skip to main content


This content will become publicly available on April 28, 2024

Title: Nonadiabatic transition probabilities for quantum systems in electromagnetic fields: Dephasing and population relaxation due to contact with a bath
We contrast Dirac’s theory of transition probabilities and the theory of nonadiabatic transition probabilities, applied to a perturbed system that is coupled to a bath. In Dirac’s analysis, the presence of an excited state |k0⟩ in the time-dependent wave function constitutes a transition. In the nonadiabatic theory, a transition occurs when the wave function develops a term that is not adiabatically connected to the initial state. Landau and Lifshitz separated Dirac’s excited-state coefficients into a term that follows the adiabatic theorem of Born and Fock and a nonadiabatic term that represents excitation across an energy gap. If the system remains coherent, the two approaches are equivalent. However, differences between the two approaches arise when coupling to a bath causes dephasing, a situation that was not treated by Dirac. For two-level model systems in static electric fields, we add relaxation terms to the Liouville equation for the time derivative of the density matrix. We contrast the results obtained from the two theories. In the analysis based on Dirac’s transition probabilities, the steady state of the system is not an equilibrium state; also, the steady-state population ρkk,s increases with increasing strength of the perturbation and its value depends on the dephasing time T2. In the nonadiabatic theory, the system evolves to the thermal equilibrium with the bath. The difference is not simply due to the choice of basis because the difference remains when the results are transformed to a common basis.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2154028 1900399
NSF-PAR ID:
10411713
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Volume:
158
Issue:
16
ISSN:
0021-9606
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    The time evolution of the purity (the trace of the square of the reduced density matrix) and von Neumann entropy in a symmetric two-level system coupled to a dissipative harmonic bath is investigated through analytical arguments and accurate path integral calculations on simple models and the singly excited bacteriochlorophyll dimer. A simple theoretical analysis establishes bounds and limiting behaviors. The contributions to purity from a purely incoherent term obtained from the diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix, a term associated with the difference of the two eigenstate populations, and a third term related to the square of the time derivative of a site population, are discussed in various regimes. In the case of tunneling dynamics from a localized initial condition, the complex interplay among these contributions leads to the recovery of purity under low-temperature, weakly dissipative conditions. Memory effects from the bath are found to play a critical role to the dynamics of purity. It is shown that the strictly quantum mechanical decoherence process associated with spontaneous phonon emission is responsible for the long-time recovery of purity. These analytical and numerical results show clearly that the loss of quantum coherence during the evolution toward equilibrium does not necessarily imply the decay of purity, and that the time scales relevant to these two processes may be entirely different. 
    more » « less
  2. Quantum systems evolving unitarily and subject to quantum measurements exhibit various types of non-equilibrium phase transitions, arising from the competition between unitary evolution and measurements. Dissipative phase transitions in steady states of time-independent Liouvillians and measurement induced phase transitions at the level of quantum trajectories are two primary examples of such transitions. Investigating a many-body spin system subject to periodic resetting measurements, we argue that many-body dissipative Floquet dynamics provides a natural framework to analyze both types of transitions. We show that a dissipative phase transition between a ferromagnetic ordered phase and a paramagnetic disordered phase emerges for long-range systems as a function of measurement probabilities. A measurement induced transition of the entanglement entropy between volume law scaling and sub-volume law scaling is also present, and is distinct from the ordering transition. The two phases correspond to an error-correcting and a quantum-Zeno regimes, respectively. The ferromagnetic phase is lost for short range interactions, while the volume law phase of the entanglement is enhanced. An analysis of multifractal properties of wave function in Hilbert space provides a common perspective on both types of transitions in the system. Our findings are immediately relevant to trapped ion experiments, for which we detail a blueprint proposal based on currently available platforms. 
    more » « less
  3. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less
  4. We numerically isolate the limits of validity of the Landauer approximation to describe charge transport along molecular junctions in condensed phase environments. To do so, we contrast Landauer with exact time-dependent non-equilibrium Green’s function quantum transport computations in a two-site molecular junction subject to exponentially correlated noise. Under resonant transport conditions, we find Landauer accuracy to critically depend on intramolecular interactions. By contrast, under nonresonant conditions, the emergence of incoherent transport routes that go beyond Landauer depends on charging and discharging processes at the electrode–molecule interface. In both cases, decreasing the rate of charge exchange between the electrodes and molecule and increasing the interaction strength with the thermal environment cause Landauer to become less accurate. The results are interpreted from a time-dependent perspective where the noise prevents the junction from achieving steady-state and from a fully quantum perspective where the environment introduces dephasing in the dynamics. Using these results, we analyze why the Landauer approach is so useful to understand experiments, isolate regimes where it fails, and propose schemes to chemically manipulate the degree of transport coherence.

     
    more » « less
  5. Time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) based approaches have been developed in recent years to model the excited-state properties and transition processes of the molecules in the gas-phase and in a condensed medium, such as in a solution and protein microenvironment or near semiconductor and metal surfaces. In the latter case, usually, classical embedding models have been adopted to account for the molecular environmental effects, leading to the multi-scale approaches of TDDFT/polarizable continuum model (PCM) and TDDFT/molecular mechanics (MM), where a molecular system of interest is designated as the quantum mechanical region and treated with TDDFT, while the environment is usually described using either a PCM or (non-polarizable or polarizable) MM force fields. In this Perspective, we briefly review these TDDFT-related multi-scale models with a specific emphasis on the implementation of analytical energy derivatives, such as the energy gradient and Hessian, the nonadiabatic coupling, the spin–orbit coupling, and the transition dipole moment as well as their nuclear derivatives for various radiative and radiativeless transition processes among electronic states. Three variations of the TDDFT method, the Tamm–Dancoff approximation to TDDFT, spin–flip DFT, and spin-adiabatic TDDFT, are discussed. Moreover, using a model system (pyridine–Ag 20 complex), we emphasize that caution is needed to properly account for system–environment interactions within the TDDFT/MM models. Specifically, one should appropriately damp the electrostatic embedding potential from MM atoms and carefully tune the van der Waals interaction potential between the system and the environment. We also highlight the lack of proper treatment of charge transfer between the quantum mechanics and MM regions as well as the need for accelerated TDDFT modelings and interpretability, which calls for new method developments. 
    more » « less