{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027281279397930385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.333333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Which Is Better at Predicting Quantum-Tunneling Rates: Quantum Transition-State Theory or Free-Energy Instanton Theory?

Quantum transition-state theory (QTST) and free-energy instanton theory (FEIT) are two closely related methods for estimating the quantum rate coefficient from the free-energy at the reaction barrier. In calculations on one-dimensional models, FEIT typically gives closer agreement than QTST with the exact quantum results at all temperatures below the crossover to deep tunneling, suggesting that FEIT is a better approximation than QTST in this regime. Here we show that this simple trend does not hold for systems of greater dimensionality. We report tests on several collinear and three-dimensional reactions, in which QTST outperforms FEIT over a range of temperatures below crossover, which can extend down to half the crossover temperature (below which FEIT outperforms QTST). This suggests that QTST-based methods such as ring-polymer molecular dynamics (RPMD) may often give closer agreement with the exact quantum results than FEIT.