de S ~ e ! ^ A e & , ~2.3! ^ A e & 5TrS AD ~ q, e ! /D ~ e ! , ~2.4! D ~ q, e ! 5TrB d ~ e 2H ! . ~2.5! de S ~ e ! D k ~ e ! /D ~ e ! , D k ~ e ! 5Tru c k &^ c k u d ~ e 2H ! , ~2.6! ~2.7! where D k ( e ) is the state-specific level density pertaining to state u c k & . The expressions above point out the importance of level densities in the description of relaxation processes: Since any observable can be represented by projectors P k , it is sufficient to know the associated state-specific level densities D k ( e ) to calculate the microcanonical average. This is to say, that any approximation that manages to reproduce the quantum-mechanical spectral density S( e ) as well as the level densities D k ( e ) will yield correct long-time mean values. Denoting the classical approximations to the above expressions by the index C, one may thus define the following conditions for the equivalence of classical and quantum long-time limits:7 S C ~ e ! 5S ~ e ! , ~2.8! D kC ~ e ! /D C ~ e ! 5D k ~ e ! /D ~ e ! , ~2.9! D C ~ e ! 5D ~ e ! . ~2.10! Let us first consider condition Eq. ~2.10!. Adopting a one-dimensional notation ~e.g., x5 $ x j % , j51 . . . f ), the classical level density reads D C~ e ! 5 ~2.2! Furthermore, let us consider an observable A(q) which, after undergoing relaxation, is assumed to become stationary at long times. We shall assume that the observable only depends on a ~in general multidimensional! ‘‘system coordinate’’ q, thus decomposing the trace operation in a trace over system and bath variables, i.e., Tr5TrS TrB . As shown in Paper I, we then obtain for the long-time mean value of A ^ A & [ lim Tr r ~ t ! A5 The mean value ^ A & at long times is given as integral over the spectral density S( e ) and the microcanonical average ^ A e & . The latter can be expressed in terms of a ‘‘coordinatespecific’’ level density D(q, e ) normalized to the overall level density D( e )5TrS D(q, e ). As discussed in Paper I, the derivation of Eq. ~2.3! exploits ~i! von Neumann’s criterion for quantum ergodicity,20 stating that the time average and the phase average of an arbitrary observable are equivalent for a nondegenerate system, and ~ii! that the time average and the long-time limit of an observable coincide if the observable becomes stationary at long times. As a simple example, let us assume that the observable A describes the projection on the state u c k & , i.e., A5 P k [ u c k &^ c k u . The probability to find the system at long times in state u c k & is then given by E dx dp ~2p\! f d @ e 2H C ~ x,p !# , ~2.11! that is, D C ( e ) measures the area of the energy surface of the classically accessible phase-space volume. The integral level density, that is, the level number function N~ e !5 E e 0 dé D ~ é ! 5Tr U ~ e 2H ! , ~2.12! is therefore directly proportional to the phase-space volume that is energetically accessible to the system. Deviations of the classical and quantum-mechanical level density therefore reflect the fact that the phase space explored by the system may be quite different in quantum and classical mechanics.21,22 For example, the quantum-mechanical phasespace distribution may enter regions corresponding to quan- © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 Flow of zero-point energy. II tum tunneling which are not accessible to the classical system. On the other hand, the classical phase-space distribution may enter regions of phase space that correspond to a violation of the uncertainty principle. A famous example of the latter phenomena is the ZPE problem mentioned above. Stating that an appropriate classical description should explore the same phase-space volume as the quantum description, condition @Eq. ~2.10!# therefore may be considered as a minimal requirement for a successful classical description of quantum relaxation. The equivalence @Eq. ~2.9!# of the normalized state-specific level densities, on the other hand, is a much stronger condition. It requires that quantum and classical level densities should coincide not only in the average but in a specific subspace of phase space as well. To discuss the last condition @Eq. ~2.8!#, recall that the spectral density S( e ) corresponds to the level density weighted by the initial distribution @Eq. ~2.2!#. It is therefore equivalent to the energy distribution of the system which, at least for large systems, is typically rather diffuse and structureless. In this case, a classical approximation of the spectral density is usually appropriate if Eq. ~2.10! holds and if a suitable classical initial distribution r 0 has been employed. To restrict the classically accessible phase space according to the rules of quantum mechanics, we have proposed to invoke quantum corrections to the classical calculation. The considerations are based on the formulations of Thiele23 and others,24 who exploited the inverse Laplace transform of the partition function in order to calculate the level number N( e ). At the simplest level of the theory, these corrections have been shown to correspond to including only a fraction g (0< g <1) of the full ZPE into the classical calculation. Adopting appropriate quasiclassical initial conditions, this modification can also be employed in a dynamical trajectory calculation. It is important to note that this procedure also suggest a solution in cases where no reference calculations exist. That is, if we a priori know the long-time limit of an observable, we can use this information to determine the quantum correction. For example, let us assume that the system may be described by N energetically well-separated states that couple to a many-dimensional bath. Since for large times and low temperatures the system is expected to completely decay in its adiabatic ground state, the ZPE correction g then may be determined by requiring that ^ P ad k & C 5 d k,0 , ~2.13! where P ad k denotes the projector on the kth adiabatic state. Since different observables are associated with different parts and projections of phase space, however, it should be noted that the latter criterion does not strictly guarantee that other long-time averages are reproduced correctly. III. CLASSICAL DESCRIPTION OF NONADIABATIC QUANTUM DYNAMICS There are a variety of mixed quantum-classical formulations that combine a quantum-mechanical description of the light particles of the system ~e.g., the electrons! with a classical description of the heavy particles ~e.g., the nuclei!25–31 The dynamical coupling of the quantum-mechanical and 79 classical subsystems is thereby achieved through a meanfield ansatz or the assumption of instantaneous ‘‘hops’’ between electronic potential-energy surfaces. To avoid dynamical inconsistencies associated with this ad hoc combination of quantum and classical mechanics, recently a ‘‘mapping approach’’ to the classical description of nonadiabatic dynamics has been proposed.8 In this formulation the problem of the classical treatment of discrete quantum degrees of freedom is bypassed by transforming the discrete quantum variables to continuous variables. The approach thus consists of two steps: an exact quantum-mechanical transformation of discrete onto continuous degrees of freedom ~the ‘‘mapping’’! and a standard semi- or quasiclassical treatment of the resulting dynamical problem. This section briefly reviews the mapping formalism of Ref. 8 and discusses its quasiclassical evaluation. A. Mapping approach Let us consider an N-level system described by the Hamiltonian H5 h nm u c n &^ c m u . ( n,m ~3.1! The discrete N-state system ~3.1! can be represented by N continuous degrees of freedom through the mapping relations8 u c n &^ c m u °a †n a m , ~3.2a! u c n& ° u 0 1 . . . 