Non-adiabatic quantum dynamics without potential energy surfaces based on second-quantized electrons: application within the framework of the MCTDH method Sudip Sasmal1, a) and Oriol Vendrell1, 2, b) 1)Theoretische Chemie, Physikalisch-Chemisches Institut, Universit¨atHeidelberg, Im Neuneheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 2)Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing, Universit¨atHeidelberg, Im Neuneheimer Feld 205, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (Dated: 2 October 2020) A first principles quantum formalism to describe the non-adiabatic dynamics of electrons and nuclei based on a second quantization representation (SQR) of the electronic motion combined with the usual representation of the nuclear coordinates is introduced. This procedure circumvents the introduction of potential energy surfaces and non-adiabatic couplings, providing an alternative to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. An important feature of the molecular Hamiltonian in the mixed first quantized representation for the nuclei and the SQR representation for the electrons is that all degrees of freedom, nuclear positions and electronic occupations, are distinguishable. This makes the approach compatible with various tensor decomposition ans¨atze for the propagation of the nuclear-electronic wavefunction. Here, we describe the application of this formalism within the multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree (MCTDH) framework and its multilayer generalization, corresponding to Tucker and hierarchical Tucker tensor decompositions of the wavefunction, respectively. The approach is applied to the calculation of the photodissociation cross-section of the HeH+ molecule under extreme ultraviolet irradiation, which features non-adiabatic effects and quantum interferences between the two possible fragmentation channels, He+H+ and He++H. These calculations are compared with the usual description based on ab initio potential energy surfaces and non-adiabatic coupling matrix elements, which fully agree. The proof-of-principle calculations serve to illustrate the advantages and drawbacks of this formalism, which are discussed in detail, as well as possible ways to overcome them. We close with an outlook of possible application domains where the formalism might outperform the usual approach, for example in situations that combine a strong static correlation of the electrons with non-adiabatic electronic-nuclear effects.

I. INTRODUCTION assumed uncoupled with the rest is introduced and the non-adiabatic couplings within the group are considered The Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA)1,2 and in either adiabatic or diabatic representations, this choice its group BOA generalization2–4 represent the corner- being often a matter of practical convenience. Mul- stone on which the traditional description of the structure tiple theoretical methods and strategies exist to both: of molecules and of the coupled electron-nuclear motion computing the non-adiabatic couplings (NAC) between 11–14 is based. They separate the electronic and nuclear contri- electronic states of the group and obtaining a suit- butions to the molecular wavefunction through the intro- able (quasi-)diabatic representation of the coupled nu- 8,15–20 duction of electronic states parametrized by the nuclear clear and electronic Hamiltonian . positions, thus resulting in chemical structures and reac- Although the GBOA is possibly the most practical tions determined by the position and displacements of nu- strategy to deal with chemical problems in which only clei over the potential energy surface(s) (PES) provided a handful of electronic states play a significant role, the by the electrons. The BOA is an excellent description calculation of NACs and quasi-diabatic states becomes a of ground-state chemistry but its failure is quite com- formidable task for situations involving a large number mon in the photophysics and photochemistry of molec- of energetically close-lying PES, for example when metal ular systems5,6. It breaks down when the energetic gap centers21,22 and highly excited electronic states are in- arXiv:2010.00366v1 [physics.chem-ph] 1 Oct 2020 between the relevant PESs becomes of the order of the volved23,24. These situations arise as well in energy and spacing between vibrational states, i.e. in the vicinity charge transfer scenarios, where the electronic and nu- of avoided crossings and conical intersections where two clear dynamics become inextricable and which are often or more PES interact strongly via vibronic coupling5–10. approached via model Hamiltonians25–29. Nonetheless, The group BOA (GBOA) is the canonical strategy to GBOA non-adiabatic dynamics, both fully quantum- deal with these situations3,4. A group of electronic states mechanical and mixed quantum-classical, and involving a large number of electronic states, are still feasible under certain approximations19,24,30 and there is much interest in the further development of approaches to obtain NACs a)e-mail: [email protected] in dense electronic manifolds31,32. However, it is interest- b)e-mail: [email protected] ing to consider the fact that the specific electronic state 2 occupied by the system at every time during the relevant cal Tucker decomposition and is therefore also N-SQR dynamics is often not an experimental observable that compatible. Both the MCTDH and ML-MCTDH ans¨atze needs to be determined, but rather an auxiliary device do not consider any particular symmetry between the un- along the calculation of, e.g., rates, time-scales and final derlying degrees of freedom. outcomes of chemical processes. Circumventing the (G)BOA to describe the coupled In this work, we propose an alternative ab initio ap- electronic and nuclear dynamics of molecules is a problem proach that circumvents the introduction of a group of of practical and fundamental significance that has been electronic states and the calculation of the correspond- addressed by multiple researchers and from diverse per- ing PES and NACs. It is based on the second quantiza- spectives52–55. A non-exhaustive overview of such efforts tion representation (SQR) of the electronic subsystem33 to follows. One can construct the total multiconfigura- where the electronic Hamiltonian acts on the Fock space tion wavefunction using products of nuclear wavefunc- spanned by occupation-number states constructed from tions of electronic Slater determinants52,53. This corre- a set of properly diabatized single-particle electronic or- sponds, in short, to extensions of the MCTDH approach bitals. In turn, the nuclear coordinates are treated within for fermions (MCTDH-F)56–60 to a direct product of the usual first quantization framework. In this nuclear- time-dependent Slater determinants and an orthonormal SQR (N-SQR) formalism, the non-adiabatic effects are nuclear functions. A drawback of such approach is that described by the evolution of the nuclear amplitudes cou- the primitive basis functions of nuclei and electrons are, pled to the dynamics of the orbital occupations of the un- strictly speaking, independent of each other. This means, derlying single-particle basis for the electrons. The com- the strong but trivial correlation between the positions of bination of a first quantized description of vibrational (or the nuclei and electrons due to their Coulomb attraction phononic) degrees of freedom and a second quantized de- is carried into the nuclear-electronic wavefunction and scription of the electrons is not new. For example, the needs to be propagated. Haxton and McCurdy resolved combination of Hubbard’s34 and Holstein’s35 models to this problem for the special case of diatomic molecules by describe correlated electronic and lattice motions has a introducing prolate spheroidal coordinates for the elec- history of more than 40 years in the field of solid-state tronic wavefunction52. Ulusoy and Nest introduced a physics36. Taking this route to describe the coupled non- set of atomic orbitals on “ghost” centers along the in- adiabatic dynamics of molecular systems from an ab ini- ternuclear axis of diatomic systems, thus increasing the tio perspective has, to the best of knowledge, not been effective size of the electronic basis but avoiding the re- attempted yet. evaluation of matrix elements at each nuclear position53. An important feature of the N-SQR formalism is that Due to the description of the electrons in an optimal basis all degrees of freedom of the molecular Hamiltonian, nu- of time-dependent orbitals inherited from the variational clear positions and electronic occupations, are distin- MCTDH-F framework, these treatments have been suc- guishable, based on the fact that in a SQR representation cessful at describing small molecular systems in intense the particles’ indistinguishability is determined by the laser fields52,53,55,59. A limitation of such descriptions, commutation relations of the corresponding creation and also inherited from MCTDH-F, is that the number of annihilation operators, and not by the symmetry of the configurations of the electronic subsystem increases com- wavefunction33. This feature permits the straightforward binatorially with the number of electrons and electronic application of low-rank tensor approximations to the full single-particle functions, thus hindering their application nuclear-electronic wavefunction, for example Tucker and beyond small molecular systems. Active-space general- hierarchical Tucker decompositions, or matrix-product izations of the MCTDH-F method can help in mitigating states, which is not possible if the electronic part of the this scaling60. wavefunction is to be described by a pair-wise antisym- Reiher and co-workers introduced explicitly corre- 37,38 metric tensor . lated basis functions between electrons and nuclei; Here, we focus on the representation and the prop- functions that depend on the electronic-nuclear dis- agation of the N-SQR wavefunction within the frame- tances. With this treatment they computed vibrational- work of the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree electronic eigenstates of small molecules in a pre-Born- MCTDH39–44 method and machinery for second quan- Oppenheimer fashion and without relying on the con- tized Hamiltonians (MCTDH-SQR)45–48 (while includ- cept of molecular structures, i.e. without introducing ing first-quantized nuclear degrees of freedom) and note a nuclear framework a priori and thus challenging the that other methodological alternatives might be suit- traditional concept of molecular structure54. Finally, ap- able as well. Combining first quantized vibrations proaches based on an exact, single-product factorization and second quantized electrons has been successfully of the nuclear-electronic wavefunction61–63 or using con- achieved by Wang and Thoss within the context of ditional electronic wavefunctions64,65 also circumvent the the MCTDH-SQR approach in applications to model BOA. These types of approaches lead to the picture of a Hamiltonians45,46. The MCTDH ansatz corresponds nuclear wavefunction evolving on a time-dependent po- to an optimal time-dependent Tucker decomposition of tential whose equation of motion requires knowledge of the multi-dimensional wavefunction; its multilayer (ML- the nuclear amplitudes. This results in a complex set MCTDH)49–51 generalization corresponds to a hierarchi- of coupled equations that have been mostly deployed on 3 model Hamiltonians63,65, but which have also been the implementation details related to using the N-SQR ap- basis of improved mixed quantum-classical approaches proach in the framework of MCTDH. SectionIII de- to non-adiabatic dynamics66. Closing this overview, it is scribes the computational details of the proof-of-concept worth mentioning as well that Reiher has recently pro- application to the photodissociation cross section of the posed a method based on quantum dynamics for electrons HeH+ molecule, on which the N-SQR approach is com- and nuclei based on matrix product states that bears pared to GBOA calculations. SectionIV presents and formal resemblances to N-SQR67. Nonetheless, their ap- discusses the results and finally a summary and conclu- proach represents the wavefunction of a system consisting sions including an outlook is provided in Sec.V. of several nuclear degrees of freedom and a discrete set of electronic states, i.e. in the GBOA framework, us- ing the time-dependent density matrix renormalization II. THEORY group (TD-DMRG) ansatz. In this respect, the method is in its aim similar to applications of the ML-MCTDH algorithm to non-adiabatic dynamics situations51,68. A. MCTDH formalism The paper is organized as follows. SectionsIIA and IIB shortly review the fundamental aspects of MCTDH In the MCTDH formalism39,40, the f-dimensional and of its application to indistinguishable fermions in a wavefunction Ψ(x1, x2, . . . , xf , t) is expanded in an or- SQR, respectively. SectionIIC introduces the N-SQR thonormal basis of time-dependent single particle func- Hamiltonian whereas Sec.IID discusses practical and tions (SPFs)

l1 lf f X X Y (κ) X x , . . . , x , t ··· A t φ x , t A t t Ψ( 1 f ) = j1...jf ( ) jk ( κ ) = J ( )ΦJ ( ) (1) j1=1 jf =1 κ=1 J

