Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

The spin-partitioned entanglement Hamiltonian of the one-dimensional Hubbard model is a gapped, dispersionless 'modular Luttinger liquid' whose eigenstates still decay algebraically.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-04 20:20 UTC pith:YVI3Z6HE

load-bearing objection Solid bosonization derivation of a flat spin-partitioned entanglement spectrum, but the universal claim for the Hubbard model goes beyond what the numerics actually show. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01817 v1 pith:YVI3Z6HE submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.quant-gas

Emergent modular Luttinger liquid from spin-partitioned entanglement in the one-dimensional Hubbard model

\'Ad\'am B\'acsi , Catalin Pascu Moca , Bal\'azs D\'ora This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords modular Hamiltonianentanglement spectrumLuttinger liquidHubbard modelspin-partitioned entanglementbosonizationspin-charge separationentanglement gap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to determine what the spin-partitioned entanglement Hamiltonian of the one-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model looks like, and claims a complete answer: tracing out the down-spin electrons leaves a 'modular Luttinger liquid,' a gapped and dispersionless bosonic Hamiltonian whose spectrum is identical in every momentum channel. The single entanglement gap is set by the charge and spin Luttinger parameters, beta = 2 ln[(sqrt Kc + sqrt Ks)/|sqrt Kc - sqrt Ks|], so the gap is a static measure of spin-charge separation. Despite the flat spectrum, the eigenstates remain critical: their correlations decay algebraically with a single effective Luttinger parameter equal to sqrt(Kc Ks), the geometric mean of the physical charge and spin parameters. Exact diagonalization confirms the predicted branching hierarchy of the entanglement levels and shows that the modular ground state is nearly identical to the ground state of a spinless t-V model. If true, this gives a universal modular description of spin-partitioned entanglement for any gapless one-dimensional spinful electron system.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the reduced density matrix of the up-spin sector, rho_up = exp(-Hent)/Z, is exactly a product over momentum pairs of two-mode bosonic thermal-like states, and the entanglement Hamiltonian is Hent = sum_p beta(f+_p f_p + f+_-p f_-p) + const. The gap beta is momentum independent, making the spectrum fully dispersionless even though the physical model is gapless. The eigenstates, however, are those of a single-component Luttinger liquid with Luttinger parameter sqrt(Kc Ks), so spatial correlations remain algebraic. The paper also claims that the entanglement spectrum obeys a universal branching hierarchy whose degeneracies match a combinatorial co

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian ansatz for the reduced density matrix of one spin species: it is fully determined by the two-point functions <b+_{p up} b_{p up}> and <b+_{p up} b+_{-p up}> of the bosonized theory, with all higher correlations following from Wick's theorem. The physical Hamiltonian is first bosonized into decoupled charge and spin sectors characterized by Luttinger parameters Kc and Ks; matching the two-point functions fixes the per-mode entanglement Hamiltonian as a two-mode squeezing form, which a Bogoliubov rotation diagonalizes into independent boson modes with common energy beta. The geometric-mean parameter sqrt(Kc Ks) emerges from combining the charge and spin scali