1 n . . . 0 N& . ~3.2b! a n ,a †m Here are the usual oscillator creation and annihilation operators with commutation relations @ a n ,a †m # 5 d n,m and u 0 1 . . . ,1n . . . ,0N & denotes a harmonic-oscillator eigenstate with a single quantum excitation in the mode n. Introducing Cartesian variables X n 5(a †n 1a n )/ A2 and P n 5i(a †n 2a n )/ A2, the bosonic representation of the Hamiltonian Eq. ~3.1! reads H5 21 h nm ~ X n X m 1 P n P m 2 d n,m ! . ( n,m ~3.3! The mapping @Eq. ~3.2!# preserves the commutation relations of the operator basis and leads to the exact identity of the electronic matrix elements of the propagator ^ c n u e 2i/\Ht u c m & 5 ^ 0 1 . . . 1 n . . . 0 N u e 2i/\Ht u 0 1 . . . 1 m . . . 0 N & , ~3.4! i.e., the Hamiltonians in Eqs. ~3.1! and ~3.3! are fully equivalent when used as generators of quantum-mechanical time evolution. In the case of a two-level system, the formalism is equivalent to Schwinger’s theory of angular momentum.32 To apply the formulation to vibronically coupled molecular systems, we identify u c n & with electronic states and h nm 5h nm (x,p) with operators of the nuclear dynamics, where x5 $ x j % , p5 $ p j % , ( j51 . . . M ). Depending solely on N1M continuous degrees of freedom, the Hamiltonian @Eq. ~3.3!# has a well-defined classical analog. Since the mapping formalism is quantum-mechanically exact, the approach allows us—without any further approximations—to extend © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics 80 J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 U. Müller and G. Stock well-established techniques of classical trajectory calculations to nonadiabatic problems on coupled potential-energy surfaces. The semiclassical evaluation of the mapping approach via the Van Vleck–Gutzwiller approximation22 has been discussed in detail in Ref. 8. In this work, we are concerned with the quasiclassical evaluation of the approach which has been studied in Ref. 9. In short, the transition to classical mechanics is performed by changing from Heisenberg operators y k (t) (y k 5X n , P n ,x j ,p j ) obeying Heisenberg’s equations of motion (iẏ k 5 @ y k ,H # ) to the corresponding classical functions obeying Hamilton’s equations ~e.g., ẋ k 5 ] H/ ] p k ). Since the classical approximation is employed to the complete system @Eq. ~3.3!#, the mapping approach naturally provides a consistent and completely equivalent dynamical treatment of quantum $ X n , P n % and classical $ x j ,p j % degrees of freedom. It is noted that the idea of a consistent classical treatment of electronic and nuclear variables was anticipated by Meyer and Miller in their ‘‘classical electron-analog models.’’28 However, the quantum-classical analogies employed in Ref. 28 are not unique and involve additional approximations.9 In contrast, the mapping formalism establishes an equivalence of discrete and continuous degrees of freedom on a quantummechanical level and thus uniquely determines the Hamiltonian as well as the initial conditions. In recent works on the semiclassical description of nonadiabatic dynamics,33,34 Miller and co-workers use a modified formulation of their original model,28 which is identical to the classical limit of the mapping approach proposed in Ref. 8. For the computational studies on nonadiabatic molecular dynamics discussed below, we consider electronic two- and three-state systems with diagonal matrix elements h nn ~ x,p ! 5E n 1 1 2 2 (j @ v j p 2j 1 v j ~ x j 1 k (n) j /v j! #. ~3.5! Here E n denotes the vertical transition energy of the diabatic state u c n & , and v j and k (n) j / v j represent the vibrational frequency and the state-dependent linear coordinate shift of the jth vibrational mode, respectively. Depending on the model considered, the off-diagonal diabatic coupling h nm 5h mn is either assumed to be constant or to be linear in a single vibrational mode ~see below!. Furthermore, it is assumed that the system is initially in its upper electronic state ~say, u c 2 & ), while the nuclear degrees of freedom are in thermal equilibrium with respect to the unshifted Hamiltonian h 0 5 12 ( j v j (p 2j 1x 2j ) r ~ 0 ! 5 u c 2 &^ c 2 u e 2 b h 0 /Tr e 2 b h 0 . ~3.6! As discussed in Ref. 12, this initial condition corresponds to the photoexcitation of the system from an initial electronic state ~e.g., u c 0 & ) to the upper state u c 2 & . The mapping Hamiltonian @Eqs. ~3.3! with ~3.5!# describes the ubiquitous situation of M low-frequency oscillators ~the nuclear degrees of freedom $ x j ,p j % ) coupled to N high-frequency oscillators ~the electronic degrees of freedom $ X n , P n % ). The quantum nature of the electronic oscillators manifests itself in the fact that only single excitations u 0 1 . . . 1 n . . . 0 N & may occur @cf. Eq. ~3.2b!#. Quantum mechanically, the latter condition is clearly fulfilled due to the structure of the Hamiltonian @Eq. ~3.3!#. However, this virtue does not apply to the classical counterpart of Eq. ~3.3!, since the ZPE excitation of the high-frequent electronic oscillator becomes an essential effect. For this reason, the classical evaluation of the mapping formalism represents a stringent test for the simple concept of a constant quantum correction proposed in Paper I. B. Quasiclassical evaluation A key quantity in the discussion of nonadiabatic relaxation dynamics12 is the time-dependent population probability of the initially excited diabatic electronic state u c n & P di n ~ t ! 5Tr r ~ t ! u c n &^ c n u . ~3.7! According to the mapping relations @Eq. ~3.2a!#, the quasiclassical expression for the diabatic population probability reads P di n ~ t !5 E 1 dG r n r e @ X 2n ~ t ! 1 P 2n ~ t ! 21 # , 2 ~3.8! where dG5dx dp dX dP and the initial state @Eq. ~3.6!# of the quantum system is represented through the phase-space distributions r e (X, P) and r n (x,p) of the electronic $ X, P % and nuclear $ x,p % degrees of freedom, respectively. For interpretative purposes it is often instructive to also consider adiabatic electronic population probabilities P ad n (t) ad 5Tr r (t) u c ad n &^ c n u , which are related to the diabatic quantities through a unitary transformation.12 The quasiclassical evaluation of adiabatic populations has been discussed in Ref. 15. As is stated by Eq. ~3.2b!, the electronic initial state u c n & is mapped onto the harmonic-oscillator eigenstate u 0 1 . . . 1 n . . . 0 N & containing a single quantum excitation in the mode n. Also, the nuclear initial distribution @Eq. ~3.6!# is given in terms of harmonic-oscillator eigenstates. Employing Wigner’s formalism,35 the phase-space distribution of a harmonic oscillator at temperature T is given by r 0 ~ x,p ! 5 a 2 a /2(x 2 1p 2 ) e , 2p ~3.9! where a 5tanh(\ v /2k B T). Since this distribution only depends on the action variable n5 21 (x 2 1p 2 ) of the oscillator, it is convenient to change from Cartesian variables (x,p) to action-angle variables (n,q) via p1ix5 A2ne iq and sample n from Eq. ~3.9! and q from the uniform distribution, respectively.1 Several limiting cases of Eq. ~3.9! are of interest. For \→0 we obtain Boltzmann’s distribution ( a 5\ v /2k B T), and for T→0 we obtain the ground-state distribution of the harmonic oscillator ( a 51). Furthermore, one may Taylor-expand Eq. ~3.9! around its mean value a /2, thus obtaining in lowest order r 0 ~ n ! 