where the usual nomenclature of the MCTDH literature the cost of the propagation between the A-vector and the 41 is used except for the number of SPFs in each DOF lκ, SPFs. which is usually labeled by nκ and which we reserve for Finally, the EOM for the MCTDH ansatz are obtained later use. AJ (t) is the time-dependent expansion coeffi- using the time dependent Dirac-Frenkel variational prin- cient of the J-th configuration marked with multi-index ciple69 J, and ΦJ (t) is the J-th time-dependent Hartree product that is formed by a direct product of SPFs for each degree ∂ h∂Ψ|H − i |Ψi = 0. (3) φ(κ) x , t ∂t of freedom (DOF). The SPFs ( jκ ( κ )) are typically represented in a time-independent (primitive) basis (κ) ˙(κ) With the constrains hφj |φi i = 0, the EOM for the Nκ 41 (κ) X (κ) (κ) MCTDH ansatz read φ x , t c t χ x jκ ( κ ) = iκ,jκ ( ) iκ ( κ) (2) iκ X iA˙ J = hΦJ |H|ΦLiA˙ L (4) L where c(κ) (t) is a time-dependent expansion coefficient iκ,jκ ˙ (κ) (κ) (κ) −1 (κ) (κ) of the j-th SPF of the κ-th DOF. For convenience, these iφ = (1 − P )(ρ ) hHi φ (5) (κ) primitive basis functions (χi (xκ)) are often chosen as κ φ(κ) φ(κ), φ(κ), . . . , φ(κ) T a discrete variable representation (DVR), thus greatly where the vector notation = ( 1 2 lκ ) simplifying the evaluation of the matrix elements of the is used. P (κ) is the projector on the space spanned by potential energy operator41. the SPFs of the κ-th DOF and ρ(κ) and hHi(κ) are Therefore, one can view the MCTDH ansatz as a the density matrix and the mean field of κ-th DOF41. two layer wavefunction where, in the bottom layer, the The efficiency gain in MCTDH compared to the stan- c(κ) t dard method (propagating directly on the primitive ba- iκ,jκ ( ) coefficients represent optimally evolving time- dependent SPFs along each coordinate, whereas the up- sis) arises from the fact that the number optimal of per layer of AJ (t) coefficients represents the total multi- time-dependent configurations that need to be propa- dimensional wavefunction in the direct products ba- gated to describe the correlation of the system is usually sis of the time-dependent SPFs. In MCTDH, one of- much smaller than the number of primitive configura- Qf Qf ten combines the f physical coordinates (x1, x2, . . . , xf ) tions ( κ=1 lκ compared to κ=1 Nκ). It is, of course, into d groups of logical multidimensional coordinates possible to identify counterexamples for very highly cor- 42 70 (q1, q2, . . . , qd) . This has no effect in the equations of related systems . In such cases, the number of time- motion (EOM) but is an important element to balance dependent configurations needed to achieve convergence 4 with MCTDH approaches the number of primitive config- quantization representation (SQR). This approach was urations and the overhead of the algorithm renders it less described and applied for the first time by Thoss and efficient. Mode combination42 and especially the mul- Wang in the context of MCTDH and termed MCTDH tilayer (ML) approach49–51,71, which is implemented in in SQR (MCTDH-SQR)45. The underlying idea is quite the Heidelberg MCTDH package51,72, can boost the effi- general and widely used besides the MCTDH context. ciency further. This has allowed to describe systems with Here we describe the general features of this formulation hundreds and up to thousands of DOF for some model for the sake of completeness before describing the partic- Hamiltonians51,73–75. ular aspects of our implementation. In the MCTDH formalism introduced above, the co- In SQR, the state of the system can be described in ordinates xκ correspond to distinguishable DOF. Hence, occupation number formalism as a superposition of Fock the ansatz can be regarded as a tensor contraction in states Tucker format |ni = |n1, n2, . . . , nM i, (7) l1,...,lf f X Y (κ) where nκ represents the occupation of the κ-th single par- Ci1,...,if (t) = Aj1,...,jf (t) ci ,j (t) (6) κ κ ticle state (SPS, to be differentiated from the MCTDH j1,...,jf κ=1 SPF introduced above) and M corresponds to the total of the expansion coefficients of the primitive basis func- number of SPS. nκ can be equal to 0 or any positive in- C t c(κ)j t tions i1,...,if ( ). The coefficients iκ,jκ ( ) can be ar- teger for Bosons and either 0 or 1 for Fermions. The ranged as lκ × Nκ matrices while the A-vector is the indices of the primitive tensor of coefficients in core tensor of the contraction. Hence, its rank is smaller X than the rank of the exact (within the primitive basis) C- |Ψ(t)i = Cn1,...,nM (t)|n1, n2, . . . , nM i (8) (κ) 41 c n1,...,nM vector. In mode combination , the mode tensors iκ,jκ are chosen of a larger order than two by turning the iκ in- refer now to an underlying set of distinguishable degrees dex into a multi-index. Correspondingly, the core tensor of freedom, the occupations of each SPS of the many- rank is further reduced. Once the mode tensors have too body system. These Fock space states can be written many terms, a Tucker decomposition can be applied to as well as the direct product of the occupation number them, which results in the hierarchical Tucker format of states of the M Fock subspaces, one for each SPS multilayer-(ML-)MCTDH. The key requirement for this hierachical construct to be possible is that the primitive |ni = |n1i ⊗ |n2i ⊗ · · · ⊗ |nM i, (9) indices {i , . . . , i } refer to a direct product basis of dis- 1 f where we simply are acknowledging the fact that the co- tinguishable DOF. efficients in the wavefunction (8) can be regarded as an It is still possible, although inefficient, to describe in- M-dimensional tensor. Because of the distinguishability distinguishable DOF within the original MCTDH (not of the degrees of freedom, a hierarchical Tucker decom- ML) framework. For this, the SPFs must be restricted to position of the primitive tensor is possible and therefore one single set for all particles and the propagation must the original MCTDH formalism (or its multilayer gen- be started with an (anti)symmetric A-vector. Early ap- eralisation) is, in principle, applicable without further plications of MCTDH to the field of cold Bosons relied modification. on this strategy76,77. Clearly, this case is not amenable What remains to be discussed is how the Hamiltonian to a hierarchical Tucker decomposition because the en- of the many-body system acts on the wavefunction, and tries of the A-vector in Eq. (6) are related by symmetry this is different for bosons and for fermions. MCTDH is upon permutation of two indices: the grouping of particle most efficient when the operator takes the form of a sum DOFs in logical coordinates is not possible. However, the of product terms, each acting on a degree of freedom. original MCTDH theory has been extended by introduc- The SQR operator for a many-body system of bosons or ing permanents for Bosons57,78 and Slater determinants fermions (with up to two-body interactions) reads for Fermions56–60, which avoids the presence of redun- dant (exchange symmetry-related) A-vector entries in the X † 1 X † † Hˆ = h aˆ aˆ + v aˆ aˆ aˆ aˆ , (10) wavefunction. These approaches are made efficient by ij i j 2 ijkl i j l k ij ijkl using standard rules to calculate the matrix elements of the (anti-)symmetric configurations, e.g. Slater-Condon (†) where thea ˆi correspond to the annihilation (creation) rules for Fermions. operators fulfilling the corresponding commutation rela- tions and M B. MCTDH-SQR 1 2 X ZA hij = hφi(1)| − ∇1 − |φj(1)i (11) 2 r1A 1. General aspects A=1 vijkl = hφi(1)φj(2)|v(1, 2)|φk(1)φl(2)i (12) A fundamentally different alternative to describe sys- are the one- and two-body integrals, respectively, involv- tems of indistinguishable particles is to use a second ing the SPSs φi(1). Although our primary interest is 5 in the fermionic (electronic) case, we describe first the dan–Wigner transformation79, according to . i.e., treatment of bosons, which is conceptually simpler. i−1 ! X The creation and annihilation operators for bosons ful- aˆ† = exp +iπ σˆ+σˆ− σˆ+ fill the commutation relations i k k i k=1 i−1 ! † † † X + − − [ˆai, aˆj] =a ˆiaˆj − aˆjaˆi = δij (13) aˆi = exp −iπ σˆk σˆk σˆi (18) † † k=1 [ˆai , aˆj] = [ˆai, aˆj] = 0, (14) and which imply that the creation or annihilation of a particle + − 1 z in a specific SPS does not carry with it a multiplicative σˆk σˆk =n ˆk = (ˆσk + 1) (19) phase factor depending on the occupation of the other 2 SPSs33. Additionally, for j = i the relations (13, 14) + 1 x y − 1 x y z whereσ ˆi = 2 (ˆσi + iσˆi ),σ ˆi = 2 (ˆσi − iσˆi ), andσ ˆk are coincide with the ladder operators of a harmonic oscil- the standard spin ladder operators with Pauli matrices lator. Thus, as is well known, the Hamiltonian of the σx, σy and σz. Following this prescription, the creation many-body bosonic system is isomorph with the Hamil- and annihilation operators (Eq. 18) can be rewritten as45 tonian of a set of coupled harmonic oscillators, where each of them represents the particle occupation of a SPS. i−1 i−1 † Y nk + Y ˆ + Hence, the Hamiltonian (10) is, for the bosonic case, aˆi = (−1) · σˆi = Sk · σˆi of product form. In practical applications, e.g. within k=1 k=1 MCTDH, one can either directly use the matrix rep- i−1 i−1 Y nk − Y ˆ − resentation of the ladder (creation/annihilation) opera- aˆi = (−1) · σˆi = Sk · σˆi (20) tors, or introduce their standard form as a function of k=1 k=1 position and momentum operators. Multiple applica- ˆ tions of the MCTDH method are found in the literature, where Sk are the sign change operators acting locally on where coupled oscillators are involved. In particular, the index k and their matrix representation reads ML-MCTDH approach has been used to describe about 0 0 0 1 51 σ+ = ; σ− = ; 1500 coupled oscillators in the Henon-Heiles model , and 1 0 0 0 other works considering even larger numbers of degrees 73,74 1 0  0 0 of freedom can be found . S = ; n = . (21) For the case of fermions, the commutation relations are 0 −1 0 1 The equivalent form of the second quantized electronic † † † {aˆi, aˆj} =a ˆiaˆj +a ˆjaˆi = δij (15) Hamiltonian in product form is given by † † {aˆi , aˆj} = {aˆi, aˆj} = 0. (16) b−1 ! ˆ X Y ˆ + − He = hij Sq σˆi σˆj (22) These have as a consequence that the operatora ˆs acting ij q=a+1 on a Fock-space ket  b−1 d−1  1 X Y ˆ Y ˆ † † † + vijkl  Sq Sq0  a |n , n , . . . , n i a a n1 a n2 ··· a nM | i 2 ˆs 1 2 M = ˆs(ˆ1) (ˆ2) (ˆM ) vac ijkl q=a+1 q =c+1 (17) 0 sgn(j − i)sgn(l − k)ˆσ+σˆ+σˆ−σˆ−. Ss † n1 † n2 † † nM i j l k = (−1) (ˆa1) (ˆa2) ··· (ˆasaˆs) ··· (ˆaM ) |vaci Here the indices (a, b, c, d) correspond to the (i, j, k, l) Ps−1 accumulates a phase factor Ss = k=1 nk that depends indices, but ordered from smaller to larger and the sgn on the occupation of all SPS (spin-orbitals for the elec- function is defined as tronic case) before the s-th position, and the same is ( †33 1, if x ≥ 0 true fora ˆs . This phase complicates the application of sgn(x) = (23) Hamiltonian (10) to the wavefunction. Clearly, the op- −1, otherwise. (†) eratorsa ˆs operate beyond their index s and therefore are, in general, not of product form with respect to the primitive degrees of freedom or combined modes used in 2. Representations of the SQR wavefunction and operator the MCTDH Ansatz. One possible solution, the one we adopt here and There are two limiting wavefunction ans¨atze when ap- also the one proposed by Wang and Thoss45, is to plying the MCTDH-SQR formalism to fermionic systems: map the fermionic SQR Hamiltonian onto an equivalent (i) Each spin degree of freedom (S-DOF) is described by spin Hamiltonian. Formally, this is done by mapping one SPF. The second quantized wavefunction is then de- fermionic DOF onto spin DOF using the (inverse) Jor- scribed by a single Hartree product. (ii) Each S-DOF 6