Load-bearing premise

The reduced density matrix of the up-spin sector is exactly Gaussian: once the two two-point functions are fixed, every higher correlation is assumed to follow by Wick's theorem, which requires the quadratic bosonized theory (no Umklapp, no spin backscattering) to control the entanglement structure at the couplings, fillings, and system sizes studied.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-partitioned entanglement spectrum of the Hubbard model at half filling or at U much larger than the hopping, where Umklapp and spin-backscattering terms are relevant; if the first entanglement gap varies with momentum, or the level degeneracies depart from the combinatorial branching pattern of a single flat beta, the modular-Luttinger-liquid claim fails. A cold-atom two-leg ladder realization could test the flatness directly by extracting the entanglement gap between the legs.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Any gapless one-dimensional spinful Luttinger liquid should show a flat spin-partitioned entanglement spectrum with the single gap beta; momentum resolution of the spectrum would expose the same level spacing everywhere.
  • The entanglement gap diverges as Kc approaches Ks, reproducing the vanishing of spin entanglement in the noninteracting limit, and grows with interaction strength U.
  • The spin-partitioned entanglement entropy follows a volume law, scaling with the number of momentum modes, in contrast to the area-law entropy of spatial bipartitions.
  • The modular ground state can be realized as the ground state of a single-component spinless Luttinger liquid with KV = sqrt(Kc Ks), giving a concrete effective model for the entanglement Hamiltonian.
  • In cold-atom implementations where the two spin species occupy separate legs of a ladder, the predicted flat gap and algebraic correlations become directly measurable as spatial entanglement between the legs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Gaussian machinery plausibly extends to partitions by other internal quantum numbers in quadratic bosonized theories, with the geometric-mean combination of the two effective parameters replacing Kc and Ks; this is a testable extension rather than a claim of the paper.
  • Because the modular flow is purely oscillatory at a single frequency, modular-time spectroscopy would show no propagation; that distinction could be probed in quench or spectroscopic protocols on engineered Hubbard systems.
  • The exact flatness of the spectrum is tied to neglecting Umklapp and spin-backscattering terms, so the paper's regime is away from half filling and weak to moderate U; locating where the gap acquires momentum dependence would map the boundary of the modular-Luttinger-liquid description.
  • The paper notes that spin-partitioned entanglement is not captured by the usual entanglement-fluctuation relation, since up and down spin numbers are conserved separately; this makes spin entanglement a distinct, interaction-only probe in one-dimensional metals.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the entanglement Hamiltonian obtained by tracing out down spins from the ground state of the one-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model, working within the g2-g4 Luttinger-liquid description. The central claim is that the reduced density matrix factorizes into momentum-pair quadratic bosonic forms, so that the modular Hamiltonian is a dispersionless 'modular Luttinger liquid' with a momentum-independent gap beta = 2 ln[(sqrt(Kc)+sqrt(Ks))/|sqrt(Kc)-sqrt(Ks)|] (Eq. 8), while its eigenstates retain algebraic correlations with a single Luttinger parameter equal to sqrt(Kc Ks). Exact diagonalization is used to support a universal branching hierarchy and a near-perfect overlap of the modular ground state with the ground state of the spinless t-V model.

Significance. If established, the claim is significant: it predicts a universal, interaction-induced spin-partitioned entanglement structure for one-dimensional gapless fermionic systems, connecting the modular spectrum to spin-charge separation through a geometric-mean Luttinger parameter. The analytic derivation from the quadratic bosonized LL model is internally sound; I checked the matching between Eqs. (20), (25), and (26) and found that Eq. (8) follows. The prediction is falsifiable and would be of interest to the cold-atom and quantum-simulation communities. However, the extension from the quadratic LL model to the Hubbard model, and the numerical verification, are weaker than the presentation suggests; the current evidence does not yet establish the universal claim as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [End Matter, 'Calculation of the reduced density matrix', Eqs. (20)-(26)] The derivation assumes the ground state is exactly Gaussian in the b_{p sigma} bosons, so that rho_up is fully determined by the two-point functions (20) and Wick's theorem. This is exact for the quadratic g2-g4 Hamiltonian (1)-(2), but not for the Hubbard ground state, which contains non-Gaussian corrections from Umklapp, spin backscattering, and finite-bandwidth terms. The statement that 'higher order correlation functions are also correctly reproduced ... due to Wick's theorem' is circular: Wick's theorem holds for the quadratic ansatz, not for the interacting Hubbard state. The paper needs either a controlled argument that these non-Gaussian corrections vanish in the thermodynamic limit for the entanglement spectrum, or a direct numerical test (e.g., four-point functions, or a momentum-resolved beta_p extracted without branch averaging). This is load-bearing because the flat-spectrum
  2. ['Entanglement spectrum', Eq. (14), Table I, Fig. 3] The comparison with exact diagonalization uses the system-size-dependent fitting parameters a1 and a2 in Eq. (14), listed in Table I, and branch-averaged eigenvalues in Fig. 3. Since beta in Eq. (8) depends continuously on Ks, two free parameters per system size can match the observed branch averages even if the spectrum is not flat. Branch averaging also removes information about within-branch dispersion, so it cannot distinguish a flat, momentum-independent spectrum from a momentum-dependent beta_p. To support the universal claim, please report the full entanglement spectrum or a quantitative measure of within-branch level splitting, and determine Ks independently (e.g., from Bethe-ansatz or finite-size-correction data) rather than fitting it to the entanglement eigenvalues.
  3. ['Entanglement wavefunction', Fig. 4] The upper panel of Fig. 4 plots overlap values on an axis ranging from 0.998 to 1.002, i.e., values exceeding 1. For two normalized wavefunctions, the overlap (or its absolute value squared) cannot exceed 1. This indicates a normalization or definition problem and undermines the claim of near-perfect overlap with the t-V model ground state. Please clarify the exact quantity plotted and report actual overlap values below 1 with numerical precision.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The column-vector notation with '±' is ambiguous. Please write epsilon and gamma explicitly, e.g., epsilon = (beta/2)(1/sqrt(Kc Ks) + sqrt(Kc Ks)), gamma = (beta/2)(1/sqrt(Kc Ks) - sqrt(Kc Ks)), so that the sign convention is unambiguous.
  2. [Eqs. (5) and (7)] Eq. (5) contains the constant '+ epsilon - beta', which is needed to cancel the zero-point energy so that Eq. (7) has eigenvalues n beta. This is correct but should be stated explicitly; otherwise the reader may infer that the constant is part of the spectrum of Hent.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The statement that 'the first 11 and second 53 eigenvalues make the 1st and 2nd branch' should be reconciled with the degeneracy formula for a flat spectrum with N modes. Please specify the number of modes used and the branch-assignment criterion.
  4. [Interacting electrons in one-dimension] The sentence 'This separation remains intact for all energies for the Hubbard model' is too strong. Spin-charge separation in the Hubbard model is an asymptotic low-energy property; please clarify the statement and cite the precise sense in which it holds.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The analytic modular-LL derivation is self-contained, but the numerical confirmation of the entanglement gap (Fig. 3) reduces to system-size-fitted K_s parameters.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Entanglement spectrum', Eq. (14), Table I, and Fig. 3]
    "In order to achieve a meaningful comparison between numerics and bosonization, we need to take into account that K_s ≠ 1 due to the short chains considered. Therefore, we use the expression [30,33] 1/K_s^2 ≈ 1 − a1 U/(πt sin(k_F)) + a2 (2U^2)/(π t^2 sin(k_F)) + . . . , where k_F = πf ... and a1,2 are fitting parameters, which can depend on the system size and filling. Our results are summarized in Table I by comparison with the numerical data in Fig. 3."

