4.8 Article

Time Resolved Photoelectron Spectroscopy as a Test of Electronic Structure and Nonadiabatic Dynamics

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
Volume 12, Issue 21, Pages 5099-5104

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c00926

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-FG02-08ER15983, DE-FG02-08ER15984]
  2. National Science Foundation [ACI-1548562]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-FG02-08ER15983, DE-FG02-08ER15984] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different levels of theory were compared for simulating excited state molecular dynamics, with trajectory surface hopping simulations used to understand the role of dynamical correlation in determining the excited state dynamics. Time-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy measurements were employed to benchmark these theories, with the comparison allowing for conclusions on the insights and accuracy of the calculations at different theory levels.
We compare different levels of theory for simulating excited state molecular dynamics and use time-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy measurements to benchmark the theory. We perform trajectory surface hopping simulations for uracil excited to the first bright state (pi pi*) using three different levels of theory (CASSCF, MRCIS, and XMS-CASPT2) in order to understand the role of dynamical correlation in determining the excited state dynamics, with a focus on the coupling between different electronic states and internal conversion back to the ground state. These dynamics calculations are used to simulate the time-resolved photoelectron spectra. The comparison of the calculated and measured spectra allows us to draw conclusions regarding the relative insights and quantitative accuracy of the calculations at the three different levels of theory, demonstrating that detailed quantitative comparisons of time-resolved photoelectron spectra can be used to benchmark methodology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available