(a) an example, let us consider a system containing 8 (b) spin orbitals that are divided into two groups, each with 4 spin orbitals. The MCTDH wavefunction N N N1 N1 1 1 trees for S-DOF and FS-DOF are given in Fig.1. S S M1 M2 For S-DOFs, each DOF has two primitive states MFS FS 1 M2 |0i and |1i and the Fock space spanned by each 2 2 2 2 FS FS 2 2 2 2 N2 N3 combined mode M1 and M2 mode, Fig.1(a),

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 el1 el2 is

F(4) 3(|0i ⊕ |1i)1 ⊗ (|0i ⊕ |1i)2 ⊗ (26) FIG. 1. Tree structures for the MCTDH electronic wavefunc- (|0i ⊕ |1i) ⊗ (|0i ⊕ |1i) tion containing 8 spin orbitals. (a) MCTDH wavefunction 3 4 tree, in which spin orbitals are considered as the primitive with 24 = 16 Fock states. In the FS-DOF case, electronic DOFs (S-DOF). (b) MCTDH wavefunction tree, FS FS each of the M1 and M2 degrees of freedom, in which the Fock space of the 4 combined spin orbitals is Fig.1(b), is spanned, in principle, by the 16 origi- considered as a single electronic DOF (FS-DOF). nal Fock states. In practice, we one can prune the FS-DOF by either allowing only a certain range of electronic occupations in each FS-DOF, by further removing certain occupation number states that is described by two SPFs. In this case the wavefunction are considered chemically irrelevant (for example has 2M configurations, is exact, and spans all states of based on energetic arguments), or both. For the the underlying Fock space. Limiting case (i) is a poor above mentioned example, if the spin orbitals are representation of correlated states, whereas case (ii) be- energetically ordered with respect to a pre-existing comes quickly unaffordable as the number of spin-orbitals first quantization mean-field calculation, then in increases. Therefore, the only practical alternative to ap- the lowest energy configuration of the mean-field ply MCTDH-SQR to fermions is to group primitive spin all the orbitals in el are occupied (|1, 1, 1, 1i) and degrees of freedom together, either through mode com- 1 all orbitals in el are empty (|0, 0, 0, 0i). Now, if one bination or through the generalization to ML-MCTDH- 2 decides to allow only upto two holes in el , the oc- SQR. Grouping two or more S-DOFs the total Fock space 1 cupation number states of the H(4, 0) and H(4, 1) becomes Hilbert spaces are removed from the corresponding F(M) = f1(m1) ⊗ f2(m2) ⊗ · · · ⊗ fd(md) (24) F(4) Fock space, which shrinks from 16 to 9 occu- pation number states. Equivalently, one would in where fκ(mκ) denotes the sub-Fock space of mκ S-DOFs this case also limit the maximum number of elec- mκ with 2 Fock states and trons in the el2 Fock space to two, thus eliminating d from it the occupation number states of the H(4, 3) X M = mκ. (25) and H(4, 4) Hilbert spaces. κ=1 2. The operators acting on FS-DOFs are very sparse In MCTDH language, fκ(mκ) corresponds to the primi- and correspond to pure mappings. This is proba- tive space of the κ-th logical coordinate. bly the most important reason for introducing FS- One can go one step further and represent the states DOFs and the one that can lead to the largest ef- of the sub-Fock space fκ(mκ) as a new primitive degree ficiency gains in computations. To illustrate this, of freedom. We refer to this representation of the prim- let us consider again a simple example where the itive degrees of freedom as Fock space DOF (FS-DOF). (2×2) matrices There are several advantages when using FS-DOFs over 0 0 1 0  1 0  σ+ S S = (27) S-DOFs: (1) (2) (3) − − 1 0 (1) 0 1 (2) 0 1 (3) 1. The Fock space of each FS-DOFs can be statically are applied to a sequence of three combined spin pruned before the calculation. This static pruning degrees of freedom. The (8×8) matrix performing is not possible in the S-DOF representation. The the same operation on the corresponding FS-DOFs pruning of the Fock space is equivalent to removing reads unwanted grid points from a multidimensional grid   in a discrete variable representation (DVR)80.A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 similar strategy, termed adiabatic contraction, was 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   used by Wang and Thoss in their applications using 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   the ML-MCTDH-SQR method81,82. The criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   . (28) to prune the primitive space are different though. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  −  Whereas they employ an energetic cutoff, we con- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 sider what are the possible electronic occupations 0 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0 of the subspace according to various criteria. As 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7

All such combined matrix operators have the fol- and ψˆ(~x) lowing properties: there is at most one entry dif- N ! ferent than 0 in each row and column, which can Z 2 2 ˆ 3 ˆ† ~ ~ 2 X −Qαe ˆ be either equal to 1 or −1. In an n × n matrix, at He = dr1 ψ ( ~x1) − ∇ + ψ( ~x1) 2me |R~ − ~r | most n entries are different than 0. These proper- α=1 α 1 (32) ties can be used to greatly increase the efficiency of Z Z 2 the multiplication of these matrices to vectors of co- 3 3 ˆ† ˆ† e ˆ ˆ + dr1 dr2 ψ ( ~x1)ψ ( ~x2) ψ( ~x2)ψ( ~x1), efficients (representing an MCTDH single particle |~r1 − ~r2| function). These operations can be performed by dedicated subroutines by mapping coefficients and avoiding actual number multiplications and sum- where ~xj denotes the spatial and spin coordinates of the mations. Note, for example, that the combination fermionic particles. The simplest situation corresponds of 10 spin-orbitals into one FS-DOF leading to a to the case in which the field operators are expanded in Fock space with 1024 occupation number states re- a basis of electronic spin-orbitals that are independent of sults in matrix operators with at most ≈ 1/1000 the nuclear positions non-zero entries, and even larger FS-DOFs are pos- sible. F ˆ† X ∗ † ψ (~x) = χj (~x)ˆaj (33) j=1 3. The pruning of the FS-DOF spaces can result in F fewer product terms of the second quantized Hamil- X ψˆ(~x) = χ (~x)ˆa . (34) tonian (22). This is the case for product terms, e.g. j j j=1 of the form of Eq. (27), that in the original sub-Fock space link configurations that in the FS-DOF have Hamiltonian (29-32) can be re-expressed using the mode been pruned. expansions (33, 34) resulting in

F F X † 1 X † † Hˆ = Tˆn + Wˆ n + hij(R)ˆa aˆj + vijklaˆ aˆ aˆlaˆk, i 2 i j C. Non-adiabatic quantum dynamics in second ij ijkl quantization (35)

where One of the main purposes of this paper is to introduce ~ 2 N and describe the treatment of the coupled nuclear and −∇ X −Qα electronic dynamics based on an SQR representation of hij(R) = hχi(~x1)| + |χj(~x1)i (36) 2 |R~ − ~r | the electronic subsystem. The full non-relativistic molec- α=1 α 1 ular Hamiltonian is given by and ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 H = Tn + Wn + He (29) vijkl = hχi(~x1)χj(~x2)| |χk(~x1)χl(~x2)i (37) |~r1 − ~r2| where the nuclear kinetic energy (Tˆn) and the nuclear- are the one- and two-body integrals of the electronic sub- nuclear potential energy (Wˆ n) operators are given by system, respectively, and the coupling of the electrons and nuclei occurs only through the one-body electronic term. N 2 X ~ 2 In applications to molecular systems it may be more Tˆn = − ∇~ (30) 2m α α=1 α convenient to represent the electronic problem in a sin- gle particle basis that depends on the nuclear positions, thus removing to a large extent the artificial correlations and among the positions of the nuclei and electrons in space and thus keeping the number of electronic spin-orbitals as small as possible. In such a basis, the same field op- N 2 X QαQβe erators (33, 34) are expanded as Wˆ = , (31) n ~ ~ α,β=1 |Rα − Rβ| F ˆ† X ∗ ˆ† ψ (~x) = ϕj (~x; R)bj(R) (38) respectively. Here, the indices α, β run over all nuclear j=1 DOFs. In this section it will be convenient to express the F ˆ X ˆ electronic part (Hˆe) of the total molecular Hamiltonian in ψ(~x) = ϕj(~x; R)bj(R). (39) terms of second-quantized fermionic field operators ψˆ†(~x) j=1 8

At first sight it may look now as if one will obtain again position-independent operators as Hamiltonian (35), but now expressed in the nuclear- dependent basis. This is not the case because the oc- F ˆ X cupation number states carry an implicit nuclear-positon bj(R) = hϕj(R)|χkiaˆk (41) dependency (cf. Eq. (43)) that results in non-adiababtic k=1 coupling (NAC) terms of kinetic nature: F ˆ† X † bj(R) = hχk|ϕj(R)iaˆk, (42) j=1

respectively, and then express the occupation number h{~m}|Tˆ |{~n}i = Tˆ δ (40) n n ~m~n representation kets starting from the vacuum state as 1 − h{~m}|∇|{~n}i∇ M F n Y  †  k 1 |{~n}i = ˆb |0i. (43) − h{~m}|∇2|{~n}i. k 2M k=1 Here and in the following we drop the R-dependence of ˆ ˆ† ˆ the bk and bk for notational simplicity. Note that bk and ˆ† † bk act on the Fock space basis similarly asa ˆk anda ˆk, To evaluate the SQR NACs we first combine Eqs. (33, and in practice they are replaced by the spin matrices 34) and (38, 38) and express the the position-dependent in Eqs.(20,21). Making use of the expressions above one creation (annihilation) operators, in terms of the arrives at

