Analysis of geometric phase effects in the quantum-classical Liouville formalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze two approaches to the quantum-classical Liouville (QCL) formalism that differ in the order of two operations: Wigner transformation and projection onto adiabatic electronic states. The analysis is carried out on a two-dimensional linear vibronic model where geometric phase (GP) effects arising from a conical intersection profoundly affect nuclear dynamics. We find that the Wigner-then-Adiabatic (WA) QCL approach captures GP effects, whereas the Adiabatic-then-Wigner (AW) QCL approach does not. Moreover, the Wigner transform in AW-QCL leads to an ill-defined Fourier transform of double-valued functions. The double-valued character of these functions stems from the nontrivial GP of adiabatic electronic states in the presence of a conical intersection. In contrast, WA-QCL avoids this issue by starting with the Wigner transform of single-valued quantities of the full problem. As a consequence, GP effects in WA-QCL can be associated with a dynamical term in the corresponding equation of motion. Since the WA-QCL approach uses solely the adiabatic potentials and non-adiabatic derivative couplings as an input, our results indicate that WA-QCL can capture GP effects in two-state crossing problems using first-principles electronic structure calculations without prior diabatization or introduction of explicit phase factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".