The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Coherent switching with decay of mixing: An improved treatment of electronic coherence for non-Born–Oppenheimer trajectories
Abstract
The self-consistent decay-of-mixing (SCDM) semiclassical trajectory method for electronically nonadiabatic dynamics is improved by modifying the switching probability that determines the instantaneous electronic state toward which the system decoheres. This method is called coherent switching with decay of mixing (CSDM), and it differs from the previously presented SCDM method in that the electronic amplitudes controlling the switching of the decoherent state are treated fully coherently in the electronic equations of motion for each complete passage through a strong interaction region. It is tested against accurate quantum mechanical calculations for 12 atom-diatom scattering test cases. Also tested are the SCDM method and the trajectory surface hopping method of Parlant and Gislason that requires coherent passages through each strong interaction region, and which we call the “exact complete passage” trajectory surface hopping (ECP-TSH) method. The results are compared with previously presented results for the fewest switches with time uncertainty and Tully’s fewest switches (TFS) surface hopping methods and the semiclassical Ehrenfest method. We find that the CSDM method is the most accurate of the semiclassical trajectory methods tested. Including coherent passages improves the accuracy of the SCDM method (i.e., the CSDM method is more accurate than the SCDM method) but not of the trajectory surface hopping method (i.e., the ECP-TSH method is not more accurate on average than the TFS method).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Krausz, F., & Ivanov, M. (2009) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.163 · Cited by 5,468
Recent Advances and Perspectives on Nonadiabatic Mixed Quantum–Classical Dynamics
Crespo-Otero, R., & Barbatti, M. (2018) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00577 · Cited by 733
Brunk, E., & Rothlisberger, U. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500628b · Cited by 494
Understanding the Surface Hopping View of Electronic Transitions and Decoherence
Subotnik, J. E., Jain, A., Landry, B., Petit, A., Ouyang, W., & Bellonzi, N. (2016) · Annual Review of Physical Chemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev-physchem-040215-112245 · Cited by 438
Nonadiabatic Excited-State Molecular Dynamics: Modeling Photophysics in Organic Conjugated Materials
Nelson, T., Fernandez-Alberti, S., Roitberg, A. E., & Tretiak, S. (2014) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/ar400263p · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhu, C., Nangia, S., Jasper, A. W., & Truhlar, D. G.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2004-10-22
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 7658-7670
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W2169135284
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coherent switching with decay of mixing: An improved treatment of electronic coherence for non-Born–Oppenheimer trajectories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.1793991
- The paper
- Zhu, C., Nangia, S., Jasper, A. W., & Truhlar, D. G. (2004). Coherent switching with decay of mixing: An improved treatment of electronic coherence for non-Born–Oppenheimer trajectories. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1793991
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.