5 d ~ n2 a /2! , ~3.10! which is sometimes referred to as action-angle initial distribution. © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 Flow of zero-point energy. II 81 It is straightforward to introduce the quantum corrections discussed above into the initial distributions in Eqs. ~3.9! and ~3.10!. The reduction of the ZPE content of an oscillator from 21 \ v to 21 g \ v simply amounts to the replacement of a → a / g . Similar modifications can be introduced to the Wigner transform of more general distribution. Since the mapping Hamiltonian also contains electronic ZPE, furthermore, the ZPE term e ZP5 21 ( n h nn in Eq. ~3.3! needs to be replaced by the reduced ZPE g e ZP for consistency reasons. IV. RELAXATION OF STRONGLY COUPLED FEW-MODE SYSTEMS A. Model and computational methods As the first example we consider a two-state three-mode model of the S 1 (n p * ) and S 2 ( pp * ) states of pyrazine, which has been adopted by several authors as a standard example of ultrafast electronic relaxation.10–16 Taking into account two totally symmetric modes and a single nontotally symmetric mode, Domcke and co-workers have identified a low-lying conical intersection of the two lowest excited singlet states of pyrazine, which has been shown to trigger internal conversion and a dephasing of the vibrational motion on a femtosecond time scale.10,12 Exhibiting complex electronic and vibrational relaxation dynamics, the model represents a challenge for an approximate description. It has therefore been used as a test example for time-dependent self-consistent-field13 and coupled-cluster calculations14 as well as for various mixed quantum-classical approaches.15,16,30 The parameters of the model Hamiltonian @Eq. ~3.5!# are E 1 54.02 eV, E 2 55.03 eV for the vertical (2) excitation energies, v 1 50.1262 eV, k (1) 1 50.037 eV, k 1 (1) (2) 520.2534 eV, v 2 50.074 eV, k 2 520.1054 eV, k 2 50.1488 eV for the vibrational frequencies and coordinate shifts of the two totally symmetric modes, and v C 50.1178 eV, l50.2618 eV for the vibrational frequency and the coupling constant of the single nontotally symmetric mode, that couples the two electronic states via the diabatic matrix elements h 125h 215lx C . For a general discussion of vibroniccoupling systems and the associated nonadiabatic relaxation dynamics, see, for example, Refs. 12 and 36. To obtain quantum-mechanical reference calculations, the Hamiltonian has been represented by a direct product basis constructed from diabatic electronic states and harmonic-oscillator states ~see Ref. 12 for details!. Since the computation of state-specific level densities N k ( e ) requires eigenvalues and eigenstates of the system, the resulting Hamiltonian matrix of dimension of 7040 has been diagonalized using standard routines.37 Classical trajectory calculations for the mapping Hamiltonian @Eqs. ~3.3! with ~3.5!# have been performed using a standard Runge–Kutta routine with adaptive step size. To obtain converged results for the Monte Carlo evaluation @Eq. ~3.8!# of the electronic population probabilities, ensemble averages over ~i! 2000 trajectories for action-angle initial conditions and ~ii! 5000 trajectories for Wigner initial conditions proved sufficient for all models considered. Since there is no ZPE problem associated with the low-frequent nuclear variables of this model, no FIG. 1. ~a! Total level number N( e ), ~b! normalized state-specific level number N 1 ( e )/N( e ), and ~c! spectral density S( e ) as obtained for the twostate three-mode model of pyrazine. Thick lines show exact quantummechanical results, thin lines display classical results for the limiting cases g 50, 1 ~full lines! and the intermediate cases g 50.44 ~dashed lines!; and g 5 0.68 ~dotted lines!. ZPE correction needs to be applied to the vibrational modes of the system. B. Level density Let us start with the discussion of the level density and related energy-dependent quantities of the system. Figure 1 shows ~a! the total level number N( e ), ~b! the normalized state-specific level number N 1 ( e )/N( e ) pertaining to the diabatic electronic state u c 1 & , and ~c! the spectral density S( e ) of the two-state three-mode model of pyrazine. The thick lines are exact quantum-mechanical results, the thin lines display various classical results. Figure 1~a! demonstrates the effect of electronic ZPE excitation on the classical evaluation of the total level number. While the limiting cases of g 50 ~lower line! and g 51 ~upper line! qualitatively fail to match the quantum reference, the classical calculation with the ZPE correction g 50.68 ~dotted line! is seen to represent a quite accurate approximation to the quantum results. The latter value of the ZPE correction has been determined by requiring optimal agreement of N C ( e ) and N( e ) in the energy range 4.5 eV, e ,5.5 eV. © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics 82 J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 The normalized state-specific level number N 1 ( e )/N( e ) is shown in Fig. 1~b!. ~Note that N 2 /N512N 1 /N.) The state-specific data show the same qualitative behavior as the total level numbers, i.e., the limiting cases g 50 and g 51 under- and overestimate the quantum data, while an intermediate value of the quantum correction ( g 50.44, dashed line! matches the quantum results quite well. It is noted, however, that requiring optimal agreement of state-specific level numbers results in a different ZPE correction as requiring optimal agreement of total level numbers. As a consequence, the classical results optimized to reproduce N k /N ( g 50.44, dashed line! underestimate the total level number ('41% at e 55 eV!, while the results optimized to reproduce N ( g 50.68, dotted line! overestimate the state-specific level number ('7% at e 55 eV!. The spectral densities shown in Fig. 1~c! have been obtained for the initial preparation @Eq. ~3.6!# at zero temperature. Up to a constant energy shift e 0 5 21 ( j v j , this spectral density is thus equivalent to the S 0 →S 2 absorption spectrum of the three-mode model of pyrazine. The finite resolution of the quantum spectrum ~thick line! has been obtained by convolution of the stick spectrum with a Lorentzian line width of 265 cm21 . All spectral densities have been normalized to 1. Classical results are shown for g 50.68 ~dotted line! and for the limiting cases g 50 and g 51 ~thin lines!. The data have been obtained by histogramming the energy distribution r ( e ) of the classical system sampled from action-angle initial conditions. For g 50, insertion of the electronic initial conditions into the mapping Hamiltonian Eq. ~3.3! yields H 5h 22 , i.e., one obtains the spectral density of the threedimensional harmonic oscillator h 22 . For g .0, the classical system is prepared in a mixture of both electronic states, which results in a spectral density that qualitatively mimics the quantum data. Increasing the value of the quantum correction is seen to result in a larger width of the spectral density, although this quantity appears to be not as sensitive to the choice of g as the level density. The classical result for g 50.68 is seen to closely match the high frequency part of the quantum spectrum, whereas it fails to