F n Y ˆ† l h{~m}|∇|{~n}i = h{~m}|∇ bl |0i (44) l=1 " #" #" # X Y ˆ† nk X † Y ˆ† nk = h{~m}| nl (bk) hχq|∇|ϕl(R)iaˆq (bk) |0i l kl " #" #" # X Y ˆ† nk X † Y ˆ† nk = h{~m}| nl (bk) hχq|ϕr(R)ihϕr(R)|∇|ϕl(R)iaˆq (bk) |0i rl kl " # " # h i X Y ˆ† nk ˆ† Y ˆ† nk = h{~m}| nl (bk) hϕr(R)|∇|ϕl(R)ibr (bk) |0i, rl kl

where the nuclear derivative operator acts now on the The second order non-adiabatic coupling term is obtained basis of position dependent spin-orbitals. Finally, the in the same manner and reads multiplicative nl term in the last line of Eq. (44) can † n b b l 2 X 2 † be substituted by l( l ) , leaving the matrix element h{~m}|∇ |{~n}i = hϕ (R)|∇ |ϕ (R)ih{~m}|ˆb ˆb |{~n}i. unaltered and allowing to re-introduce the ket |{~n}i on r l r l rl the right side (46) X ˆ†ˆ h{~m}|∇|{~n}i = hϕr(R)|∇|ϕl(R)ih{~m}|brbl|{~n}i. rl Using the matrix elements in Eqs. (45,46), the total (45) molecular Hamiltonian (29) takes the form

F F X  1 1  1 X Hˆ = Tˆ + Wˆ + h (R) − D (R) · ∇ − G (R) ˆb†ˆb + v (R)ˆb†ˆb†ˆb ˆb (47) n n pq M pq M pq p q pqrs p q s r pq 2 2 pqrs

in the basis of position-dependent spin-orbitals, where and 2 Dpq = hϕp(R)|∇|ϕq(R)i (48) Gpq = hϕp(R)|∇ |ϕq(R)i (49) 9 represent the first and second order non-adiabatic cou- accordingly as plings that arise from the nuclear position dependence ˜ of the electronic orbital basis, and the integrals hpq and hab(R) = hab(R) (51) vpqrs are evaluated in the |ϕq(R)i basis. 1 X + (viaib(R) + vaibi(R) − viabi(R) − vaiib(R)) . All degrees of freedom in the molecular Hamilto- 2 nian (47), nuclei positions and electronic occupations, i are distinguishable. We refer to the combination of a A similar strategy can be applied if a group of spin- first quantized representation for the nuclei and a sec- orbitals can be assumed to be, at most, singly occupied at ond quantized representation of the fermionic subsystem, all times. This would be the case, e.g., in single ionization Hamiltonian (47), as the N-SQR framework. N-SQR en- processes, where, per definition, only one electron reaches ables the application of various forms of tensor decom- the orbitals that describe the outgoing particle. In this positions to the corresponding wavefunction, such as hi- group of orbitals, only one-body terms of the Hamilto- erarchical tensor contractions and matrix product-state nian need to be retained. Spin-orbitals that are consid- representations. Hence, MCTDH and its ML-MCTDH ered to never become populated can be removed from the generalization, which can be regarded as a hierarchical calculation without further consideration. Tucker decompositions of the wavefunction, can be read- – Selective cutoff value for Hamiltonian terms: – It ily applied to Hamiltonian Eq. (47) to describe the mixed is common in MCTDH calculations to set a cutoff and non-adiabatic dynamics of nuclei and electrons without, remove small Hamiltonian terms, e.g., of order 10−7 or in principle, further modification. Nonetheless, practi- smaller before time propagations are performed. We have cal aspects need to be considered in N-SQR calculations, observed that this strategy is not so convenient with the which are the subject of the next section. electronic SQR Hamiltonian because it consists of thou- For completeness, AppendixA describes formally the sands of very small contributions which, when removed, application of the Hamiltonian (47) to a Born-Huang-like lead to noticeable effects. For SQR we proceed in a expansion of the wavefunction, although this alternative slightly modified way. We apply a predefined cutoff only is not used in the actual calculations reported here. to 2-body terms of 3-index and 4-index type, e.g. v1,2,3,3 or v1,2,3,4. The rationale behind this strategy is that only one- and two-body terms with up to two different indices, D. Practical aspects of N-SQR and implementation within the Coulomb and exchange integrals, contribute to the MCTDH energy of an occupation number state h{~n}|Hˆe|{~n}i, so we keep them all. Instead, 3-index and 4-index integrals 1. Cutoff strategies for Hamiltonian terms participate only in the off-diagonal terms that connect different occupation number states. We have observed A major obstacle in the ab initio description of that this strategy to be effective in reducing the size of molecules within the SQR framework is the large num- the Hamiltonian in a more or less controllable way. This ber of Hamiltonian terms to be considered, mostly due will be illustrated later in the discussion of the results. to the four-index Coulomb integrals vijkl. In this work, we apply two strategies to mitigate this problem: 2. Diabatization of orbitals – Frozen core approximation: – This strategy is widely used in static multi-configuration electronic structure cal- culations. Low lying molecular orbitals, e.g. linear com- One important aspect of static multi-configuration binations of atomic 1s orbitals, are energetically well sep- electronic structure calculations aimed at the generation arated from the valence space and, for most practical of potentials and NAC coupling elements is the introduc- purposes, remain occupied at all times. Removing them tion of a basis of molecular orbitals that is as diabatic 18,20,83–86 leads to a reduction of the number of degrees of free- as possible . In this case, the NAC couplings dom in a similar manner as when introducing reduced between adiabatic electronic states are captured, prac- dimensionality models in nuclear dynamics, and also to tically in their entirety, by the configuration interaction 83 a reduction in the number of Hamiltonian terms. Re- (CI) expansion vectors . In the nuclear-SQR framework, stricting the lowest energy spin-orbitals to always being the advantage of using (quasi-)diabatic orbitals is simi- occupied and dividing the orbital space into two groups, lar. The differential terms in Hamiltonian (47) can be core orbitals (i, j, . . . ) and active orbitals (a, b, . . . ), the neglected and all the non-adiabatic effects are included energy of the core region is given by in the time-evolution of the overall wavefunction. There are several diabatization procedures described core P 1 P in literature that produce (quasi-)diabatic molecular E (R) = i hii(R) + 2 ij (vijij(R) − vijji(R))(50), orbitals18,20,83–86, for example imposing conformational which contributes to the Hamiltonian as a potential en- uniformity at close-lying geometries18,83,84,86 or extract- ergy surface for the nuclei. The electrons in the active ing the orbitals from state-averaged self-consistent field orbitals (a, b) still interact with the filled core and the calculations85. In this work, we simply reorder the one-body transfer integrals hab(R) need to be adjusted Hartree-Fock (HF) molecular orbitals obtained at each 10 nuclear geometry to ensure their continuity. In our se- 3. Generation of initial SPFs lected example this is possible because of two reasons. First, the coupled muclear-electronic dynamics involve a An important aspect in MCTDH calculations is the group of highly excited electronic configurations, whereas generation of the initial SPFs in Eq. (2). Recently, Weike the electronic ground state is, to a very good approxima- and Manthe48 showed that if the initial SPFs are eigen- tion, mono-configurational along the whole set of inter- functions of the local particle-number operator of the nuclear distances. Hence, the HF mean-field presents no corresponding k-th sub-Fock spacen ˆ(k) = PNk aˆ† aˆ , ik ik ik discontinuities. Second, we are considering only one nu- the MCTDH EOM conserve the particle number of each clear coordinate. In general, though, obtaining a good SPF during the time propagation. This means, the ini- set of quasi-diabatic orbitals will be an important aspect tially occupied SPF(s) in each sub-Fock space (combined of N-SQR calculations, which will need a more detailed mode or FS-DOF) must correspond to an integer par- consideration in future works. ticular particle number. Moreover, the initially unoc- We need to rearrange the MOs such that each MO re- cupied SPF(s) must also each correspond to an integer tains its character over all geometries. In short, we pro- particle number and their set has to span various particle ceed as follows. We construct an overlap matrix between numbers such that the mode is flexible enough to repre- the MOs of two successive geometries R,R0 sent the evolution of the system in the whole Fock space. MO T Therefore, the choice of both the initially occupied and S = Ψ Ψ[R ] (52) [R,R0] [R] 0 unoccupied initial SPFs is very important in MCTDH- T T = C[R]Φ[R]Φ[R0]C[R0], SQR calculations. At the moment, we select the initial SPFs where the vector notation, e.g. for column vector of MOs N T T k Ψ = (|ϕ1i, |ϕ2i,... ) , is used, the subscript denotes (k) X (k) [R] [R] |φ i = c |{~n}i i (57) the corresponding geometry, and the MOs in terms of jk ik,jk k ik atomic orbitals (AOs) are given as by only mixing primitive occupation-number states that Ψ[R] = Φ[R]C[R], (53) are eigenfunctions of the local particle number operator (k) (k) nˆ |{~n}ik i = ni |{~n}ik i with the same number of par- where C[R] is the AO-MO transformation matrix with k n(k) the molecular orbital coefficients in its columns. Since ticles ik . atomic orbitals are, in general, not orthogonal and we are In molecular problems, the choice of what particle- interested in their overlap at different, but close, geome- numbers are spanned by the k-th sub-Fock space can tries, a direct multiplication of the coefficient matrices be made similarly as when considering restricted active C[R] in Eq. (52) assuming that they flank a unit matrix spaces in electronic multi-configuration calculations. For is not possible. Therefore, we introduce symmetrically example, one may consider an initial electronic configu- orthogonalized atomic orbitals (SO) ration with a set of low energy occupied, and a set of