    The analytic gap formula, Eq. (8), is beta = 2 ln[(sqrt(Kc)+sqrt(Ks))/|sqrt(Kc)-sqrt(Ks)|]. To apply it to the ED data, Ks is not taken from a parameter-free computation; it is given by Eq. (14) with a1,a2 fitted 'by comparison with the numerical data in Fig. 3'—the same branch-average data that Fig. 3 presents as confirming the bosonization 'prediction'. The dashed curves are therefore, for the gap magnitude, curves through the fitted input rather than independent predictions. The flatness/branching structure and the Kc,Ks functional form remain independent content, but the claimed quantitative agreement of the gap magnitude is partly by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central analytic chain is not circular: it starts from the quadratic bosonized LL Hamiltonian, computes the spin-up reduced density matrix by the standard Gaussian/correlation-function method (Refs. [21,26]), and obtains beta = 2 ln[(sqrt(Kc)+sqrt(Ks))/|sqrt(Kc)-sqrt(Ks)|] and the f-boson structure. That derivation is self-contained conditional on the LL description; the Gaussian assumption is a physics limitation, not a circular step, and the paper explicitly restricts to the gapless regime (omitting Umklapp and spin backscattering). No load-bearing self-citation or author-imported uniqueness theorem is present. However, the numerical confirmation of the entanglement gap magnitude is weakened by a fitting step: Eq. (14) introduces finite-size coefficients a1,a2 that are fit to the same Fig. 3 branch averages, so the 'excellent agreement' of the dashed gap curves is in part guaranteed by the fit. Also note separate numerical caveats outside circularity: the overlap values in Fig. 4 exceed 1 in the plotted range, indicating a normalization issue in the modular-ground-state comparison. Overall: partial circularity in the quantitative gap confirmation; score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Everything beyond the standard bosonized low-energy theory: the Gaussian form of the reduced density matrix, the omission of Umklapp/backscattering, and the fitted finite-size form of Ks. The only free numbers are a1, a2 (Eq. 14, Table I) and the matching parameter V (Fig. 4). No new physical entities are postulated; the 'modular Luttinger liquid' is a derived characterization of the entanglement Hamiltonian.

