Adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation

D. Second-Derivative Coupling Matrix TIT. Adiabatic-to-Diabatic Transformation... 

U(qJ is referred to as an adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation (ADT) matrix. Its mathematical sbucture is discussed in detail in Section in.C. If the electronic wave functions in the adiabatic and diabatic representations are chosen to be real, as is normally the case, U(q ) is orthogonal and therefore has n n — l)/2 independent elements (or degrees of freedom). This transformation mabix U(qO can be chosen so as to yield a diabatic electronic basis set with desired properties, which can then be used to derive the diabatic nuclear motion Schrodinger equation. By using Eqs. (27) and (28) and the orthonormality of the diabatic and adiabatic electronic basis sets, we can relate the adiabatic and diabatic nuclear wave functions through the same n-dimensional unitary transformation matrix U(qx) according to... 

B. The Necessary Condition for Having a Solution for the Adiabatic-to-Diabatic Transformation Matrix... 

IV. The Adiabatic-to-Diabatic Transformation Matrix and the Line Integral Approach... 

Appendix A The Jahn-Teller Model and the Longuet-Higgins Phase Appendix B The Sufficient Conditions for Having an Analytic Adiabatic-to-Diabatic Transformation Matrix I. Orthogonality II. Analyticity... 

IV. THE ADIABATIC-TO-DIABATIC TRANSFORMATION MATRIX AND THE LINE INTEGRAL APPROACH... 

In Section IV.A, the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix as well as the diabatic potentials were derived for the relevant sub-space without running into theoretical conflicts. In other words, the conditions in Eqs. (10) led to a.finite sub-Hilbert space which, for all practical purposes, behaves like a full (infinite) Hilbert space. However it is inconceivable that such strict conditions as presented in Eq. (10) are fulfilled for real molecular systems. Thus the question is to what extent the results of the present approach, namely, the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix, the curl equation, and first and foremost, the diabatic potentials, are affected if the conditions in Eq. (10) are replaced by more realistic ones This subject will be treated next. 

Once there is an estimate for the error in calculating the adiabatic-to-diabatic tiansfomiation matrix it is possible to estimate the error in calculating the diabatic potentials. For this purpose, we apply Eq. (22). It is seen that the error is of the second order in , namely, of 0( ), just like for the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix. 

Obviously, the fact that the solution of the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix is only perturbed to second order makes the present approach rather attractive. It not only results in a very efficient approximation but also yields an estimate for the error made in applying the approximation. 

One of the main outcomes of the analysis so far is that the topological matrix D, presented in Eq. (38), is identical to an adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix calculated at the end point of a closed contour. From Eq. (38), it is noticed that D does not depend on any particular point along the contour but on the contour itself. Since the integration is carried out over the non-adiabatic coupling matrix, x, and since D has to be a diagonal matrix with numbers of norm 1 for any contour in configuration space, these two facts impose severe restrictions on the non-adiabatic coupling terms. 

The derivation of the D matrix for a given contour is based on first deriving the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix, A, as a function of s and then obtaining its value at the end of the arbitrary closed contours (when s becomes io). Since A is a real unitary matrix it can be expressed in terms of cosine and sine functions of given angles. First, we shall consider briefly the two special cases with M = 2 and 3. 

Because of difficulties in calculating the non-adiabatic conpling terms, this method did not become very popular. Nevertheless, this approach, was employed extensively in particular to simulate spectroscopic measurements, with a modification introduced by Macias and Riera [47,48]. They suggested looking for a symmetric operator that behaves violently at the vicinity of the conical intersection and use it, instead of the non-adiabatic coupling term, as the integrand to calculate the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation. Consequently, a series of operators such as the electronic dipole moment operator, the transition dipole moment operator, the quadrupole moment operator, and so on, were employed for this purpose [49,52,53,105]. However, it has to be emphasized that immaterial to the success of this approach, it is still an ad hoc procedure. 

We intend to show that an adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix based on the non-adiabatic coupling matrix can be used not only for reaching the diabatic fi amework but also as a mean to determine the minimum size of a sub-Hilbert space, namely, the minimal M value that still guarantees a valid diabatization. 

In this section, diabatization is formed employing the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix A, which is a solution of Eq. (19). Once A is calculated, the diabatic potential matiix W is obtained from Eq. (22). Thus Eqs. (19) and (22) form the basis for the procedure to obtain the diabatic potential matrix elements. 

The matiix as well as the matrix ate called the Wigner matrices and are the subject of this section. Note that if we are interested in finding a relation between the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix and Wigner s matrices, we should mainly concentrate on the matiix. Wigner derived a fomiula for... 

The obvious way to form a similarity between the Wigner rotation matrix and the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation mabix defined in Eqs. (28) is to consider the (unbreakable) multidegeneracy case that is based, just like Wigner rotation matrix, on a single axis of rotation. For this sake, we consider the particular set of T matrices as defined in Eq. (51) and derive the relevant adiabatic-to-diabatic transfonnation matrices. In what follows, the degree of similarity between the two types of matrices will be presented for three special cases, namely, the two-state case which in Wigner s notation is the case, j =, the tri-state case (i.e.,7 = 1) and the tetra-state case (i.e.,7 = ). 

It is expected that for a certain choice of paiameters (that define the x matrix) the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix becomes identical to the corresponding Wigner rotation matrix. To see the connection, we substitute Eq. (51) in Eq. (28) and assume A( o) to be the unity matrix. 

The main difference between the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation and the Wigner matrices is that whereas the Wigner matiix is defined for an ordinary spatial coordinate the adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation matrix is defined for a rotation coordinate in a different space. 

Comparing this equation with Eq. (75), it is seen that the mixing angle p is, up to an additive constant, identical to the relevant adiabatic-to-diabatic transformation—angle y ... 

---