reproduce the partitioning of the quantum spectrum into the main absorption band centered at e 'E 2 and a vibronic intensity-borrowing band at e 'E 1 . C. Relaxation dynamics Let us now turn to the central issue of this article, that is, the connection between the level densities and the relaxation behavior of the system. To this end, Fig. 2 shows in thick lines quantum-mechanical results for the ~a! diabatic and ~b! adiabatic electronic population probabilities of the initially excited electronic S 2 state, as well as ~c! the mean position ^ x 2 & of one of the totally symmetric vibrational modes. The diabatic electronic population exhibits an ultrafast initial decay on a time scale of '50 fs, which is followed by pronounced recurrences of the electronic population. The adiabatic electronic population, on the other hand, is seen to decay within only '20 fs and exhibits only minor recurrences. As discussed in Refs. 10–12, the conical intersection of the model affects a complex interplay of electronic and vibrational dynamics: The coherent vibrational motion trig- U. Müller and G. Stock FIG. 2. Time-dependent ~a! diabatic and ~b! adiabatic electronic excitedstate populations and ~c! vibrational mean positions as obtained for the two-state three-mode model of pyrazine. Thick lines show exact quantummechanical results, thin lines display classical results for the limiting cases g 50 ~dotted lines! and g 51 ~full lines!. gers the internal-conversion process which is reflected in the recurrences of the diabatic electronic population. In turn, the internal conversion affects an ultrafast dephasing of the vibrational dynamics which is reflected in the damping of the mean positions as shown in Fig. 2~c!. To get a first impression of the capability of the classical description, Fig. 2 shows classical results for the limiting cases g 50,1 employing action-angle initial conditions. As anticipated in the discussion above, the limiting cases g 50 ~dotted lines! and g 51 ~thin lines! significantly under- and overestimate the true electronic relaxation dynamics, respectively. In particular, the adiabatic population probability for g 51 is seen to assume negative values for times larger than 20 fs. This somewhat surprising artifact is explained by the fact that within the mapping formalism the electronic population probability is directly proportional to the mean energy content ^ 21 V nn (X 2n 1 P 2n ) & of the corresponding electronic oscillator. The finding of negative adiabatic population probabilities therefore means that the energy content of the corresponding electronic oscillator drops below the ZPE. In contrast to these limiting cases, Fig. 3 shows ZPEcorrected classical results, which have been obtained for g opt50.44. As previously discussed, this ZPE correction has been obtained by requiring optimal agreement of classical and quantum diabatic state-specific level densities. Therefore, the quantum-mechanical long-time limit of the diabatic population should be reproduced by the classical calculation. For times larger than 400 fs, the quantum-mechanical diaba- © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 Flow of zero-point energy. II 83 FIG. 4. Percentage of trajectories that individually violate the ZPE conditions for the lower ~full line! and upper ~dotted line! electronic oscillator. FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2, except classical results are shown for g 50.44, whereby action-angle ~full lines! and Wigner ~dashed lines! initial conditions have been employed. tic population is found to fluctuate around P di 2 (`)50.33, while the classical calculation for g opt50.44 give P di 2 (`) 50.30. Considering that condition @Eq. ~2.9!# can be matched only qualitatively @cf. Fig. 1~b!#, the agreement is quite satisfying.38 Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the ZPE-corrected results do not only yield the long-time limit of the diabatic population but also reproduce the entire time evolution of the electronic and vibrational observable under consideration. In particular, the data nicely match the coherent transients of the diabatic population and the vibrational motion. To study the effects of the initial phase-space distribution on the relaxation dynamics, we have also performed classical calculations employing Wigner initial conditions. While for g 50 action-angle and Wigner initial conditions are identical by definition, the opposite limiting case of g 51 is found to yield similar results ~not shown in Figs. 2 and 3!. In particular, we also observe spurious flow of ZPE indicated by negative values of the adiabatic population probability. The dashed lines in Fig. 3 display the ZPE-corrected Wigner simulations for g opt50.44. The data are again similar to the action-angle results, however reproduce the coherent beating of the signals only qualitatively. Within the mapping approach, action-angle initial conditions generally have been found superior to Wigner initial conditions. Let us now discuss the alternative criteria derived above, which require ~i! the equivalence of classical and quantum total level density @Eq. ~2.10!# and ~ii! that the system localizes in its adiabatic ground state @Eq. ~2.13!#. It is interesting to note that both criteria result in the same ZPE correction of g50.68. As already suggested by the state-specific level density, the overall relaxation is somewhat exaggerated in this case, although both criteria guarantee positive population probabilities. In other words, the ‘‘minimal’’ criteria Eqs. ~2.10! and ~2.13! might not give the best possible classical description, but at least cure the ZPE problem. We have studied various other two-state models exhibiting electronic relaxation including a model of the internalconversion process in benzene cation40 and few-mode spin boson-type models of intramolecular electron transfer.41 In all cases, the ZPE correction determined via the total level densities were found to be somewhat larger than the one determined via the state-specific level densities. Furthermore, in all cases the latter criterion yielded the correct longtime limits of the diabatic population. The best ZPE correction to reproduce the overall electronic and vibrational relaxation dynamics was found to lie in between the two cases, usually closer to the upper limit determined via the total level density. In conclusion, Figs. 1–3 provide a clear numerical demonstration of the connection between the level densities and relaxation behavior discussed in Sec. II. The spectral density defines the energy range of interest for a given preparation r 0 of the system. For these energies the ZPE correction g is chosen by requiring that either the total or the state-specific level densities of the quantum system is reproduced by the classical approximation. In any case, this ~independently determined! quantum correction cures the ZPE problem of negative population probabilities. The best agreement of classical and quantum dynamics is typically achieved for an intermediate value of the quantum correction.39 This finding is also remarkable in the light of the fact that the conditions derived in Sec. II; ~i! merely state the equivalence of equilibrium values ~not of the dynamics! and ~ii! are only fulfilled approximately. Finally, it may again be emphasized that a dynamically consistent treatment of classical ZPE flow should refer to the behavior of the ensemble rather than