arxiv: 2605.08691 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Post-pulse dipole instability in adiabatic TDDFT: fact or artifact?

Davood B. Dar , Dhyey Ray , Neepa T. Maitra

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

keywords adiabatic TDDFTreal-time propagationdipole instabilitynumerical artifactRR-TDDFTXUV pulseN2 moleculeabsorbing boundary conditions

0 comments

The pith

Adiabatic TDDFT post-pulse dipole growth is a numerical artifact from time propagation

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that the delayed growth of molecular dipole oscillations after an XUV pulse, seen in some real-time TDDFT simulations, is not a real physical phenomenon. It arises instead because propagating the time-dependent Kohn-Sham equations with an adiabatic exchange-correlation approximation introduces an incorrect nonlinearity that amplifies even tiny sinusoidal oscillations over time. The same adiabatic approximation produces no such growth when used inside the response-reformulated RR-TDDFT method. Absorbing boundary conditions are essential to the appearance of the artifact. The effect is demonstrated explicitly for the N2 molecule under XUV irradiation using several adiabatic functionals.

Core claim

Recent real-time TDDFT calculations have reported an unexpected delayed growth of molecular dipole oscillations some time after an extreme-ultraviolet (XUV) pulse is applied. Numerical and analytical arguments suggest that this instability is an artifact of an incorrect non-linearity introduced by the computational approach: Propagation with an adiabatic exchange-correlation approximation within the time-dependent Kohn-Sham equations tends to amplify initially small and pure sinusoidal oscillations in a system. On the other hand, when this same adiabatic approximation is used within the recent response-reformulated RR-TDDFT, the instability is absent. The absorbing boundary condition plays a

What carries the argument

Adiabatic exchange-correlation approximation inside standard time-dependent Kohn-Sham propagation, which adds a nonlinearity that amplifies small oscillations

If this is right

The delayed dipole growth after an XUV pulse does not reflect actual molecular dynamics
RR-TDDFT yields stable results with the same adiabatic functionals that produce instability in standard propagation
Absorbing boundaries are required for the artifact to develop in the usual TDKS scheme
Interpretations of long-time post-pulse behavior in real-time TDDFT must account for possible numerical amplification
The artifact is independent of the particular adiabatic functional chosen

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Users of real-time TDDFT should cross-check long-time results against RR-TDDFT to detect hidden propagation instabilities
The finding points to a general need for propagation methods that preserve linearity for small oscillations when adiabatic functionals are employed
Similar artificial growth may appear in other time-dependent simulations that combine adiabatic approximations with absorbing boundaries

Load-bearing premise

The observed amplification is produced specifically by the combination of the adiabatic approximation and conventional TDKS time stepping rather than by any real physics or by differences in how the two methods treat the same underlying problem

What would settle it

Demonstrating that the same post-pulse dipole growth appears when the adiabatic approximation is used inside RR-TDDFT, or showing analytically that the propagation equations produce no amplification of pure sinusoids

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08691 by Davood B. Dar, Dhyey Ray, Neepa T. Maitra.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Time-dependent dipole of N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time-dependent dipole dynamics illustrating basis set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Time-dependent dipole dynamics computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time-dependent dipole moment under the 2fs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dipole instability in TDKS under different functional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time-dependent evolution of the largest excited-state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time-dependent dipole dynamics computed us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent real-time TDDFT calculations have reported an unexpected delayed growth of molecular dipole oscillations some time after an extreme-ultraviolet (XUV) pulse is applied. We show that numerical and analytical arguments suggest that this instability is an artifact of an incorrect non-linearity introduced by the computational approach: Propagation with an adiabatic exchange-correlation approximation within the time-dependent Kohn-Sham equations of time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) tends to amplify initially small and pure sinusoidal oscillations in a system. On the other hand, when this same adiabatic approximation is used within the recent response-reformulated RR-TDDFT,the instability is absent. The absorbing boundary condition plays a crucial role consistent with our argument. We demonstrate this explicitly on the N2 molecule subject to an XUV pulse, with a range of adiabatic functionals.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The post-pulse dipole instability in adiabatic TDDFT is likely a numerical artifact from TDKS propagation, with the main caveat being the assumed equivalence to RR-TDDFT.

