In this comparative study we benchmark a recently developed nonadiabatic exchange-correlation potential within time-dependent density-functional theory (TDDFT) [Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 157701 (2018)] by (a) validating the transient dynamics using a numerically exact density-matrix renormalization-group approach as well as by (b) comparing the $RC$ time, a typical linear-response quantity, to up to second-order perturbation theory results. As a test bed we use the dynamics of the single-impurity Anderson model. These benchmarks show that the nonadiabatic potential yields quantitatively accurate results for the transient dynamics for temperatures of the order of the hybridization strength, while the TDDFT $RC$ times quantitatively agree with those from second-order perturbation theory for temperatures which are large compared to the hybridization strength. Both results are particularly intriguing given the relatively low numerical cost of a TDDFT calculation.In this comparative study we benchmark a recently developed nonadiabatic exchange-correlation potential within time-dependent density-functional theory (TDDFT) [Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 157701 (2018)] by (a) validating the transient dynamics using a numerically exact density-matrix renormalization-group approach as well as by (b) comparing the $RC$ time, a typical linear-response quantity, to up to second-order perturbation theory results. As a test bed we use the dynamics of the single-impurity Anderson model. These benchmarks show that the nonadiabatic potential yields quantitatively accurate results for the transient dynamics for temperatures of the order of the hybridization strength, while the TDDFT $RC$ times quantitatively agree with those from second-order perturbation theory for temperatures which are large compared to the hybridization strength. Both results are particularly intriguing given the relatively low numerical cost of a TDDFT calculation.

arXiv:1810.00183Physical review. B./Physical review. BFeb 13, 201911 citations

RC

time, a typical linear-response quantity, to up to second-order perturbation theory results. As a test bed we use the dynamics of the single-impurity Anderson model. These benchmarks show that the nonadiabatic potential yields quantitatively accurate results for the transient dynamics for temperatures of the order of the hybridization strength, while the TDDFT

RC

times quantitatively agree with those from second-order perturbation theory for temperatures which are large compared to the hybridization strength. Both results are particularly intriguing given the relatively low numerical cost of a TDDFT calculation.