to behavior of individual trajectories.2 This fact is illustrated in Fig. 4, which shows the percentage of trajectories that individually violate the adiabatic ZPE conditions 21 (X̃ 21 1 P̃ 21 2 g ).0 ~full line! and 21 (X̃ 22 1 P̃ 22 2 g ).0 ~dotted line!. In the average, about half of the trajectories are found to disregard these conditions © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics 84 J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 U. Müller and G. Stock for g 50.44, although the ensemble of trajectories has been shown to reproduce the correct quantum dynamics. Furthermore, only 4% of all trajectories never violate this condition. V. RELAXATION OF SPIN-BOSON SYSTEMS In the example above, the short-time dynamics of a molecular system is governed by a few high-frequency intramolecular vibrational modes that strongly couple to the electronic transition; a situation that presumably is generic for the optical response of a polyatomic molecule on a femtosecond time scale.12 In the following we wish to consider the opposite case where the response of a molecular system is mainly determined by the interaction of a few-level system with many weakly coupled vibrational modes of the environment; a typical example for this case are intermolecular electron-transfer reactions in the condensed phase. The standard model to describe this type of dynamics is a two-level system that is bilinearly coupled to an harmonic bath.17 Employing this so-called spin-boson model, we are able to compare our classical studies to numerically exact path-integral calculations.31 As a first example, we adopt a spin-boson model recently discussed by Makri and Makarov.18 It consists of a two-level system with interstate coupling h 125h 215g[1 and bias E 2 2E 1 52g in the low-temperature limit k BT 50.2g, and assumes an Ohmic spectral density of the bath J( v )[ ( j k 2j d ( v 2 v j )5 p /2a v e 2 v / v c with a Kondo parameter a 50.1 and a cutoff frequency v c 57.5g. In the classical calculations the bath has been simulated by including 250 harmonic modes whose frequencies are equally distributed between 0.01< v <10. As the cutoff frequency of the bath is higher than the electronic bias, the quantum correction to the ZPE should be employed to both electronic and nuclear degrees of freedom. To determine the optimal ZPE correction we employ criterion Eq. ~2.13!, that is, we require that the system relaxes completely in its adiabatic electronic ground state. For this model, Fig. 5 shows quantum ~big dots! and classical ~thin lines! results of the ~a! adiabatic and ~b! diabatic excited-state populations. Employing action-angle initial conditions, the classical results have been obtained for the limiting cases g 50 ~dashed lines! and g 51 ~dotted lines! as well as for the optimal ZPE correction g opt50.6 ~full lines!. While the latter results for P ad 2 (t) decay to zero by construction, the uncorrected ( g 51) results for the adiabatic population probability are seen to assume negative values, thus clearly exhibiting spurious flow of ZPE. Interestingly, the correct adiabatic behavior imposed on the classical system is directly reflected in the true diabatic relaxation dynamics. As shown in Fig. 5~b!, the ZPE-adjusted result with g opt50.6 are in excellent agreement with quantum reference data, while the limiting cases g 50 and g 51 considerably under- and overestimate the diabatic population probability, respectively. Note that the case g 50 corresponds to Boltzmann initial condition for the nuclear degrees of freedom. The complete lack of ZPE excitation in the bath modes is seen to result in a significant underestimation of the damping of the coherent oscillations. FIG. 5. Time-dependent ~a! adiabatic and ~b! diabatic electronic excitedstate populations as obtained for a dissipative two-state spin-boson model. Exact quantum results ~big dots! are compared to classical results ~thin lines! for the limiting cases g 50 ~dashed lines! and g 51 ~dotted lines! and for g opt50.3 ~full lines!. ~c! Diabatic electronic excited-state populations obtained for Wigner initial conditions with g 51 ~dotted line! and g opt 50.6 ~full line! and Boltzmann initial conditions with g opt50.14 ~dashed line!. As a further example of the effects of initial conditions, Fig. 5~c! displays diabatic population probabilities as obtained for ~i! Wigner initial conditions with g 51 ~dotted line! and with the optimal ZPE correction g opt50.6 ~full line! and ~ii! Boltzmann initial conditions for the nuclear degrees of freedom and action-angle initial conditions for the electronic degrees of freedom with g opt50.14 ~dashed line!. The optimal ZPE corrections again have been determined with the aid of criterion Eq. ~2.13!. Note that Wigner and action-angle initial conditions approximately result in the same optimal ZPE correction, while Boltzmann initial conditions result in a much lower value of g. This is because in the latter case the spectral density is shifted because of the missing nuclear ZPE, thus probing the level densities of the system in a much lower energy regime @cf. Eq. ~2.3!#. The ZPE-corrected Boltzmann results are seen to attain the correct long-time limit but largely overestimate the coherent beating of the diabatic population. The Wigner calculations, on the other hand, resemble the action-angle results. While the ZPE-adjusted results reproduce the quantum data quite well, the results for g 51 exhibit negative adiabatic population probabilities. It is noted that Miller and co-workers have recently presented Wigner calculations for g 51 which were in good agreement with quantum results.34 The examples chosen, however, e.g., various spin-boson models with zero electronic bias, are hardly sensitive to ZPE excitation in the © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 FIG. 6. Comparison of quantum ~thick lines! and classical ~thin lines! diabatic electronic populations as obtained for a dissipative three-state spinboson model describing ~a! sequential and ~b! superexchange electron transfer. electronic degrees of freedom and are therefore reproduced as well by classical simulations with g 50.44 Let us finally consider an example which demonstrates the limits of the proposed procedure. To model chargetransfer dynamics in photosynthetic reaction centers, Sim and Makri have recently reported exact long-time pathintegral simulations.19 Employing various spin-boson-type systems comprising the initial state u c 1 & , the intermediate state u c 2 & , and the final state u c 3 & , they investigated the effects of sequential ~i.e., E 1 .E 2 .E 3 ) and superexchange ~i.e., E 2 .E 1 .E 3 ) electron-transfer mechanisms. As a representative example, Fig. 6 shows results obtained for ~a! the proposed sequential model of wild-type reaction centers and ~b! the superexchange model for a mutant reaction center. Both models are simulated at room temperature T5300 K and employ an Ohmic spectral density with a Kondo parameter a 51.67 and a cutoff frequency v c 5600 cm21 . The sequential model is characterized by the vertical excitation energies E 1 50, E 2 52400 cm21 , E 3 522000 cm21 , and the diabatic couplings h 12522 cm21 , h 235135 cm21 . The parameters of the superexchange model are E 1 50, E 2 52000 cm21 , E 3 52630 cm21 , and h 125h 235240 cm21 . The quantum results ~thick lines! of the sequential model ~a! are seen to completely decay in the diabatic electronic