We show the time evolution of the trajectory-averaged value of q 24 as well as its standard deviation in Fig. . As for DMABN, the mean value of the normal mode averaged over the trajectories is very similar for all methods. On the other hand, the standard deviations are quite different, being the smallest for MTE and the largest for CTMQC, with TSH-based methods yielding a similar spread. The differences among the methods is most apparent in the SSPAs, which we calculate for state S 0 (dark-blue dotted-dashed line) and S 1 (dark-red dotteddashed line). Let us consider first the lower panels of Fig. for the analysis of the TSH-based. On the left, TSH-ED yields oscillations of the S 1 SSPA with the smallest amplitudes, oscillating between 0 and 2. In CTTSH, the SSPAs coincides with the mean position, but this is corrected in CCTTSH so that different dynamics in the two electronic states are observed. However, the oscillations of the S 1 SSPA have larger amplitudes than in TSH-ED, indicating larger kinetic energy in the S 1 state. In the upper panels, we observe that in MTE, the SSPAs coincide with the mean value, but this is corrected in CTMQC, where the S 1 SSPA oscillates around an equilibrium value that is larger than the total mean, so that branching dynamics in different states occurs. Note that of all methods, CTMQC has the largest amplitudes in the S 1 SSPAs. As previously done for DMABN, we continue our analysis of the vibrational dynamics based on time-dependent trajectory-averaged momentum along q 24 , its standard deviation and the total nuclear kinetic energy, which are reported in Fig. . The behavior is similar as in Fig. : the mean values agree for all methods, but the standard deviations are distinct, with CTMQC having the largest, MTE the lowest, and the TSH-based scheme being quite similar. However, differences among the methods appear in the SSMAs and are quite subtle. The SSMA for state S 0 follows quite closely the mean momentum in all cases and this is also true for SSMA of S 1 , except for CTMQC, where it shows oscillations with larger amplitudes, and for TSH-ED, where it shows oscillations with smaller amplitudes. On the top right of Fig. , the total trajectory-averaged nuclear kinetic energy is shown. For the TSH-based algorithms, the kinetic energy increases similarly from 1.4 eV to 3.5 eV, while for MTE and CT-MQC, it reaches a lower value of ≈ 3 eV and a value of ≈ 4 eV, respectively, at the end of the simulated dynamics. Note that while here the kinetic energy of CTMQC is still larger than the other methods, its increase in the course of the dynamics is not as severe as in DMABN.