free parameters (3)
  • a1 (spin LL parameter correction coefficient, Eq. 14) = 2.06 (N=12), 1.77 (N=14), 1.44 (N=16), 1.28 (N=18)
    Sets the finite-size correction to 1/Ks^2; the resulting Ks fixes the predicted entanglement gap beta in Eq. (8) and Fig. 3. The text labels a1, a2 'fitting parameters' and gives no independent determination, so the gap comparison in Fig. 3 is partly calibrated on the data it predicts.
  • a2 (spin LL parameter correction coefficient, Eq. 14) = 0.25 (N=12), 0.22 (N=14), 0.18 (N=16), 0.17 (N=18)
    Same role as a1; quadratic-order correction to 1/Ks^2 entering Eq. (14) and hence Fig. 3.
  • V (t-V model interaction strength) = not tabulated; determined by maximizing overlap in Fig. 4 (V < t)
    Variational parameter (paper's own wording) used to match the modular ground state to the spinless t-V ground state; the claim K_V = sqrt(Kc Ks) is verified only after optimizing V.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Low-energy physics of the Hubbard model is captured by the bosonized quadratic theory with only g2 and g4 forward-scattering terms; Umklapp and spin-backscattering are omitted.
    Invoked in 'Interacting electrons in one-dimension' and retained through the derivation; valid away from half filling with gapless spin and charge sectors, but it is exactly the premise that makes the ground state Gaussian.
  • domain assumption The reduced density matrix rho_up is Gaussian: a product over momentum modes of single-mode quadratic bosonic forms, fully determined by the physical two-point functions via Wick's theorem (Ref. [21]).
    End Matter, 'Calculation of the reduced density matrix'. This is the load-bearing structural assumption; if higher-order correlations deviate from Wick's theorem, the modular-LL form fails.
  • domain assumption The spin Luttinger parameter obeys Ks = 1 in the thermodynamic limit (SU(2)) with the specific finite-size form of Eq. (14).
    Hubbard model section, Eq. (14), citing Refs. [30,33]; the coefficients are fitted, and the functional form enters the numerical comparison of Fig. 3.
  • standard math Standard bosonization dictionary and Wick's theorem for Gaussian states.
    Basis for Eqs. (1)-(3), (16)-(20).

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent modular Luttinger liquid from spin-partitioned entanglement in the one-dimensional Hubbard model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVI3Z6HE

@misc{pith2026260801817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent modular Luttinger liquid from spin-partitioned entanglement in the one-dimensional Hubbard model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVI3Z6HE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01817}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study the spin-partitioned entanglement Hamiltonian of the one-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model. By combining bosonization with exact diagonalization, we show that tracing out one spin species produces a modular Luttinger liquid, whose properties fundamentally differ from those of the physical system. While the modular spectrum is fully dispersionless and possesses a momentum-independent entanglement gap, its eigenstates exhibit algebraic correlations governed by a single effective Luttinger parameter equal to the geometric mean of the charge and spin Luttinger parameters. The resulting entanglement spectrum displays a universal branching hierarchy in excellent agreement with exact diagonalization. We further demonstrate that the modular ground state is nearly identical to that of the spinless Luttinger liquid. These results uncover a universal modular structure in interacting one-dimensional fermionic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01817 by \'Ad\'am B\'acsi, Bal\'azs D\'ora, Catalin Pascu Moca.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Density plot of the evolution of the entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Representative visualization of the first 80 eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: These parameters steadily decrease with system size, indicating that Ks = 1 is approached only very slowly in the thermodynamic limit. We could also consider higher order corrections to Kc in Eq. (12), similarly to Ks, but this would only increase the number of fitting parameters and not the quality of the fit, therefore we refrain from considering higher order terms and use Eq. (12) for Kc. In the non-int… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The overlap of the ground state LL wavefunction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy,Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P04010 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio,Colloquium : Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral,Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000), URL https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511976667

    2000

  5. [5]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki,Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Friis, G

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber,Entan- glement certification from theory to experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 72 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Islam, R

    R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner,Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature528, 77 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Li and F

    H. Li and F. D. M. Haldane,Entanglement spectrum as a generalization of entanglement entropy: Identification of topological order in non-abelian fractional quantum hall effect states, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 010504 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    H. J. Borchers and J. Yngvason,Modular groups of quan- tum fields in thermal states, Journal of Mathematical Physics40(2), 601 (1999), ISSN 0022-2488

    1999

  10. [10]

    Dalmonte, V

    M. Dalmonte, V. Eisler, M. Falconi, and B. Ver- mersch,Entanglement hamiltonians: From field theory to lattice models and experiments, An- nalen der Physik534(11), 2200064 (2022), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.202200064

    doi:10.1002/andp.202200064 2022

  11. [11]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen,Quantum Information Meets Quantum Matter: From Quantum En- tanglement to Topological Phases of Many-Body Systems (Springer, New York, NY, 2019), ISBN 978-1-4939-9082-5, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9084-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9084-9 2019