1 empty (virtual) spin-orbitals, and one may assume that − 2 χ[R] = Φ[R]s[R] , (54) at most m electrons have, at any time, been transferred between the initially occupied and unoccupied spaces. where s[R] is the overlap matrix between AOs at geome- This type of strategy has the added advantage of limit- try R. ing the primitive particle-number states when using FS- DOFs, in contrast to S-DOFs, where the primitive space s = ΦT Φ (55) [R] [R] [R] is not affected by such considerations. 48 Now, using Eq. (54), we can rewrite the Eq. (52) as Since, as pointed out by Manthe , the SPFs conserve the local particle number, and the propagation of the 1   1 MO T 2 T 2 expansion coefficients of the A-vector conserves the to- S[R,R ] = C[R]s χ[R]χ[R0] s C[R0] 0 [R] [R0] tal particle number, MCTDH-SQR calculations based on 1 1 T 2 2 SPFs with an integer particle number have entries of the ≈ C[R]s s C[R0] (56) [R] [R0] A-vector that stay equal to zero at all times. These coeffi- where we have approximated the overlap between the cients refer to configurations of the whole Fock space per-   pendicular to the initially populated Hilbert space. Cur- SOs of two successive geometries χT χ ≈ 1 as a [R] [R0] rently, our code does not take advantage of this fact, but unit matrix. This is a good approximation as long as specialized MCTDH-SQR implementations might take the R and R0 are close enough. The simple diabatiza- advantage of these considerations. tion procedure consists now in rearranging the MOs at geometry R (columns of C[R]) such that the largest ma- trix elements of the overlap matrix SMO are found in III. COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS [R,R0] the main diagonal, and in multiply a phase of −1 to the corresponding column of C[R], if needed, to render the We apply the N-SQR framework in combination with diagonal matrix elements positive. MCTDH-SQR to the photofragmentation of the HeH+ 11 molecule upon excitation by XUV photons of about (a) 30 eV. Following the photoexcitation process, it is known that non-adiabatic effects couple different fragmenta- N1 N4 tion channels and result in quantum interferences that N2 N3 shape the channel-selected photodissociation cross sec- tion87. The N-SQR calculations are compared with tra- ditional first quantization Born-Huang2 (FQBH) calcu- 512 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 lations based on the GBOA. We perform the FQBH cal- nu 1 1β 2 2β 3 3β 4 4β 5 5β culations in the adiabatic representation and thus we use α α α α α the computed PES and NACs from ab initio quantum (b) (c) chemistry directly and without further transformation to a quasi-diabatic electronic basis. Technical details on the FQBH quantum dynamics calculations in the adiabatic N1 N4 N1 N1 N2 N representation are provided in AppendixB. 3 The uncontracted aug-cc-pVTZ88 atomic basis is used for both H and He to generate the underlying spin- orbitals for the N-SQR calculation. As already men- 512 9 4 9 512 25 tioned, we use the Hartree-Fock molecular orbitals (MO) nu el1 el2 el3 nu el as the one-particle basis used to construct the matrix elements in Hamiltonian. (47). The primitive orbital space consists of 10 spin-orbitals (5 lowest-energy spa- tial MOs of Σ symmetry in the C∞ point group) of which two are occupied in the HF reference configura- tion. The one-electron and two-electron matrix elements FIG. 2. Tree structures for the MCTDH wavefunctions of the + in the atomic orbital (AO) basis and the AO-MO trans- HeH . (a) MCTDH wavefunction tree, in which spin orbitals are considered as the primitive electronic DOFs (S-DOF). (b) formation coefficients C[R] are obtained using the PSI4 MCTDH wavefunction tree, in which the Fock space (consists 89 C program package . The columns of the [R] matrix are of (4, 2, 4) spin orbitals) is considered as the electronic DOF then sorted out for all geometries using the orbital diaba- (FS-DOF(I)) (c) MCTDH wavefunction tree, in which the tization procedure outlined above and subsequently the Fock space (consists of 10 spin orbitals) is considered as the AO to MO transformation of the integrals is performed electronic DOF (FS-DOF(II)). “nu” refers to the nuclear DOF using the standard expressions and “eli” to the FS-DOF. ˆ X ∗ ˆ hi|h|ji[R] = Cµi,[R]Cνj,[R]hµ|h|νi[R] (58) µν X ∗ ∗ S-DOFs in Fig.2a are collected into FS-DOFs, which be- hij|vˆ|kli[R] = Cµi,[R]Cνj,[R]Cλk,[R]Cσl,[R]hµν|vˆ|λσi[R] µνλσ come the new electronic primitive degrees of freedom of the MCTDH wavefunction. where µ, ν, λ, σ are the AO and i, j, k, l are the MO The construction of the N-SQR input files for MCTDH, indices. In the N-SQR calculations we neglect the NAC including calls to external electronic structure tools89, terms related to the orbital basis, Eqs. (48) and (49), and and the automatic generation of the corresponding in- show later when comparing to non-adiabatic first quanti- put and operator files, is performed by dedicated mod- zation calculations including the full ab initio couplings ules written in Python, which will be made available that this approximation is an excellent one in the present in a future release of the Heidelberg MCTDH program case. package72. The wavepacket propagation in both the tra- Three different representations of the electronic prim- ditional and N-SQR calculations is done as well using the itive basis of HeH+ are considered and compared. These Heidelberg MCTDH program suite72. are termed S-DOF, FS-DOF(I) and FS-DOF(II), and their tree representations are illustrated in Fig.2. On the one hand we use a S-DOF representation with three IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION electronic modes formed by combining the alpha and beta spin orbitals of (1, 2), (3) and (4, 5) spatial MOs (see Fig.2a). The other extreme is FS-DOF(II), where all A. Electronic eigenenergies from SQR calculations electronic degrees of freedom are combined into a single FS-DOF. In the latter case, due to the presence of two First of all, we apply the ab initio MCTDH-SQR ma- electrons of opposite spin in the system, the underlying chinery to retrieve the correct adiabatic electronic en- Fock space with 210 configurations shrinks to an FS-DOF ergies, the potential energy curves, from the electronic with 25 particle-number states and the electronic opera- SQR Hamiltonian at fixed nuclear geometries. In the first tors in this space are represented hence by 25 × 25 ma- quantization calculations, the adiabatic electronic ener- trices. FS-DOF(I) is an intermediate case in which the gies for the lowest five 1Σ+ states of HeH+ are obtained 12

multi-configurational character, i.e. static correlation. He + H+ Applications in these areas remain to be explored. He+ + H 30 SQR D1Σ+ B. Non-adiabatic dynamics in the N-SQR framework

1 + 20 B1Σ+ C Σ 1. Comparison between FQBH and N-SQR

+ Energy (eV) 10 A1Σ+ Upon photoexcitation, the HeH molecule can disso- ciate into two main fragmentation channels: He+H+ and + 1 + X1Σ+ He +H. The five lowest adiabatic Σ potential energy 0 curves are shown in Fig.3 for comparison, where blue and red colors indicate the He+H+ and He++H chan- 0 5 10 15 20 25 nels, respectively. Bond length (a.u.) The photodissociation cross section of HeH+ is ob- tained both in the FQBH and N-SQR approaches us- FIG. 3. Comparison of first quantization full configuration ing a complex absorbing potential (CAP) of the form 2 interaction and second quantization representation potential W (R) = −iη(R − Rc) (for R > Rc) with Rc = 20 a0, energy surfaces. η = 1.935 · 10−3, and perfoming a flux analysis of the propagated wavepacket91. For the comparison in this work we consider only the case that the light is polarized along the molecular axis. The propagated wavepacket is through diagonalization of the full configuration inter- generated by application of the Mˆ (z) dipole operator to action (FCI) Hamiltonian in the space of the 10 lowest the vibrational and electronic ground state of the system. energy HF spin-orbitals of Σ symmetry, and are shown In the FQBH setting this operator reads as solid lines in Fig.3. The calculations of the poten- X (z)   tial energy curves were performed with the MOLPRO Mˆ (z)(R) = µ (R) |0ihs| + |sih0| , (61) 90 0s package . In SQR, the PECs are obtained through time s propagation of the MCTDH-SQR wavefunction where s refers to excited adiabatic electronic states and |Ψ(t = 0)i = |1α, 1βi (59) µ0s(R) is the corresponding transition-dipole matrix ele- ment. In the N-SQR setting the dipole operator reads + |1α, 2βi − |1β, 2αi + |1α, 3β, i − |1β, 3αi ˆ (z) X ˆ†ˆ M (R) = hϕi(R)|µˆ|ϕj(R)ibi bj, (62) + |1α, 4βi − |1β, 4αi ij + |1α, 5βi − |1β, 5αi. which is a one-body operator and the MO dipole inte- in the same spin-orbital space. The electronic wavefunc- grals are obtained using the integral engine of the PSI4 tion is represented with either one or three FS-DOFs electronic structure package89. (electronic part of the Figs.2b and c, respectively) and In the FQBH calculation, the fragmentation channel- the performed MCTDH-SQR calculations are numeri- resolved cross sections can be obtained by projecting, be- cally exact. The wavefunction (59) is spin-singlet and fore the flux analysis, the propagated wavefunction onto overlaps with all five 1Σ+ states under consideration. each electronic state and subsequently summing up the The electronic eigenenergies are obtained from the max- cross sections of the X1Σ+ and B1Σ+ states for the ima of the peaks in the power spectrum obtained from He+H+ channel, and the cross sections of the A1Σ+, the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function C1Σ+ and D1Σ+ states for the He++H channel. In the N-SQR representation there are no electronic states to 1 Z ∞ σ(E) = Re eiEthΨ|Ψ(t)idt. (60) help us resolve the two fragmentation channels. Nonethe- π 0 less, they can be separated by projecting the wavefunc- tion onto the occupation-number sub-space in which all The SQR electronic eigenenergies are shown as green H-atom spin-orbitals are empty with the projector marks superimposed in Fig.3. The purpose of this comparison is to illustrate the correctness of our imple- Y Pˆ + = (1 − nˆ ), (63) mentation and to hint at the possibility of computing H iH i ab initio electronic energies and spectra in an SQR set- ting through time propagation. For example, an ab ini- where iH is the index of the molecular spin-orbitals with tio time-dependent SQR propagation may serve to ob- pure H character. These are well defined in the re- tain ionization electronic spectra, and to calculate the gion of the CAP. This projector singles out the part of electronic dynamics of molecular systems with a strong the wavefunction dissociating into the He+H+ channel, 13

α (Dpq in Eq. B12) is also highlighted here, as the cal- 6 PES: without NAC culation without the second order contribution cannot (a) PES: with NAC (1st order) reproduce the shape and the total area of the spectrum. 5 PES: with NAC (full) SQR The non-adiabatic effects in the photodissociation cross section of channel He+H+, shown Fig.4b, are 4 even more pronunced. The adiabatic FQBH calculation 3 0.5 presents a single peak at 38 eV, which correlates with population initially transferred to the B1Σ+ electronic 2 state by the photoabsorption process. A second peak at 0.0 36 to 38 eV appears due to the non-adiabatic transitions Cross section1 (Mb) 30 35 40 45 from the C1Σ+ and D1Σ+ states to the B1Σ+ electronic state as the molecule dissociates. Again, the calculation 0 with only first order NAC terms92 does not reproduce the 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 spectrum correctly; the second peak appears too high in Energy (eV) energy and the intensity and the area are not correct, highlighting again the importance of the second order terms. On the other hand, the N-SQR calculation agrees 0.6 PES: without NAC exactly with the FQBH calculation with the full first and (b) PES: with NAC (1st order) second order NACs. This means, the non-adiabatic tran- PES: with NAC (full) 0.5 SQR sitions and interference effects between the photodissoci- ation channels are correctly captured within the N-SQR 0.4 formulation. Moreover, one sees how, in this particlar ex- 0.3 ample, the simple diabatization of the molecular orbitals based on rearranging them to guarantee the continuity of 0.2 the corresponding matrix elements is a very good approx- imation. All relevant non-adiabatic effects are captured Cross section (Mb) 0.1 by the propagated N-SQR wavefunction. We emphasize 0.0 again, that we could neglect the non-adiabatic coupling terms Eqs. (47–49) in the N-SQR calculations. The R- 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 dependence of the orbitals is rather weak, whereas the R- Energy (eV) dependence of the adiabatic state functions can be very strong. FIG. 4. Photodisssociation cross section into (a) the He++H and (b) the He+H+ channels. 2. Convergence and numerical aspects of N-SQR

