4.6 Article

Comparison of vertical and adiabatic harmonic approaches for the calculation of the vibrational structure of electronic spectra

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 14, 期 39, 页码 13549-13563

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2cp41169e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian MIUR (PRIN 2008 Time'')
  2. IIT (Project IIT-Seed Helyos'')

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The calculation of the vibrational structure associated to electronic spectra in large molecules requires a Taylor expansion of the initial and final state potential energy surface (PES) around some reference nuclear structure. Vertical (V) and adiabatic (A) approaches expand the final state PES around the initial-state (V) or final-state (A) equilibrium structure. Simplest models only take into account displacements of initial-and final-state minima, intermediate ones also allow for difference in frequencies and more accurate models introduce the Dushinsky effect through the computation of the Hessians of both the initial and final state. In this contribution we summarize and compare the mathematical expressions of the complete hierarchy of V and A harmonic models and we implement them in a numerical code, presenting a detailed comparison of their performance on a number of prototypical systems. We also address non-Condon effects through linear expansions of the transition dipole as a function of nuclear coordinates (Herzberg-Teller effect) and compare the results of expansions around initial and final state equilibrium geometries. By a throughout analysis of our results we highlight a number of general trends in the relative performance of the models that can provide hints for their proper choice. Moreover we show that A and V models including final state PES Hessian outperform the simpler ones and that discrepancies in their predictions are diagnostic for failure of harmonic approximation and/or of Born-Oppenheimer approximation (existence of remarkable geometry-dependent mixing of electronic states).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据