ground state of the system. For short times, furthermore, the model predicts transient electronic population in the intermediate state. In the superexchange model ~b!, on the other hand, there is a nonvanishing long-time population of the initial diabatic state, whereas the intermediate state is hardly ever populated. Using action-angle initial conditions, we have performed classical mapping simulation with ZPE correction ~a! g 50.6 and ~b! g 50.34. The ZPE corrections have been calculated via Eq. ~2.13! and are only employed to Flow of zero-point energy. II 85 the electronic variables. In general, the classical simulations are seen to predict a somewhat too slow kinetics. In the case of the sequential model the long-time limits of the diabatic populations are correctly reproduced, while this is only roughly the case for the superexchange model. Increasing the initial ZPE excitation results in faster kinetics but also in negative diabatic and adiabatic population probabilities. For example, in the case of the sequential model the limiting di cases g 50 and g 51 result in ^ P di 2 & '0.2 and ^ P 2 & '20.2, respectively. In that sense, the ZPE-adjusted results can be regarded as the optimal classical results. There are several reasons for the relatively poor performance of the classical description in Fig. 6. First, the ZPE problem becomes more serious when the number of quantum states increases, because each mapped quantum state will contribute its ZPE to the system.7 The main problem, however, seems to be that the classical description may be nonergodic ~see below!, while the quantum description is ergodic according to the definition given above. As a consequence, the assumptions underlying our strategy are not met, and the simple quantum correction proposed does not necessarily guarantee a similar exploration of phase space in classical and quantum mechanics. Apart from issues associated with the ZPE problem, one might also suspect that the presence of tunneling represents a difficulty for the classical approach. It should be stressed, however, that the effects of electronic tunneling are, at least in principle, included in the formulation. Due to the mapping of the electronic states onto harmonic oscillators, tunneling between electronic states corresponds to energy transfer between coupled oscillators, which is readily described by the classical description. VI. CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM ERGODICITY As previously pointed out, the derivation of Eq. ~2.3! is based on von Neumann’s criterion for quantum ergodicity and on the fact that the time average and the long-time limit of an observable coincide if the observable becomes stationary at long times. Performing the classical limit of Eq. ~2.4!, we obtain for the classical microcanonical average ^ A C~ e ! & 5 * dx dp A C ~ x,p ! d @ e 2H C ~ x,p !# , * dx dp d @ e 2H C ~ x,p !# ~6.1! which is readily recognized as the standard classical expression resulting from the assumption of ergodic mixing.20 To study to what extent the assumption of classical mixing is fulfilled by the model systems under consideration, we compare classical results for the equilibrium diabatic population ^ P di 2 & obtained by explicit trajectory calculations @Eq. ~3.8!# to the results for ^ P di 2 & obtained from Eqs. ~2.3! and ~6.1!. Details on the calculation of multidimensional phase-space integrals for the mapping Hamiltonian Eq. ~3.3! can be found in the Appendix. For the two-state three-mode model of pyrazine, the latter calculations yield ^ P di 2 & 50.38, 0.30, 0.22 for the ZPE corrections g 50, 0.44, 1, respectively. The excellent agreement with the simulated long-time limits reveals that the classical model of pyrazine is indeed a mixing sys- © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics 86 J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 tem. Furthermore, this finding suggests to determine the ZPE correction g opt directly by evaluating criterion @Eq. ~2.13!# via Eq. ~6.1!. That ergodicity is not an exceptional but rather a generic property of strongly coupled few-modes systems is supported by the works of Köppel, Cederbaum, and co-workers.42 Employing similar multimode vibroniccoupling models, they found that the vibronic relaxation dynamics results in complex classical motion with mixed regular/irregular phase-space structures, which are reflected in largely irregular quantum statistical properties of the corresponding molecular spectra. It is noted that the long-time limit of the diabatic and adiabatic electronic populations can also be estimated by calculating the phase-space averages pertaining to uncoupled adiabatic potential-energy surfaces. As shown by Manthe and Köppel, this simple ansatz yields quite accurate results for numerous vibronically coupled systems.11 The situation is somewhat different for spin-boson models comprising many weakly interacting modes. Here the initial nonequilibrium preparation of the system does not lead to an excitation of the bath, because the available energy per bath mode goes to zero for an infinite bath. Bath modes with a frequency higher than the temperature therefore remain in their vibronic ground state. The question whether the classical system is ergodic or not, therefore strongly depends on the nuclear initial conditions imposed. Employing, for example, Boltzmann initial conditions which only allow for thermal excitations, the classical spin-boson system under consideration are ergodic, that is, dynamical calculations and phase-space averages do agree. Using action-angle or Wigner initial conditions for the bath modes, on the other hand, the high-frequent modes tend to keep the ZPE initially included, thus undergoing quasiperiodic motion. As a consequence, the system is not ergodic and the long-time limits obtained by trajectory calculations may be different from those calculated via phase-space averages. Finally, it is instructive to make contact to the work of Heller, who addressed the question of quantum localization versus quantum ergodicity.21 To this end, he defined the ratio F5N* /N` , whereby N` denotes the energetically accessible phase-space volume and N* represents the phase-space volume actually visited by the system under a given initial preparation. That is, a small value of F indicates localization, while F approaching one indicate ergodicity. As an estimate of N` , one may employ a maximum-entropy analysis43 or calculate the phase-space volume that is accessible after the initial decay of the autocorrelation function of the system.21 Alternatively, one may use the total level number of the system at the maximal energy e max assessed by the spectral density, i.e., N` 5N( e max ). As suggested by Heller, the actually visited phase-space volume is given by N* 5( ( n p 2n ) 21 , whereby the sum goes over all Franck–Condon factors p n describing the initial preparation of the system. For the two-state three-mode model of pyrazine we thus obtain N ` '103 and N* '200, that is, approximately one fifth of the energetically accessible phase space is actually visited by the system. Comparing this value to F5 31 obtained in the case of Gaussian random eigenfunctions,21 the two-state U. Müller and G. Stock three-mode model of pyrazine is found to approach the limit of a quantum-mechanically ergodic system. VII. CONCLUSIONS Classical trajectory calculations comprising highfrequent degrees of freedom can be very sensitive to the amount of ZPE excitation included in the simulation. That is, including no ZPE considerably underestimates the relaxation, while including the full ZPE may lead to serious artifacts due to unrestricted flow of ZPE. In this work, we have pursued the natural ansatz of employing a reduced ZPE g e ZP . Establishing a connection between the level density of a system and its relaxation behavior, we have obtained several criteria @Eqs. ~2.8!