read the letter

The paper argues that the unexpected growth of molecular dipole oscillations after an XUV pulse in real-time TDDFT is not a physical effect but an artifact. It comes from an incorrect nonlinearity that arises when using an adiabatic exchange-correlation approximation in the standard time-dependent Kohn-Sham propagation. The same approximation in their response-reformulated TDDFT avoids this problem. What the paper does well is to test this explicitly on the N2 molecule with a range of adiabatic functionals. The demonstrations are concrete, and they point out how the absorbing boundary condition fits into the picture. This provides a useful diagnostic for anyone running these kinds of simulations. The soft spot is around the equivalence of the two approaches in the nonlinear regime. The argument assumes that RR-TDDFT with the adiabatic approximation represents the same physics as TDKS propagation, so the lack of instability there means the TDKS result is unphysical. But if the reformulation changes how the time-dependent density response is handled even under the adiabatic approximation, then the difference might be in the method rather than a clear artifact. The paper includes analytical arguments, but the abstract does not detail them enough to judge their strength fully. The N2 tests are a good start but would benefit from more systems or quantified error bars. This work targets people who use real-time TDDFT for ultrafast processes in chemistry and physics. A reader interested in numerical stability and validation of TDDFT codes would find it helpful. It does not introduce new theory but clarifies a practical issue in existing methods. The math and data appear consistent with no obvious flaws in the citation approach. I would recommend sending it for peer review so that the analytical parts and equivalence can be examined more closely by experts in the field.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the post-pulse dipole instability reported in recent real-time TDDFT simulations is an artifact, not a physical effect. It arises from an incorrect non-linearity introduced when propagating the time-dependent Kohn-Sham equations under an adiabatic exchange-correlation approximation, which amplifies initially small sinusoidal oscillations. In contrast, the same adiabatic approximation implemented in the response-reformulated RR-TDDFT shows no such instability. The absorbing boundary condition is identified as playing a key role. The argument is supported by numerical and analytical considerations and is demonstrated explicitly for the N2 molecule after an XUV pulse using several adiabatic functionals.

Significance. If the central claim is upheld, the result would be useful for the TDDFT community by providing a diagnostic to separate computational artifacts from genuine ultrafast dynamics in real-time simulations. The explicit N2 demonstration with multiple functionals and the contrast to RR-TDDFT offer a practical test that could improve the reliability of adiabatic TDDFT for XUV-driven processes. The work also highlights how boundary conditions interact with the time-propagation scheme, which is relevant for open-system modeling.

major comments (3)

[Abstract / Methods comparison] Abstract and § on method comparison: The claim that the instability is an artifact of an 'incorrect non-linearity' in standard TDKS propagation (while absent in RR-TDDFT) is load-bearing for the central conclusion. However, the manuscript does not demonstrate that RR-TDDFT is mathematically equivalent to TDKS propagation for the same non-linear adiabatic dynamics beyond the linear-response regime. If the two formulations handle the time-dependent density response differently even under the adiabatic approximation, the absence of instability in RR-TDDFT does not establish that the TDKS amplification is unphysical rather than a valid consequence of one numerical realization. A rigorous equivalence proof or side-by-side derivation of the non-linear terms is required.
[Analytical arguments section] Section presenting analytical arguments: The abstract states that 'numerical and analytical arguments suggest' the amplification mechanism, yet the full derivations, assumptions, and error analysis are not provided in the visible text. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the amplification is shown to be a generic consequence of the adiabatic TDKS propagation or whether it depends on specific post-hoc choices (e.g., initial conditions, time-step, or functional details). Please supply the complete analytical derivation, including any linearization steps around the sinusoidal oscillation.
[N2 results / BC discussion] N2 demonstration section (likely §4): The role of the absorbing boundary condition is stated to be 'crucial' and 'consistent with our argument,' but no quantitative analysis is given of how the BC interacts with the non-linearity or of the instability's dependence on BC parameters. Additional simulations varying the BC strength or comparing with periodic boundaries would strengthen the claim that the instability is tied to the computational approach rather than the physics.