Figure5 compares the photodissociation cross section ˆ ˆ and PH = 1 − PH+ projects onto the remaining channel, for the numerically converged S-DOF, FS-DOF(I) and + He +H. FS-DOF(II) calculations and for the two dissociation Fig.4a shows the photodissociation cross section of channels. TableI compares the number of SPFs, num- HeH+ into He++H. In the FQBH description the largest ber of Hamiltonian terms and CPU time of the three peak centered at about 25 eV originates from dissociation different calculations, for which the corresponding wave- in the A1Σ+ state. This state is energetically far from function trees are shown in Fig.2. When brought to the next group of excited states and there is negligible numerical convergence, the various representations yield, participation of it in non-adiabatic population transfer as expected, identical results. Next, we focus on the between the dissociation channels. The cross section in FS-DOF(II) calculations and study their convergence be- the region of this peak is identical for the FQBH calcu- haviour. When the 10 spin-orbitals corresponding to a lations with and without NAC, and N-SQR. Fock-space of 1024 states are combined and one uses that On the other hand, the peak centered between 38 and only one spin-α and one spin-β electrons is present, this 1 + 5
40 eV arises due to the dissociation through C Σ and number reduces to 2 × 1 = 25 possible primitive states D1Σ+ electronic states, which feature non-adiabatic cou- for the electrons with total spin projection onto the z-axis 1 + plings between them and with the B Σ electronic state. Sz = 0. The nuclear DOF (R-grid) consists of 512 grid The inset in Fig.4a illustrates how the cross section in points and spans the range (0.5, 30.0) au. The photodis- this energy region is neither correctly described by an sociation cross section of HeH+ into He+H+ channel is adiabatic description without NACs nor by the inclusion shown in Fig.6 for an increasing number of SPFs for the of only first order NAC terms92. The FQBH with full electronic and nuclear modes, which are chosen equal to NAC and the N-SQR calculation (fully converged) agree avoid redundant configurations. For the Hartree product exactly. The importance of the second order NAC terms case (SPF=1), the cross section features only one peak, 14

TABLE I. Number of Hamiltonian operator terms and wall- S-DOF 6 clock time for three N-SQR calculations. The S-DOF and FS- (a) FS-DOF(I) FS-DOF(II) DOF calculations use the tree in Fig.2. The calculations have 5 been performed with 16 CPUs using shared-memory paral- lelization on the same machine and CPU type, namely, Dual- 4 Core Intel Xeon, processor type E5-2650 v2 running at 2.6 0.5 GHz and the wall-clock times are intended for their relative 3 comparison only. 2 0.0 DOF repr. Hamil. terms SPFs Wall time (h:m) Cross section1 (Mb) 30 35 40 45 S-DOF 2100 (15, 9, 4, 9) 64:18 0 FS-DOF(I) 1812 (15, 9, 4, 9) 45:25 FS-DOF(II) 1300 (15, 15) 11:15 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 FS-DOF(II) 1300 (10, 10) 1:01 Energy (eV) FS-DOF(II) 1300 (8, 8) 0:15

0.5 S-DOF (b) FS-DOF(I) FS-DOF(II) 0.4 1 0.6 2 4 0.3 0.5 6 8 10 0.2 0.4 15

0.3

Cross section0 (Mb) .1 0.2 0.0 Cross section0 (Mb) .1 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 Energy (eV) 0.0 25 30 35 40 45 FIG. 5. Photodissociation cross section of HeH+ using the S- Energy (eV) DOF and FS-DOF representations. (a) He++H channel. (b) He+H+ channel FIG. 6. Photodissociation cross section of HeH+ into He+H+ channel with different number of SPFs which is centered in the wrong energy region. This is because of the complete neglect of correlation between the MCTDH-SQR wavefunction is reached for a smaller electronic and nuclear DOF. Note that, since in this ex- number of SPFs because some of the primitive states cor- ample the electronic spin-orbitals are fully combined into respond to occupation patterns of the spin-orbitals with a single FS-DOF, the only approximation in the total a very high energy and consequently a negligibly small wavefunction is the missing electron-nuclear correlation. population. The electronic correlation is treated, within the FS-DOF, Finally, we discuss the convergence of the photodisso- exactly. The addition of a second SPF already brings the ciation cross section with of the He+H+ fragmentation photodissociation cross section to the correct energy re- channel as a function of the cutoff value for the Hamil- gion centered around 35 eV. 6 SPFs provide already a tonian terms. The costs of an MCTDH calculation scale qualitatively correct description, with a double-shoulder roughly linearly with the number of Hamiltonian terms, structure, and 8 SPfs and above yield the numerically and therefore it is important to keep this number as low converged result. as possible. As was mentioned previously, we vary only It is interesting to note that, within the 25 primi- the cutoff value for the 3- and 4-index terms of the two- tive states with Sz = 0 in the FS-DOF it is possible electron part of the electronic Hamiltonian, whereas the to form 15 spin-singlet and 10 spin-triplet linear combi- 2-index terms (Coulomb and exchange integrals) and the nations, or spin-adapted configurations in the language one-electron terms have in all cases a much smaller cutoff of quantum chemistry. Therefore, a numerically exact of 10−9 au, which is standard in most MCTDH calcula- calculation of the photodissociation cross section in the tions72. The cutoff values are given in TableII. The spin-singlet manifold requires 15 SPFs. Convergence of maximum number of terms, 1300, refers to the FS-DOF 15

C. Properties of the N-SQR approach 1 0.5 10− 2 10− 8 10 3 The N-SQR approach has some limitations. A major × − 0.4 6 10 3 × − drawback is the large number of Hamiltonian terms re- 4 10 3 × − sulting from the second-quantized description of the elec- 3 0.3 2 10− 4 × 3 trons, which grows proportionally to M , where M is the 10− number of spin-orbitals used to describe the electronic 0.2 Fock space. This growth can be mitigated by introduc- ing a cutoff for three- and four-index electronic integrals,

Cross section0 (Mb) .1 by freezing orbital occupations, or by pruning configura- tions from FS-DOFs. (cf. Tab.I). For example, we have 0.0 pruned the FS-DOFs by removing occupation basis states 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 that are incompatible with the total number of α and Energy (eV) β electrons of the system. The FS-DOF representation has the added advantage over S-DOFs that the result- ing operator terms acting on the FS-DOFs are extremely FIG. 7. Comparison of photodissociation cross section of sparse. This opens the possibility towards avoiding ex- HeH+ into He+H+ channel with different cutoff for the 3- plicit matrix-vector multiplications in their application and 4- index terms of the Hamiltonian. Cutoff for 2-index to the wavefunction. terms is 10 9 a.u. − The other major drawback of the approach is the fact that the matrix elements of the second-quantized electronic Hamiltonian, the one- and two-body integrals hij(R) and vijkl(R), become nuclear-space potential op- erators, in general of dimensionality 3N − 6 (3N − 5 for linear systems), where N is the number of atoms in the TABLE II. Number of Hamiltonian terms with different cutoff system. We have limited this first application of the N- values for the 3- and 4- index terms of the Hamiltonian SQR approach to a diatomic system, where the electronic integrals are 1-dimensional functions of the internuclear Cutoff Number of Hamiltonian terms distance. Although applications to multidimensional sys- 1 10− 140 tems have not been undertaken yet, there are grounds to 2 believe that this will be feasible. One- and two-body in- 10− 876 tegrals have a much simpler dependency on the nuclear 8·10 3 956 − coordinates than potential energy surfaces, and they can 6·10 3 1068 − possibly be fit with simple functional forms and few pa- 3 4·10− 1204 rameters each. It may also be possible to expand the elec- 3 2·10− 1284 tronic integrals around a reference geometry up to, e.g., 3 10− 1300 second order, thus yielding the equivalent of a vibronic 9 10− 1300 coupling Hamiltonian in an N-SQR representation. A major feature of the N-SQR approach is that it cir- cumvents the construction of potential energy surfaces before the quantum dynamics simulation, and hence it is not based on a group Born-Oppenheimer approxima- tion2,4. This can be advantageous in situations where the number of relevant electronic states that would have setting, which is already smaller than the maximum num- to be pre-calculated becomes very large, thus compli- ber of terms of the equivalent S-DOF calculation, 2100. cating the quantum chemistry and diabatization proce- A cutoff of 10−1 results in the cross section being qualita- dures involved. Possible applications include, for exam- tively wrong, as seen in Fig.7. However, the features are ple, reactions involving metal complexes, in which non- in the right energy region because the energy of the diag- adiabatic effects are intermixed with the strong multi- onal matrix elements between Fock states of the N-SQR configurational character of the electronic wavefunction Hamiltonian are not affected by the cutoff. A cutoff of 93,94. In the photodissociation case we have studied, the 10−2 with roughly 70% of the uncut Hamiltonian terms observable is the fragmentation channel-resolved cross results in a qualitatively correct photodissociation, and section. The adiabatic electronic states and potentials convergence is reached with 4 · 10−3 au, which includes are not directly related to these quantities and are not about 80% of the Hamiltonian terms. Although cutting observable in experiments that would determine the yield Hamiltonian terms is not very helpful in the present case, of each charged fragment only. In FQBH calculations, it remains to be benchmarked in more detail in future PES and NACs play often an auxiliary role to reach the works on larger molecules. actual measurable quantities. 16