–~2.10!# which allow us to explicitly calculate the quantum correction g. By construction, this strategy assures that the classical calculation attains the correct long-time values and, as a special case thereof, that the ZPE is treated properly. As a stringent test of this concept, we have adopted the mapping formulation of nonadiabatic quantum dynamics.8 Resulting in negative population probabilities, the quasiclassical implementation of this theory significantly suffers from spurious flow of ZPE. Employing a molecular two-state three-mode model undergoing ultrafast electronic and vibrational relaxation, the computational results shown in Figs. 1–3 provide a comprehensive numerical demonstration of the connection between level densities and relaxation behavior. That is, the ZPE problem of negative population probabilities indeed vanishes, if the quantum correction g is chosen such that the quantum-mechanical state-specific level densities are reproduced within the energy range defined by the spectral density. Moreover, the complete time evolution of the classical simulations is found to be in very good agreement with exact time-dependent wave-packet propagations. The latter finding is particularly remarkable in the light of the fact that the criteria imposed merely guarantee the equivalence of equilibrium values, but do not establish the equivalence of the dynamics. Employing the concept introduced above to the simulation of complex systems that defy a quantum-mechanical treatment, one has to establish a criterion to determine g that does not rely on a quantum reference calculation. A possibility is to utilize long-time mean values of the system that are known a priori. The validity of this scheme has been demonstrated by considering the quantum and classical relaxation behavior of several spin-boson-type models describing photoinduced electron transfer. To calculate the quantum correction, we have assumed that the system decays completely in its adiabatic ground state. Assuming furthermore classical ergodicity, the ZPE correction is readily obtained via Eqs. ~2.13! and ~6.1!, i.e., without any dynamical simulations. Employing this procedure, the ZPE-adjusted simulations are indeed found to be the best possible classical description in the sense that the ZPE is treated properly and the time-dependent quantum dynamics is reproduced. It should be stressed that, at least for the systems considered, it is essential to employ criteria as well as quantum corrections that exclusively refer to the ensemble average rather than to the behavior of individual trajectories. As has © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 Flow of zero-point energy. II been demonstrated in Fig. 4, most of the trajectories in ZPEadjusted simulations individually violate the ZPE condition. However, these simulations correctly account for the mean ZPE content and also reproduce to a large extent the true quantum dynamics. The ZPE content of individual trajectories therefore has no physical significance in nonequilibrium simulations. Finally, it is instructive to compare the ZPE-adjusted classical mapping calculations to other trajectory-based methods that describe nonadiabatic quantum dynamics,25–31 most notably the classical-path ~or mean-field! model26 and the surface-hopping model.27 As shown in Ref. 9, the classical-path method emerges from the classical limit of the mapping formalism if the ZPE excitations of the quantum oscillators are neglected, i.e., for g 50. This limiting case has been found to generally underestimate the true quantum relaxation, particularly if more than two quantum states are involved.9,25 Although the surface-hopping technique in some case represents an improvement over the classical-path model,25,27,30 it has been found to yield rather similar results when applied to the description of nonadiabatic bound-state processes.16 For example, both methods significantly fail to reproduce the correct branching ratio at the ~avoided! curve crossing of the spin-boson model shown in Fig. 5, while the ZPE-adjusted mapping results are in excellent agreement with quantum reference data. Since all these methods in some sense overstress the classical limit ~e.g., ZPE excitation in the mapping approach, classically forbidden transitions in surface-hopping calculations!, however, it is not easy to predict which method will perform better for a given problem. where N n 5 21 (X 2n 1 P 2n 2 g ) and e ZP5 21 (12G) ( j v j . As explained above, we have included the reduced ZPE 21 G v j and 1 2 g V n into the nuclear $ x j ,p j % and electronic $ X n , P n % degrees of freedom, respectively. Here (0<G, g <1) and we restrict ourselves to the limiting cases G51 and G5 g . To facilitate the nuclear integrations, we perform a change of nuclear variables: x̃ j 5 Av j /2~ x j 1 d x j ! , ~A5! p̃ j 5 Av j /2p j , ~A6! thus yielding for Eq. ~A1!: A ~ e ! 5C M E F dG 8 A ~ G 8 ! d e 2 G (j ~ p̃ j 2 1x̃ j 2 ! 2E X P , x̃ j 5R f j ~ w i , u k ! ~ i51•••M ! , ~A8! p̃ j 5Rg j ~ w i , u k ! ~ k52•••M ! , ~A9! R 25 (j ~ p j 2 1x̃ j 2 ! , ~A10! where the hyper-radius R corresponds to the nuclear energy of the system and w i P @ 0,2p ) and u k P @ 0,p /2) represent generalized polar and azimuth angles, respectively. The quantities f j ( w i , u k ) and g j ( w i , u k ) are given by trigonometric functions. Performing the R integration, we finally obtain E 21 dX dP dV R 2M max J ~ V ! A ~ X, P,V,R max ! , ~A11! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Adrian Alscher and Michael Thoss for numerous helpful discussions. This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. APPENDIX where we have defined V5 w 1 ... w M u 2 ... u M , R max 5Ae 2E X P U( e 2E X P ), and J(V) denotes the Jacobi determinant of the transformation. Assuming, furthermore, that the observable A does not depend on the nuclear coordinates, the V integration can be performed to give The purpose of this appendix is to outline the calculation of phase-space integrals of the form E dG A ~ G ! d @ e 2H ~ G !# , ~A7! where C M 5 @ 2 p M 11 (P j v j ) # 21 and dG 8 5dX dP dx̃ dp̃. We introduce generalized spherical coordinates45 A ~ e ! 5C M A~ e !5 87 ~A1! where G comprises the phase-space variables of the problem. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case of an electronic two-state system with constant interstate coupling. The generalization to an N-state system with coordinatedependent interstate coupling is straightforward. The classical mapping Hamiltonian Eq. ~3.3! can be written as (\ [1) A ~ e ! 5Ć M E dX dP A ~ X, P !~ e 2E X P ! M 21 U ~ e 2E X P ! , ~A12! 21 with Ć M 5 @ (M 21)!(P j v j ) p /M # . Since the total electronic population is preserved ( ( n N n 51), Eq. ~A12! reduces to a two-dimensional integration over electronic action-angle variables.9 The structure of the phase-space integral for an electronic N-level system is completely equivalent to Eq. ~A12! and requires a 2(N21)-dimensional integration. The calculation of phase-space averages of observables explicitly depending on nuclear coordinates, in general, requires a Monte Carlo evaluation of Eq. ~A11!. M H5 1 2 ( j51 dx j5 v j @ p 2j 1 ~ x j 1 d x j ! 