minor comments (2)

[Numerical setup] Clarify the precise definition of 'pure sinusoidal oscillations' and how they are initialized or detected in the dipole signal; the current description is somewhat vague for reproducibility.
[Computational details] Ensure all functionals used in the N2 tests are explicitly named with their standard abbreviations and references in the main text or a table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's positive assessment of the significance of our work and their recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript to provide the requested clarifications and additional material.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and methods comparison: The claim relies on RR-TDDFT being equivalent to TDKS for non-linear adiabatic dynamics, but no demonstration or proof is provided beyond linear response. A rigorous equivalence proof or side-by-side derivation of the non-linear terms is required.

Authors: We thank the referee for this key observation. RR-TDDFT is constructed to reproduce the same adiabatic density response as TDKS. In the revised manuscript we have added a subsection deriving the equivalence explicitly in the linear-response regime and explaining how the self-consistent time-step update in TDKS introduces an artificial non-linear feedback that amplifies sinusoidal modes, while the response-reformulated equations avoid this loop by design. We retain the numerical contrast on N2 with multiple functionals as supporting evidence that the instability is specific to the propagation scheme rather than the underlying physics. A complete non-linear equivalence proof is not provided, as it is not standard in the literature, but the combination of derivation and explicit demonstration addresses the concern. revision: partial
Referee: Analytical arguments section: Full derivations, assumptions, and error analysis for the amplification mechanism are not provided. Please supply the complete analytical derivation, including linearization steps around the sinusoidal oscillation.

Authors: We agree that the original presentation was too concise. The revised manuscript now contains a dedicated section with the full analytical derivation. It specifies the assumptions (adiabatic functional depending only on instantaneous density, small-amplitude pure sinusoidal perturbation, and the form of the time-dependent Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian), details the linearization procedure around the oscillation, and includes an error analysis showing that the growth arises generically from the non-linear density-potential coupling term under the adiabatic approximation. The derivation is independent of specific time-step size or functional details within the stated assumptions, as confirmed by our numerical tests. revision: yes
Referee: N2 demonstration: No quantitative analysis of how the absorbing boundary condition interacts with the non-linearity or of the instability's dependence on BC parameters. Additional simulations varying the BC strength or comparing with periodic boundaries would strengthen the claim.

Authors: We have carried out the requested additional simulations. The revised N2 section now includes quantitative plots of instability growth rate versus absorbing-boundary strength and a direct comparison with periodic-boundary calculations (where the post-pulse growth is absent). These results demonstrate that the amplification correlates directly with the open-boundary implementation in the TDKS propagator, consistent with the non-linearity argument, and further support that the effect is computational rather than physical. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained; no reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper's central argument rests on explicit numerical propagation of the N2 molecule under XUV pulses using multiple adiabatic functionals, combined with analytical observations about amplification of sinusoidal oscillations in TDKS. The absence of instability in RR-TDDFT with identical adiabatic XC is shown directly via the same computational setup and absorbing boundary conditions, providing an independent contrast rather than a definitional equivalence or fitted-parameter prediction. No load-bearing step reduces the artifact conclusion to a self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of prior results; the derivation chain remains externally falsifiable through the reported simulations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard TDDFT assumptions plus the specific numerical behavior of adiabatic propagation; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Adiabatic approximation to the exchange-correlation functional is valid for the time-dependent Kohn-Sham propagation
Invoked when stating that the same adiabatic approximation produces instability in one formulation but not the other.
domain assumption Standard time-propagation schemes in TDKS can introduce non-linear amplification of sinusoidal modes
Core of the artifact argument; appears in the description of the computational approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5439 in / 1468 out tokens · 34004 ms · 2026-05-12T01:11:38.959686+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

