4.5 Article

Benchmark Performance of Global Switching versus Local Switching for Trajectory Surface Hopping Molecular Dynamics Simulation: Cis⇆Trans Azobenzene Photoisomerization

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 1274-1287

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201700049

关键词

conical intersections; molecular dynamics; nonadiabatic transitions; on-the-fly trajectory surface hopping; photoisomerization

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China [103-2113-M-009 -007-MY3, 104-2811-M-009-070, 103-2811-M-009-048]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of P. R. China [21503156]
  3. National Chiao Tung University
  4. MOE-ATU project of the National Chiao Tung University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A newly developed global switching algorithm that does not require calculation of nonadiabatic coupling vectors reduces computational costs significantly. However, the accuracy of this simplest nonadiabatic molecular dynamic method has not been extensively compared with the conventional Tully's fewest switches. It is necessary to demonstrate the accuracy of this global switching algorithm. An extensive comparison between local and global switching on-the-fly trajectory surface hopping molecular dynamics is performed for cis-to-trans (800 sampling trajectories) and trans-to-cis (600 sampling trajectories) azobenzene photoisomerization at the OM2/MRCI level. The global switching algorithm is coded into the Newton-X program package. Excellent agreement between the two switching algorithms is obtained not only for highly averaged quantities of quantum yields and lifetimes, but also for detailed contour patterns of product distributions, hopping spot distributions and hopping directions in terms of conical intersections between ground and the first excited states. Therefore, the global switching trajectory surface hopping method can be applied to larger complex systems in which nonadiabatic coupling is not available for excited-state molecular dynamic simulations.

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

4.5
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