2 # 1E X P , ( N n k (n) j /v j , ( N n E n 2 12 n51,2 ~A2! ~A3! M E X P5 n51,2 ( j51 v j d x 2j 1g ~ X 1 X 2 1 P 1 P 2 ! , ~A4! 1 See, for example, L. M. Raff and D. L. Thompson, in Theory of Chemical Reaction Dynamics, edited by M. Baer ~Chemical Rubber, Boca Raton, FL, 1985!, Vol. 3; Advances in Classical Trajectory Methods, edited by W. L. Hase ~Jai, London, 1992!, Vol. 1. 2 For a general discussion and an overview of existing methods, see Y. Guo, D. L. Thompson, and T. D. Sewell, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 576 ~1996!; C. Schlier, ibid. 103, 1989 ~1995!; T. D. Sewell, D. L. Thompson, J. D. Gezelter, and W. H. Miller, Chem. Phys. Lett. 193, 512 ~1992!. 3 J. M. Browman, B. Gazdy, and Q. Sun, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 2859 ~1989!; © Copyright American Institute of Physics. This article may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the author and the American Insitute of Physics 88 J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 111, No. 1, 1 July 1999 W. H. Miller, W. L. Hase, and C. L. Darling, ibid. 91, 2863 ~1989!; G. H. Peslherbe and W. L. Hase, ibid. 100, 1179 ~1994!; D. A. McCormack and K. F. Lim, ibid. 106, 572 ~1997!; M. Ben-Nun and R. D. Levine, ibid. 105, 8136 ~1996!. 4 T. Uzer, B. D. MacDonald, Y. Guan, and D. L. Thompson, Chem. Phys. Lett. 152, 405 ~1988!; D. Lu and W. L. Hase, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 7490 ~1989!. 5 G. Nyman and J. Davidson, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 2415 ~1990!; A. J. C. Varandas, ibid. 99, 1076 ~1993!; A. J. Marks, ibid. 108, 1438 ~1998!. 6 A semiclassical treatment of the ZPE problem has been suggested in R. Alimi, A. Garcı́-Vela, and R. B. Gerber, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 2034 ~1992!. 7 G. Stock and U. Müller, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 65 ~1999!, preceding paper. 8 G. Stock and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 578 ~1997!; M. Thoss and G. Stock, Phys. Rev. A 59, 64 ~1999!. 9 U. Müller and G. Stock, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 7516 ~1998!. 10 R. Schneider, W. Domcke, and H. Köppel, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 1045 ~1990!. 11 U. Manthe and H. Köppel, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 1658 ~1990!. 12 W. Domcke and G. Stock, Adv. Chem. Phys. 100, 1 ~1997!. 13 M. D. Prasad, Chem. Phys. Lett. 194, 27 ~1992!. 14 G. S. Latha and M. D. Prasad, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 2972 ~1996!. 15 G. Stock, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 2888 ~1995!. 16 U. Müller and G. Stock, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 6230 ~1997!. 17 U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems ~World Scientific, Singapore, 1993!. 18 N. Makri and D. E. Makarov, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 4600 ~1995!. 19 E. Sim and N. Makri, J. Phys. Chem. 101, 5446 ~1997!. 20 I. E. Farquhar, Ergodic Theory in Statistical Mechanics ~Wiley, London, 1964!. 21 E. J. Heller, Phys. Rev. A 35, 1360 ~1987!. 22 M. C. Gutzwiller, Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics ~Springer, New York, 1990!. 23 E. Thiele, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 3258 ~1963!. 24 P. C. Haarhoff, Mol. Phys. 6, 337 ~1963!; 7, 101 ~1963!; W. Forst and Z. Prás̆il, J. Chem. Phys. 51, 3006 ~1969!; M. R. Hoare and T. W. Ruijgrok, ibid. 52, 113 ~1970!. 25 For a recent overview, see articles in Quantum and Classical Dynamics in Condensed Phase Simulations, edited by B. J. Berne, G. Ciccotti, and D. F. Coker ~World Scientific, Singapore, 1998!. 26 N. F. Mott, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 27, 553 ~1931!; J. B. Delos and W. R. Thorson, Phys. Rev. A 6, 720 ~1972!; G. D. Billing, Chem. Phys. Lett. 30, 391 ~1975!; R. B. Gerber, V. Buch, and M. A. Ratner, J. Chem. Phys. 77, 3022 ~1982!; D. A. Micha, ibid. 78, 7138 ~1983!. 27 J. C. Tully and R. K. Preston, J. Chem. Phys. 55, 562 ~1971!; M. F. Herman, ibid. 81, 754 ~1984!; J. C. Tully, ibid. 93, 1061 ~1990!; D. F. Coker and L. Xiao, ibid. 102, 496 ~1995!; J.-Y. Fang and S. HammesSchiffer, ibid. 107, 8933 ~1997!. U. Müller and G. Stock 28 H.-D. Meyer and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 70, 3214 ~1979!; 71, 2156 ~1979!; 72, 2272 ~1980!. 29 P. Jungwirth and R. B. Gerber, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 6046 ~1995!; T. J. Martinez, M. Ben-Nun, and R. D. Levine, J. Phys. Chem. 100, 7884 ~1996!; A. Ferretti, A. Lami, and G. Villani, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 934 ~1997!; C. C. Martens and J.-Y. Fang, ibid. 106, 4918 ~1997!. 30 Mixed quantum-classical descriptions of nonadiabatic dynamics associated with conical intersections have been discussed in Refs. 15 and 16 and in H.-D. Meyer, Chem. Phys. 82, 199 ~1983!; A. Ferretti, G. Grannucci, A. Lami, M. Persico, and G. Villani, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 5517 ~1996!; M. S. Topaler, T. C. Allison, D. W. Schwenke, and D. G. Truhlar, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 3321 ~1998!; 110, 687 ~1999!. 31 Mixed quantum-classical descriptions of spin-boson relaxation dynamics have been discussed in Refs. 16,34, and 44. 32 J. Schwinger, in Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum, edited by L. C. Biedenharn and H. V. Dam ~Academic, New York, 1965!. 33 X. Sun and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 6346 ~1997!. 34 X. Sun, H. Wang, and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 7064 ~1998!. 35 E. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 ~1932!; M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rep. 106, 122 ~1984!. 36 H. Köppel, W. Domcke, and L. S. Cederbaum, Adv. Chem. Phys. 57, 59 ~1984!. 37 W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery. Numerical Recipies, 2nd ed. ~Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992!. di 38 We have determined P di 2 (`) by averaging P 2 (t) for 500 fs <t<1500 fs. di The result for P 2 (`) can be further improved by fitting the state-specific level densities in the full energy range 4.0 eV, e ,5.5 eV. This results in g 50.35 and P di 2 (`)50.32. 39 A similar conclusion was reached empirically in Ref. 15. Employing the classical electron analog model ~Ref. 28!, it was found that the relaxation behavior sensitively depends on the ‘‘Langer-like’’ modification of the classical model. Within the mapping formulation, these modifications have been identified to correspond to the ZPE of the quantum variables ~Ref. 9!. 40 H. Köppel, Chem. Phys. Lett. 205, 361 ~1993!. 41 B. Wolfseder and W. Domcke, Chem. Phys. Lett. 259, 113 ~1996!. 42 D. M. Leitner, H. Köppel, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 434 ~1996!; T. Zimmermann, H. Köppel, and L. S. Cederbaum, ibid. 91, 3934 ~1989!. 43 F. Remacle and R. D. Levine, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 2144 ~1993!; V. B. Pavlov-Verevkin, and J. C. Lorquet, ibid. 104, 1362 ~1996!. 44 G. Stock, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 1561 ~1995!. 45 A. O. Barut and R. Raczka, Theory of Group Representation and Applications ~World Scientific, Singapore, 1986!.