Basis set We will use the Gaussian basis set cc-pVDZ in all our calculations, except when otherwise noted. The number of many-body states used in the RR-TDDFT calculations shown is 70, however the results are converged with only 40 states for all the cases we consider (this will be explicitly shown later). The excited-to-excited state cou- plings involve ...

work page
[2]

Complex Absorbing Potential A key consideration in both the real-space simulation of Ref. [13] or our finite-basis set calculation, is the treat- ment of the ionization continuum: in reality, the part of the electronic wavepacket excited above the ionization threshold will propagate outwards, leaving the system unless driven back by the electric field. To...

work page
[3]

[13], the same pulse may lead to different dynamics

Linear response spectrum and XUV pulse considerations Since the details of the electronic structure differ from that used in the real-space grid studies of Refs. [13], the same pulse may lead to different dynamics. Neither the local density approximation with average-density self- interaction correction (ADSIC) functional used in that 3 work, nor the rela...

work page
[4]

CC2 is an approximation to CCSD, in which singles-dominated excitations are known to well- approximate the CCSD result, while double-excitations are correct only to zeroth order

Computational cost considerations First, we note that while we do not have a numer- ically exact electronic structure reference to compare our TDDFT methods against, we will use the approx- imate coupled-cluster method CC2 as an alternative wavefunction-method reference [50–52], which has of- ten been used to benchmark TDDFT excitation ener- gies [52, 53]...

work page
[5]

Runge and E

E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Density-functional theory for time-dependent systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 997 (1984)

work page 1984
[6]

C. A. Ullrich,Time-dependent density-functional theory: con- cepts and applications(Oxford University Press, 2011)

work page 2011
[7]

N. T. Maitra, Perspective: Fundamental aspects of time-dependent density functional theory, The Journal of Chemical Physics144, 220901 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4953039

work page doi:10.1063/1.4953039 2016
[8]

X. Li, N. Govind, C. Isborn, A. E. DePrince III, and K. Lopata, Real-time time-dependent electronic structure theory, Chem. Rev.120, 9951 (2020), pMID: 32813506

work page 2020
[9]

S. A. Sato, First-principles calculations for attosecond electron dynamics in solids, Computational Materials Sci- ence194, 110274 (2021)

work page 2021
[10]

Shepard, R

C. Shepard, R. Zhou, D. C. Yost, Y. Yao, and Y. Kanai, Simulating electronic excitation and dynamics with real- time propagation approach to tddft within plane-wave pseudopotential formulation, J. Chem. Phys.155, 100901 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0057587

work page doi:10.1063/5.0057587 2021
[11]

L. Bhan, C. Covington, and K. Varga, Signatures of atomic structure in subfemtosecond laser-driven electron dy- namics in nanogaps, Phys. Rev. B105, 085416 (2022)

work page 2022
[12]

C. A. Ullrich, A snapshot of time-dependent density- functional theory, APL Computational Physics1, 020901 (2025)

work page 2025
[13]

Lacombe and N

L. Lacombe and N. T. Maitra, Non-adiabatic approx- imations in time-dependent density functional theory: progress and prospects, npj Comput. Mater.9, 124 (2023)

work page 2023
[14]

M. F. Ciappina, J. A. Perez-Hernandez, A. S. Landsman, W. A. Okell, S. Zherebtsov, B. F ¨org, J. Sch ¨otz, L. Seif- fert, T. Fennel, T. Shaaran, T. Zimmermann, A. Chacon, R. Guichard, A. Za¨ır, J. W. G. Tisch, J. P . Marangos, T. Wit- ting, A. Braun, S. A. Maier, L. Roso, M. Kr ¨uger, P . Hom- melhoff, M. F. Kling, F. Krausz, and M. Lewenstein, At- toseco...

work page 2017
[15]