However, even though the group Born-Oppenheimer space. This is shown to have several advantages: un- approximation is circumvented in N-SQR, the approach needed primitive occupation states can be pruned from does not treat nuclei and electrons on the same foot- the FS-DOF, which automatically reduces the number ing52,53. The latter results in large couplings between of Hamiltonian terms in the SQR. Operator terms act- the positions of the nuclei and the electrons due to ing on the FS-DOFs are very sparse, thus making their their Coulomb attraction. Instead, the electrons ap- application more efficient. In this paper’s application we pear just through the occupation of the spin-orbitals, have grouped up to 10 spin-orbitals in an FS-DOF, which from which only pre-computed one- and two-body in- results in 1024 internal states of the primitive degree of tegrals are needed. The underlying basis of molecu- freedom before pruning, and larger FS-DOF can be han- lar spin-orbitals can be generated through some pre- dled by our code. vious first-quantization mean-field calculation and then The N-SQR approach requires either diabatic orbitals properly diabatized, like in this work, or by some other or the calculation of the orbital non-adiabatic couplings suitable position-dependent transformation of atomic or- (NACs) in Hamiltonian (47). Here we have used a sim- bitals. The introduction of the electrons via the ma- ple diabatization procedure based on the rearrangement trix elements of single-particle states instead of via the of the molecular orbitals for diatomic systems and even- matrix elements of all-electron states (i.e. PES, NAC) tual phase corrections. With these orbitals, we obtain a provides great flexibility and, crucially, it removes the perfect agreement between N-SQR and traditional first trivial “electrons-follow-the-nuclei” correlation similarly quantization Born-Huang (FQBH) calculations based on as in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. adiabatic electronic eigenstates and NAC elements be- A clear advantage of circumventing the introduction of tween them. We also describe how to choose the initial many-body electronic states is that only the molecular SPFs for the corresponding MCTDH calculations, which spin-orbitals need to be diabatized, which is a much sim- in the context of MCTDH-SQR is, as recently pointed pler task than diabatizing electronic states18,20,83–86. Al- out by Manthe, of utmost importance. ternatively, the corresponding orbital non-adiabatic cou- We apply the N-SQR approach to the photodissocia- plings in Hamiltonian (47) may be computed. As we have + + tion cross section of the HeH molecule in the extreme seen in the HeH example, once diabatic orbitals and ultraviolet photon energy range and focus on the paral- their matrix elements are introduced, the non-adiabatic lel polarization case (X1Σ →1 Σ transitions), which has dynamics is fully captured within the time-evolution of been studied theoretically87,95 and experimentally (at the the nuclear-electronic wavepacket. single photon energy of 38.7 eV)96 before. HeH+ frag- ments into either He+H+ or He++H. The fragmentation channel-resolved photodissociation cross section in the V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS energy region between 35 and 40 eV presents interfer- ence structures that originate from the electron trans- In this work we introduce an ab initio quantum me- fer between the two atoms as they are starting to sep- chanical approach to treat the non-adiabatic quantum arate. These effects are particularly pronounced in the dynamics of electrons and nuclei based on a first quan- He+H+ channel, where the highest energy peak of the tization representation of the nuclei and a second quan- cross section is absent in an adiabatic picture. There is tization representation (SQR) of the electronic subsys- complete agreement between the fully converged N-SQR tem that overcomes the calculation of potential energy and FQBH calculations including the full electronic state surfaces. We derive the full non-relativistic molecular NACs up to second order in the adiabatic representation. Hamiltonian in this mixed representation, the N-SQR Neglecting the second order NACs in the FQBH calcula- Hamiltonian (47), in which all degrees of freedom, nu- tions does not lead either to the correct cross sections. clear coordinates and electronic spin-orbital occupations, We also study the accuracy of the N-SQR calculation are distinguishable, thus making the wavefunction rep- as a function of the number of SPFs used in the MCTDH resentation amenable to the multi-configurational time- wavefunction. The calculations improve monotonically dependent Hartree (MCTDH) ansatz and to its multi- to the exact result with the number of SPFs, and by layer generalization, i.e. to a hierarchical Tucker tensor changing the number of SPFs of the various degrees of decomposition. Possibly, other related tensor contraction freedom the amount of correlation between nuclei and approaches can also be used. In this work we describe electrons, and between different sub-Fock spaces of the the application of the N-SQR Hamiltonian in conjunction electronic system, can be controlled. Presently, we have with the MCTDH-SQR method for the time-propagation implemented the mapping strategy for the application of of the wavefunction, which, for fermions, is based on a mode operators to FS-DOF degrees of freedom within Jordan-Wigner transformation of the fermionic operators the Heidelberg MCTDH package. We still see room for to ladder spin-1/2 and auxiliary sign-change operators. improvements in the integration of the (ML-)MCTDH After describing the general aspects of the MCTDH- equations of motion in N-SQR applications. We empha- SQR approach for fermions, we introduce the concept of size that we are introducing the formalism and a proof- Fock-space degrees of freedom (FS-DOF), which group of-concept application, and that emphasis has not been together several spin degrees of freedom into a sub-Fock put yet on computational performance. 17

The main drawbacks of the ab initio N-SQR approach 8H. Koeppel, W. Domcke, and L. S. Cederbaum, in Advances in have been presented and include the scaling of the num- Chemical Physics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984) pp. 59–246. 9 ber of Hamiltonian terms in the SQR with the 4th power V. Z. P. Isaac B. Bersuker, Vibronic Interactions in Molecules and Crystals (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011). of the number of spin-orbitals. We have discussed how 10W. Domcke, D. R. Yankony, and H. Koeppel, Conical Intersec- these drawbacks can be, in part, mitigated. On the other tions (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2011). hand, N-SQR circumvents the introduction of either adi- 11H. Lischka, M. Dallos, P. G. Szalay, D. R. Yarkony, and R. Shep- abatic or diabatic electronic states, which can be of much ard, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 7322 (2004). 12 advantage in situations where the number of electronic Z. Li, B. Suo, and W. Liu, J. Chem. Phys. 141, 244105 (2014). 13E. C. Alguire, Q. Ou, and J. E. Subotnik, J. Phys. Chem. B states that need to be considered in non-adiabatic pro- 119, 7140 (2014). cesses is large and their energy spacings are commensu- 14I. G. Ryabinkin, J. Nagesh, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Phys. Chem. rate with typical separations between vibrational energy Lett. 6, 4200 (2015). levels. However, it is important to recognize that the N- 15T. Pacher, L. S. Cederbaum, and H. K¨oppel, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 7367 (1988). SQR strategy to treat the coupled nuclear and electronic 16D. R. Yarkony, J. Phys. Chem. A 102, 8073 (1998). dynamics in molecules is not a silver bullet. Situations 17H. K¨oppel, J. Gronki, and S. Mahapatra, J. Chem. Phys. 115, in which the quantum dynamics can be captured within 2377 (2001). a window of few electronic states will, in general, not 18H. Nakamura and D. G. Truhlar, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 5576 benefit from the approach. Through the selected exam- (2002). 19J. Jornet-Somoza, B. Lasorne, M. A. Robb, H.-D. Meyer, D. Lau- ple we illustrate the salient features of the method, hint vergnat, and F. Gatti, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 084304 (2012). at possible application domains, and lay down the theo- 20K. R. Yang, X. Xu, and D. G. Truhlar, Chem. Phys. Lett. 573, retical and practical foundations for subsequent develop- 84 (2013). ments and approximations based on the N-SQR formal- 21M. van Veenendaal, J. Chang, and A. J. Fedro, Phys. Rev. Lett. ism. The actual range of applications where the approach 104, 067401 (2010). 22C. de Graaf and C. Sousa, Chem. Eur. J. 16, 4550 (2010). will prove to be useful remains an open question to be 23Z. Li, M. E. A. Madjet, O. Vendrell, and R. Santra, Faraday explored in future work. Discuss. 171, 457 (2014). 24Z. Li and O. Vendrell, Struct. Dyn. 3, 043203 (2016). 25T. Renger, V. May, and O. K¨uhn, Phys. Rep. 343, 137 (2001). 26 VI. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL H. Tamura, M. Huix-Rotllant, I. Burghardt, Y. Olivier, and D. Beljonne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 107401 (2015). 27S. R. Reddy, P. B. Coto, and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys. 151, See the supplementary material for the tabular data of 044307 (2019). the NACME, dipole moment and transition dipole mo- 28V. May and O. Kuhn, Charge and energy transfer dynamics in ments among the ground and excited electronic states of molecular systems (Wiley-VCH John Wiley distributor, Wein- + heim Chichester, 2004). HeH . 29M. Schr¨oter,S. Ivanov, J. Schulze, S. Polyutov, Y. Yan, T. Pul- lerits, and O. K¨uhn, Phys. Rep. 567, 1 (2015). 30P. G. Lisinetskaya and R. Mitri´c, Phys. Rev. A 83, 033408 (2011). VII. DATA AVAILABILITY 31J. E. Subotnik, S. Yeganeh, R. J. Cave, and M. A. Ratner,J. Chem. Phys. 129, 244101 (2008). 32J. E. Subotnik, A. Jain, B. Landry, A. Petit, W. Ouyang, and The data that support the findings of this study are N. Bellonzi, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 67, 387 (2016). available in tabular form in the supplementary materials. 33A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many- Particle Systems (Dover Publications Inc., 2003). 34J. Hubbard, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276, 238 (1963). VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 35T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. 8, 325 (1959). 36C. F. Coll and G. Beni, Solid State Commun. 15, 997 (1974). 37 We thank Prof. H.-D. Meyer for his comments on the L. D. Lathauwer, B. D. Moor, and J. Vandewalle, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 21, 1253 (2000). manuscript and important assistance with the MCTDH 38G. Ceruti and C. Lubich, BIT Numerical Mathematics 60, 591 calculations. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. (2020). 39H. D. Meyer, U. Manthe, and L. S. Cederbaum, Chem. Phys. 1 M. Born and J. R. Oppenheimer, Ann. Physik 84, 457 (1927). Lett. 165, 73 (1990). 2 M. Born and K. Huang, Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices, 40U. Manthe, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. 5th ed., edited by D. H. Wilkinson and W. Marshall, The In- 97, 3199 (1992). ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University 41M. H. Beck, A. J¨ackle, G. A. Worth, and H.-D. Meyer, Phys. Press, Ely House, London, 1968). Rep. 324, 1 (2000). 3 T. Pacher, L. S. Cederbaum, and H. K¨oppel, Adv. Chem. Phys. 42H.-D. Meyer and G. A. Worth, Theor. Chem. Acc. 109, 251 84, 293 (1993). (2003). 4 G. A. Worth and L. S. Cederbaum, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 55, 43H.-D. Meyer, F. Gatti, and G. A. Worth, eds., Multidimensional 127 (2004). Quantum Dynamics: MCTDH Theory and Applications (Wiley- 5 D. Truhlar and C. Mead, Phys. Rev. A 68, 032501 (2003). VCH, Weinheim, 2009). 6 W. Domcke, D. R. Yarkony, and H. K¨oppel, eds., Conical Inter- 44H.-D. Meyer, WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2, 351 (2012). sections: Electronic Structure, Dynamics & Spectroscopy (World 45H. Wang and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 024114 (2009). Scientific Pub Co. Inc., 2004). 46H. Wang and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 134704 (2013). 7 T. Azumi and K. Matsuzaki, Photochemistry and Photobiology 47U. Manthe and T. Weike, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 064117 (2017). 25, 315 (1977). 18