Young, K

L. Young, K. Ueda, M. G ¨uhr, P . H. Bucksbaum, M. Si- mon, S. Mukamel, N. Rohringer, K. C. Prince, C. Mas- ciovecchio, M. Meyer, A. Rudenko, D. Rolles, C. Bost- edt, M. Fuchs, D. A. Graves, J. Krzywinski, D. A. Reis, B. Rudek, B. Erk, R. Coffee, S. L. K ¨onig, T. Fehenberger, S. H. Southworth, L. F. DiMauro, P . Salen, P . vander Meulen, H. T. Muhammed, ...

work page 2018
[16]

Reinhard, P

P .-G. Reinhard, P . M. Dinh, D. Dundas, E. Suraud, and M. Vincendon, On the stability of hole states in molecules and clusters, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.232, 2095 (2023)

work page 2095
[17]

Reinhard, D

P .-G. Reinhard, D. Dundas, P . M. Dinh, M. Vincendon, and E. Suraud, Unexpected dipole instabilities in small molecules after ultrafast xuv irradiation, Physical Review A107, L020801 (2023)

work page 2023
[18]

Hughes, D

D. Hughes, D. Dundas, P . M. Dinh, M. Vincendon, P .-G. Reinhard, and E. Suraud, Dipole instability in molecules irradiated by XUV pulses, The European Physical Journal D77, 177 (2023)

work page 2023
[19]

Hughes, D

D. Hughes, D. Dundas, P . M. Dinh, E. Suraud, and P .-G. Reinhard, Dipole instability after an ultrashort xuv pulse in n2: population inversion and timescales, Scientific Re- ports15, 43692 (2025)

work page 2025
[20]

P . M. Dinh, P .-G. Reinhard, D. Dundas, D. Hughes, and E. Suraud, Symmetry breaking in TDLDA dynamics of symmetric molecules, Eur. Phys. J. D (2026), in press

work page 2026
[21]

D. B. Dar, A. Baranova, and N. T. Maitra, Reformulation of time-dependent density functional theory for nonpertur- bative dynamics: The rabi oscillation problem resolved, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 096401 (2024)

work page 2024
[22]

Petersilka, U

M. Petersilka, U. J. Gossmann, and E. K. U. Gross, Ex- citation energies from time-dependent density-functional theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1212 (1996)

work page 1996
[23]

Casida, Time-dependent density functional response theory for molecules, inRecent Advances in Density Func- tional Methods, Part I, edited by D

M. Casida, Time-dependent density functional response theory for molecules, inRecent Advances in Density Func- tional Methods, Part I, edited by D. Chong (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 1995)

work page 1995
[24]

M. E. Casida, Time-dependent density functional re- sponse theory of molecular systems: Theory, compu- tational methods, and functionals, inRecent Develop- ments and Applications of Modern Density Functional Theory, 10 edited by J. M. Seminario (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996) p. 391

work page 1996
[25]

Grabo, M

T. Grabo, M. Petersilka, and E. Gross, Molecular exci- tation energies from time-dependent density functional theory, Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM501, 353 (2000)

work page 2000
[26]

S. M. Parker and F. Furche, Response theory and molec- ular properties, inFrontiers of Quantum Chemistry, edited by M. J. W ´ojcik, H. Nakatsuji, B. Kirtman, and Y. Ozaki (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2018) pp. 69–86

work page 2018
[27]

Salek, O

P . Salek, O. Vahtras, T. Helgaker, and H. ˚Agren, Density- functional theory of linear and nonlinear time-dependent molecular properties, The Journal of Chemical Physics 117, 9630 (2002), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/117/21/9630/19225236/9630 1 online.pdf

work page 2002
[28]

Furche, On the density matrix based approach to time- dependent density functional response theory, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics114, 5982 (2001)

F. Furche, On the density matrix based approach to time- dependent density functional response theory, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics114, 5982 (2001)

work page 2001
[29]

Furche and R

F. Furche and R. Ahlrichs, Adiabatic time-dependent den- sity functional methods for excited state properties, The Journal of Chemical Physics117, 7433 (2002)

work page 2002
[30]

Baranova and N

A. Baranova and N. T. Maitra, Excited-State Densi- ties from Time-Dependent Density Functional Response Theory, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00909 (2025)

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00909 2025
[31]

D. Ray, A. Baranova, D. B. Dar, and N. T. Maitra, Har- nessing dressed time-dependent density functional the- ory for the nonperturbative regime: Electron dynamics with double excitations, APS Open Sci.1, L000014 (2026)

work page 2026
[32]

J. A. Sonk and H. B. Schlegel, TD-CI Simulation of the Electronic Optical Response of Molecules in Intense Fields II: Comparison of DFT Functionals and EOM- CCSD, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A115, 11832 (2011)

work page 2011
[33]

Mignolet, R

B. Mignolet, R. D. Levine, and F. Remacle, Charge mi- gration in the bifunctional PENNA cation induced and probed by ultrafast ionization: A dynamical study, Jour- nal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47, 124011 (2014)

work page 2014
[34]

Hermann, V

G. Hermann, V . Pohl, and J. C. Tremblay, An open-source framework for analyzing N-electron dynamics. II. hy- brid density functional theory/Configuration Interaction methodology, J. Comput. Chem.38, 2378 (2017)

work page 2017
[35]

Coccia and E

E. Coccia and E. Luppi, Time-dependent ab initio ap- proaches for high-harmonic generation spectroscopy, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter34, 073001 (2021)

work page 2021
[36]

Knoll and B

T. Knoll and B. G. Levine, Simulating electron dynam- ics with gpu-accelerated real-time tamm–dancoff approx- imation, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation0, null (0), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.6c00129

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.6c00129
[37]

P . Dinh, M. Vincendon, F. Coppens, E. Suraud, and P .-G. Reinhard, Quantum dissipative dynamics (qdd): A real- time real-space approach to far-off-equilibrium dynamics in finite electron systems, Computer Physics Communi- cations270, 108155 (2022)

work page 2022
[38]

D. Dundas, Multielectron effects in high harmonic gen- eration in n2 and benzene: Simulation using a non- adiabatic quantum molecular dynamics approach for laser-molecule interactions, The Journal of Chemical Physics136, 194303 (2012)

work page 2012
[39]

TURBOMOLE V7.2 2017, a development of University of Karlsruhe and Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, 1989-2007, TURBOMOLE GmbH, since 2007; available fromhttp://www.turbomole.com(2017)

work page 2017
[40]

Valiev, E

M. Valiev, E. Bylaska, N. Govind, K. Kowalski, T. Straatsma, H. V . Dam, D. Wang, J. Nieplocha, E. Apra, T. Windus, and W. de Jong, Nwchem: A comprehensive and scalable open-source solution for large scale molecu- lar simulations, Computer Physics Communications181, 1477 (2010)

work page 2010
[41]

S. M. Parker, S. Roy, and F. Furche, Unphys- ical divergences in response theory, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics145, 134105 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4963749

work page doi:10.1063/1.4963749 2016
[42]

Li and W

Z. Li and W. Liu, First-order nonadiabatic coupling ma- trix elements between excited states: A lagrangian formu- lation at the cis, rpa, td-hf, and td-dft levels, The Journal of Chemical Physics141, 014110 (2014)

work page 2014
[43]

Q. Ou, G. D. Bellchambers, F. Furche, and J. E. Subotnik, First-order derivative couplings between excited states from adiabatic TDDFT response theory, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 064114 (2015)

work page 2015
[44]

Zhang and J

X. Zhang and J. M. Herbert, Analytic derivative couplings in time-dependent density functional theory: Quadratic response theory versus pseudo-wavefunction approach, J. Chem. Phys.142, 064109 (2015)

work page 2015
[45]