48T. Weike and U. Manthe, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 034101 (2020). 84W. Domcke and C. Woywod, Chem. Phys. Lett. 216, 362 (1993). 49H. Wang and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 1289 (2003). 85V. Garcia, M. Reguero, R. Caballol, and J. Malrieu, Chem. Phys. 50U. Manthe, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 164116 (2008). Lett. 281, 161 (1997). 51 O. Vendrell and H.-D. Meyer, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 044135 (2011). 86H. Nakamura and D. G. Truhlar, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 10353 52 D. J. Haxton, K. V. Lawler, and C. W. McCurdy, Phys. Rev. A (2001). 83, 063416 (2011). 87I. Dumitriu and A. Saenz, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 42, 53 I. S. Ulusoy and M. Nest, J. Chem. Phys. 136, 054112 (2012). 165101 (2009). 54 A. Muolo, E. M´atyus, and M. Reiher, J. Chem. Phys. 149, 88T. H. Dunning, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989). 184105 (2018). 89R. M. Parrish, L. A. Burns, D. G. A. Smith, A. C. Simmonett, 55 L. E. Aebersold, I. S. Ulusoy, and A. K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. A A. E. DePrince, E. G. Hohenstein, U. Bozkaya, A. Y. Sokolov, 100, 023406 (2019). R. D. Remigio, R. M. Richard, J. F. Gonthier, A. M. James, H. R. 56 J. Caillat, J. Zanghellini, M. Kitzler, O. Koch, W. Kreuzer, and McAlexander, A. Kumar, M. Saitow, X. Wang, B. P. Pritchard, A. Scrinzi, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012712 (2005). P. Verma, H. F. Schaefer, K. Patkowski, R. A. King, E. F. Valeev, 57 O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. F. A. Evangelista, J. M. Turney, T. D. Crawford, and C. D. Phys. 127, 154103 (2007). Sherrill, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 3185 (2017). 58 D. Hochstuhl and M. Bonitz, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 084106 (2011). 90R. D. Amos, A. Bernhardsson, A. Berning, P. Celani, D. L. 59 T. Sato and K. L. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. A 88, 023402 (2013). Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J. Dobbyn, F. Eckert, C. Hampel, 60 A. U. Lode, C. L´evˆeque,L. B. Madsen, A. I. Streltsov, and O. E. G. Hetzer, P. J. Knowles, T. Korona, R. Lindh, A. W. Lloyd, Alon, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 011001 (2020). S. J. McNicholas, F. R. Manby, W. Meyer, M. E. Mura, A. Nick- 61 A. Abedi, N. T. Maitra, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. lass, P. Palmieri, R. Pitzer, G. Rauhut, M. Sch¨utz, U. Schumann, 105, 123002 (2010). H. Stoll, A. J. Stone, R. Tarroni, T. Thorsteinsson, and H.-J. 62 L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 224110 (2013). Werner, “Molpro, a package of ab initio programs designed by 63 F. Agostini, A. Abedi, Y. Suzuki, and E. Gross, Mol. Phys. 111, H.-J. Werner and P. J. Knowles, version 2002.1,” (2002). 3625 (2013). 91A. J¨ackle and H.-D. Meyer, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 6778 (1996). 64 G. Albareda, H. Appel, I. Franco, A. Abedi, and A. Rubio, 92By first order NAC terms we denote the symmetrized term 113 ∂ ∂ Physical Review Letters , 083003 (2014). dij + dij . See Appendix B. 65 ∂R ∂R G. Albareda, A. Kelly, and A. Rubio, Physical Review Materials 93C. Bressler, C. Milne, V. Pham, A. ElNahhas, R. M. van der 3, 023803 (2019). 66 Veen, W. Gawelda, S. Johnson, P. Beaud, D. Grolimund, S. K. Min, F. Agostini, I. Tavernelli, and E. K. U. Gross,J. M. Kaiser, C. N. Borca, G. Ingold, R. Abela, and M. Chergui, Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 3048 (2017). 323 67 Science , 489 (2009). A. Baiardi and M. Reiher, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 3481 94P. Nalbach, A. J. A. Achner, M. Frey, M. Grosser, C. Bressler, (2019). 141 68 and M. Thorwart, J. Chem. Phys. , 044304 (2014). Q. Meng and H.-D. Meyer, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 014313 (2013). 95 67 69 A. Saenz, Phys. Rev. A , 033409 (2003). J. Broeckhove, L. Lathouwers, E. Kesteloot, and P. V. Leuven, 96H. B. Pedersen, S. Altevogt, B. Jordon-Thaden, O. Heber, M. L. Chem. Phys. Lett. 149, 547 (1988). 70 Rappaport, D. Schwalm, J. Ullrich, D. Zajfman, R. Treusch, C. M. Hinz, S. Bauch, and M. Bonitz, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 696, N. Guerassimova, M. Martins, J.-T. Hoeft, M. Wellh¨ofer, and 012009 (2016). A. Wolf, Physical Review Letters 98, 223202 (2007). 71L. Cao, S. Kr¨onke, O. Vendrell, and P. Schmelcher, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 134103 (2013). 72G. A. Worth, M. H. Beck, A. J¨ackle, O. Vendrell, and H.-D. Meyer, The MCTDH Package, Version 8.2, (2000). H.-D. Meyer, Appendix A: Born-Huang expansion with the molecular Version 8.3 (2002), Version 8.4 (2007). O. Vendrell and H.-D. SQR Hamiltonian Meyer Version 8.5 (2013). Version 8.5 contains the ML-MCTDH algorithm. Current versions: 8.4.18 and 8.5.11 (2019). Used version: exchange with ”Used version” See http://mctdh.uni- As mentioned in the main text, Hamiltonian (47) is hd.de/. compatible with low-rank tensor decompositions of the 73 I. R. Craig, M. Thoss, and H. Wang, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 144503 wavefunction owing to the distinguishability of the de- (2007). 74H. Wang and M. Thoss, Chem. Phys. 347, 139 (2008), ultra- grees of freedom. Nonetheless, it is illustrative to con- fast Photoinduced Processes in Polyatomic Molecules - Electronic sider formally a wavefunction expansion analogous to the Structure, Dynamics and Spectroscopy. usual Born-Huang (BH) ansatz, in which all occupation- 75M. F. Shibl, J. Schulze, M. J. Al-Marri, and O. K¨uhn, J. Phys. number states are explicitly kept: B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 184001 (2017). 76S. Z¨ollner,H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 74, X 053612 (2006). |Ψ(t)i = Φ{~n}(R, t)|{~n}i (A1) 77S. Z¨ollner,H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 78, {~n} 013629 (2008). 78 O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A where |{~n}i is the occupation number representation ket 77, 033613 (2008). 79P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨urPhysik 47, 631 (1928). of an electronic configuration uniquely described by the 80Z. Bacic and J. C. Light, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 4594 (1986). set of spin-orbital occupations ~n in terms of the ψ(~x, R) 81 H. Wang and M. Thoss, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A basis and Φ{~n}(R, t) is the corresponding probability am- 117, 7431 (2013). plitude, which, as in the electronic states formulation, is 82H. Wang and M. Thoss, The Journal of chemical physics 145, 164105 (2016). a function of the nuclear positions. 83T. Pacher, H. K¨oppel, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. Inserting the ansatz (A1) into the general TDSE while 95, 6668 (1991). using Hamiltonian (47) results in the TDSE 19

h i iΦ˙ { ~m}(R, t) = Tˆn + Wˆ n Φ{ ~m}(R, t) (A2) F   X X 1 1 † + hpq(R) − Dpq(R) · ∇ − Gpq(R) h{~m}|ˆb ˆbq|{~n}i M 2M p {~n} pq F ! 1 X ˆ†ˆ†ˆ ˆ + vpqrs(R)h{~m}|bpbqbrbs|{~n}i Φ{~n}(R, t). 2 pqrs

In this BH-SQR formulation of the non-adiabatic dynam- Appendix B: Non-adiabatic quantum dynamics in the ics problem, the TDSE contains both differential and po- adiabatic representation tential coupling terms between the nuclear and electronic spaces. If the kinetic coupling terms are kept small or The electronic part of the total molecular Hamiltonian negligible by choosing a quasi-diabatic spin-orbital ba- (29) in the first quantization representation is given as sis, the remaining non-adiabatic coupling effects are de- N M scribed directly by the time-evolution of the nuclear am- X h 1 2 X Qα X 1 i Hˆe = − ∇ − + (B1) plitudes Φ{ ~m}(R, t). 2 i r r i=1 α=1 iα j>i ij Using the Born-Huang expansion, the total molecular As usual, there is no free lunch and the price to be paid wavefunction is expressed as is a potentially much larger space of electronic occupa- tion states as compared to adiabatic electronic states. X Ψ(x, R, t) = χp(x; R)Φp(R, t) (B2) Therefore, the BH variant of the nuclear-SQR approach, p Eq. (A2), may not find much direct use. Conceptually, it is completely equivalent to a first quantization descrip- where χn(x; R) are the electronic basis functions that tion in which each electronic configuration of the full parametrically depend on the nuclear coordinates and configuration-interaction matrix carries its own nuclear Φn(R, t) are the nuclear wavefunction at time t. Now in- amplitude. For this reason, practical applications will serting this wavefunction ansatz into the time dependent still be based on the N-SQR formulation of the main Schor¨odingerequation, one obtains the following coupled text. equation

" # X X 1  ∂  iΦ˙ (R, t) = Tˆ Φ (R, t) + V (R) − 2dα (R) + G (R) Φ (R, t) (B3) q n q pq m pq ∂R pq p p α 2 α α

where Now the first order term itself is not Hermitian. But we can symmetrize it by following Vpq(R) = hχp(x; R)|Hˆe + Wˆn|χq(x; R)i (B4)

α ∂ dpq(R) = hχp(x; R)| |χq(x; R)i (B5) ∂Rα 2 α ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ Gpq = hχp(x; R)| 2 |χq(x; R)i (B6) dij = hφi| |φji ∂Rα ∂R ∂R ∂R 2 ∂φi ∂φj ∂ ∂ ∂ In the adiabatic representation, the electronic basis func- = h | i + hφi| 2 |φji + hφi| |φji tions become the eigen functions of the electronic Hamil- ∂R ∂R ∂R ∂R ∂R ∂φi ∂φj ∂ tonian and thus, the V becomes a diagonal matrix with = h | i + Gij + dij adiabatic electronic energies in the diagonal. Thus, for ∂R ∂R ∂R X ∂φi ∂φj ∂ one nuclear coordinate, the non-adiabatic coupling oper- = h |φ ihφ | i + G + d ∂R l l ∂R ij ij ∂R ator between ith and jth electronic states is l 1  ∂  X ∗ ∂ = d dlj + Gij + dij (B8) Λij = 2dij + Gij (B7) il ∂R 2M ∂R l 20

∂ Adding dij ∂R to both sides and rearranging So, the symmetrized form of the NAC operator reads ∂ ∂ ∂ 1  ∂ ∂  2dij + Gij = dij + dij − Dij (B9) Λij = dij + dij − Dij . (B11) ∂R ∂R ∂R 2M ∂R ∂R where Using this symmetrized form of the coupling terms, the X ∗ Dij = dildlj. (B10) Eq. B3 is written as l

" # X X 1  ∂ ∂  iΦ˙ (R, t) = Tˆ Φ (R, t) + V (R) − dα (R) + dα (R) − Dα (R) Φ (R, t). (B12) q n q pq m ∂R pq pq ∂R pq p p α 2 α

To study the nonadiabatic effects in the photodisso- to calculate the potential energy curves, non-adiabatic ciation of HeH+, the uncontracted aug-cc-pVTZ basis is coupling matrix elements and the transition dipole mo- used for both H and He atoms. In this work we have con- ments between the lowest 5 1Σ+ states. Those are given sidered 10 lowest energy HF spin orbitals of Σ symmetry in the supplementary material.