S. M. Parker, D. Rappoport, and F. Furche, Quadratic response properties from tddft: Trials and tribulations, Journal of chemical theory and computation14, 807 (2018)

work page 2018
[46]

Reinhard, P

P .-G. Reinhard, P . D. Stevenson, D. Almehed, J. A. Maruhn, and M. R. Strayer, Role of boundary conditions in dynamic studies of nuclear giant resonances and colli- sions, Phys. Rev. E73, 036709 (2006)

work page 2006
[47]

Krause, J

P . Krause, J. A. Sonk, and H. B. Schlegel, Strong field ion- ization rates simulated with time-dependent configura- tion interaction and an absorbing potential, The Journal of Chemical Physics140, 174113 (2014)

work page 2014
[48]

Sissay, P

A. Sissay, P . Abanador, F. Mauger, M. Gaarde, K. J. Schafer, and K. Lopata, Angle-dependent strong-field molecular ionization rates with tuned range-separated time-dependent density functional theory, The Journal of Chemical Physics145, 094105 (2016)

work page 2016
[49]

A. S. Durden and H. B. Schlegel, Evaluation of diffuse basis sets for simulations of strong field ionization using time-dependent configuration interaction with a complex absorbing potential, J. Phys. Chem. A129, 3353 (2025)

work page 2025
[50]

Mignolet, R

B. Mignolet, R. D. Levine, and F. Remacle, Localized elec- tron dynamics in attosecond-pulse-excited molecular sys- tems: Probing the time-dependent electron density by sudden photoionization, Phys. Rev. A86, 053429 (2012)

work page 2012
[51]

Lopata and N

K. Lopata and N. Govind, Near and above ionization electronic excitations with non-hermitian real-time time- dependent density functional theory, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation9, 4939 (2013), pMID: 26583412, https://doi.org/10.1021/ct400569s

work page doi:10.1021/ct400569s 2013
[52]

J. P . Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

work page 1996
[53]

Yabana, T

K. Yabana, T. Nakatsukasa, J.-I. Iwata, and G. Bertsch, Real-time, real-space implementation of the linear re- sponse time-dependent density-functional theory, Phys- ica Status Solidi (b)243, 1121 (2006)

work page 2006
[54]

Christiansen, H

O. Christiansen, H. Koch, and P . Jørgensen, The second- order approximate coupled cluster singles and doubles model cc2, Chemical Physics Letters243, 409 (1995)

work page 1995
[55]

K. Hald, C. H ¨attig, D. L. Yeager, and P . Jørgensen, Linear response cc2 triplet excitation energies, Chemical Physics 11 Letters328, 291 (2000)

work page 2000
[56]

M. R. Silva-Junior, M. Schreiber, S. P . A. Sauer, and W. Thiel, Benchmarks for electronically excited states: Time-dependent density functional theory and density functional theory based multireference configura- tion interaction, The Journal of Chemical Physics 129, 104103 (2008), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2973541/11068680/...

work page doi:10.1063/1.2973541/11068680/104103 2008
[57]

A. D. Laurent and D. Jacquemin, Td-dft benchmarks: A review, International Jour- nal of Quantum Chemistry113, 2019 (2013), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qua.24438

work page doi:10.1002/qua.24438 2019
[58]

Adamo and V

C. Adamo and V . Barone, Toward reliable density func- tional methods without adjustable parameters: The pbe0 model, The Journal of Chemical Physics110, 6158 (1999)

work page 1999
[59]

J. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, and J. P . Perdew, Strongly con- strained and appropriately normed semilocal density functional, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 036402 (2015)

work page 2015
[60]

J. W. Furness, A. D. Kaplan, J. Ning, J. P . Perdew, and J. Sun, Accurate and numerically efficient r2scan meta- generalized gradient approximation, The Journal of Phys- ical Chemistry Letters11, 8208 (2020), pMID: 32876454, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02405

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02405 2020
[61]

A. D. McLACHLAN and M. A. BALL, Time-dependent hartree—fock theory for molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.36, 844 (1964)

work page 1964
[62]

J. I. Fuks, N. Helbig, I. Tokatly, and A. Rubio, Non- linear phenomena in time-dependent density-functional theory: What rabi oscillations can teach us, Phys. Rev. B 84, 075107 (2011)

work page 2011
[63]

J. I. Fuks, K. Luo, E. D. Sandoval, and N. T. Maitra, Time- resolved spectroscopy in time-dependent density func- tional theory: An exact condition, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 183002 (2015)

work page 2015
[64]

K. Luo, J. I. Fuks, and N. T. Maitra, Studies of spu- riously shifting resonances in time-dependent density functional theory, The Journal of Chemical Physics145, 044101 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4955447

work page doi:10.1063/1.4955447 2016
[65]

E. W. Draeger, X. Andrade, J. A. Gunnels, A. Bhatele, A. Schleife, and A. A. Correa, Massively parallel first- principles simulation of electron dynamics in materials, J. Parallel Distrib. Comput.106, 205 (2017)

work page 2017
[66]

Schelter and S

I. Schelter and S. K ¨ummel, Accurate evaluation of real- time density functional theory providing access to chal- lenging electron dynamics, J. Chem. Theory Comput.14, 1910 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01013

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01013 1910
[67]

H. O. Wijewardane and C. A. Ullrich, Real-time electron dynamics with exact-exchange time-dependent density- functional theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 056404 (2008)

work page 2008
[68]

Raghunathan and M

S. Raghunathan and M. Nest, Critical examination of ex- plicitly time-dependent density functional theory for co- herent control of dipole switching, J. Chem. Theory and Comput.7, 2492 (2011)

work page 2011
[69]

Raghunathan and M

S. Raghunathan and M. Nest, The lack of resonance prob- lem in coherent control with real-time time-dependent density functional theory, J. Chem. Theory and Comput. 8, 806 (2012)

work page 2012
[70]

Raghunathan and M

S. Raghunathan and M. Nest, Coherent control and time- dependent density functional theory: Towards creation of wave packets by ultrashort laser pulses, J. Chem. Phys 136, 064104 (2012)

work page 2012
[71]

B. F. Habenicht, N. P . Tani, M. R. Provorse, and C. M. Is- born, J. Chem. Phys.141, 184112 (2014)

work page 2014
[72]

E. E. Quashie, B. C. Saha, X. Andrade, and A. A. Correa, Self-interaction effects on charge-transfer collisions, Phys- ical Review A95, 042517 (2017)

work page 2017
[73]

C.-Z. Gao, J. Wang, F. Wang, and F.-S. Zhang, Theoretical study on collision dynamics of h+ + ch4 at low energies, The Journal of Chemical Physics140, 054308 (2014)

work page 2014
[74]

C.-Z. Gao, P . M. Dinh, P .-G. Reinhard, and E. Suraud, To- wards the analysis of attosecond dynamics in complex systems, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.19, 19784 (2017)

work page 2017
[75]

E. V . Bostr ¨om, A. Mikkelsen, C. Verdozzi, E. Per- fetto, and G. Stefanucci, Charge separation in donor–c60 complexes with real-time green functions: The impor- tance of nonlocal correlations, Nano Lett.18, 785 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b03995

work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b03995 2018
[76]

Krumland, A

J. Krumland, A. M. Valencia, S. Pittalis, C. A. Rozzi, and C. Cocchi, Understanding real-time time-dependent density-functional theory simulations of ultrafast laser- induced dynamics in organic molecules, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 054106 (2020)

work page 2020
[77]

C. M. Isborn and X. Li, Modeling the doubly excited state with time-dependent Hartree–Fock and density func- tional theories, J. Chem. Phys.129, 204107 (2008)

work page 2008
[78]

D. Dar, S. Roy, and N. T. Maitra, Curing the divergence in time-dependent density functional quadratic response theory, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters14, 3186 (2023). 12

work page 2023