  12. [12]

    Srednicki,Entropy and area, Phys

    M. Srednicki,Entropy and area, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 666 (1993)

    1993

  13. [13]

    Oh and J

    S. Oh and J. Kim,Entanglement of an impurity and conduction spins in the kondo model, Phys. Rev. B73, 052407 (2006)

    2006

  14. [14]

    X. M. Puspus, K. H. Villegas, and F. N. C. Paraan, Entanglement spectrum and number fluctuations in the spin-partitioned bcs ground state, Phys. Rev. B90, 155123 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    Gao and S.-J

    Y. Gao and S.-J. Xiong,Spin bipartite entanglement of paired electrons in bcs superconductor, Physica C: Super- conductivity466(1), 201 (2007), ISSN 0921-4534

    2007

  16. [16]

    Emergence of spin entanglement with the pseudogap onset in the Fermi-Hubbard model

    F. Bippus, T. Chalopin, G. Bellomia, G. Ro´ osz, T. Franz, A. Georges, A. Kauch, I. Bloch, and K. Held,Emer- gence of spin entanglement with the pseudogap onset in the fermi-hubbard model(2026), arXiv:2605.31240, URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.31240

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.31240 2026

  17. [17]

    Calabrese and A

    P. Calabrese and A. Lefevre,Entanglement spectrum in one-dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. A78, 032329 (2008). 6

    2008

  18. [18]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2004), URL https://doi

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2004), URL https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525004.001.0001

    arXiv 2004

  19. [19]

    A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsvelik, Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998), URL https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628832

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628832 1998

  20. [20]

    Essler, H

    F. Essler, H. Frahm, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. Korepin,The One-Dimensional Hubbard Model(Cam- bridge University Press, 2005), ISBN 9781139441582, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511534843

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511534843 2005

  21. [21]

    Peschel,Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36(14), L205 (2003)

    I. Peschel,Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36(14), L205 (2003)

    2003

  22. [22]

    Chandran, V

    A. Chandran, V. Khemani, and S. L. Sondhi,How univer- sal is the entanglement spectrum?, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 060501 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann,On the duality condition for quantum fields, Journal of Mathematical Physics17(3), 303 (1976), ISSN 0022-2488

    1976

  24. [24]

    Faulkner, R

    T. Faulkner, R. G. Leigh, O. Parrikar, and H. Wang, Modular hamiltonians for deformed half-spaces and the averaged null energy condition, J. High Energ. Phys.2016, 38 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    X. Wen, S. Ryu, and A. W. W. Ludwig,Entanglement hamiltonian evolution during thermalization in conformal field theory, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2018(11), 113103 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Lundgren, Y

    R. Lundgren, Y. Fuji, S. Furukawa, and M. Oshikawa, Entanglement spectra between coupled tomonaga-luttinger liquids: Applications to ladder systems and topological phases, Phys. Rev. B88, 245137 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Furukawa and Y

    S. Furukawa and Y. B. Kim,Entanglement entropy be- tween two coupled tomonaga-luttinger liquids, Phys. Rev. B83, 085112 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    A. M. L¨ auchli and J. Schliemann,Entanglement spectra of coupled s = 1 2 spin chains in a ladder geometry, Phys. Rev. B85, 054403 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu,The hubbard model, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics13(1), 239 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031620- 102024

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031620- 2022

  30. [30]

    S. A. S¨ offing, I. Schneider, and S. Eggert,Low-energy local density of states of the 1d hubbard model, Europhysics Letters101(5), 56006 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    S. D. Geraedts, R. Nandkishore, and N. Regnault,Many- body localization and thermalization: Insights from the entanglement spectrum, Phys. Rev. B93, 174202 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    A. A. Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998)

    1998

  33. [33]

    Sano,Luttinger-liquid parameter of hub- bard chain and hubbard ladder, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan69(4), 1000 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.69.1000

    K. Sano,Luttinger-liquid parameter of hub- bard chain and hubbard ladder, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan69(4), 1000 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.69.1000

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.69.1000 2000

  34. [34]

    H. F. Song, S. Rachel, and K. Le Hur,General relation between entanglement and fluctuations in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B82, 012405 (2010)

    2010

  35. [35]

    W. Zhu, Z. Huang, and Y.-C. He,Reconstructing entan- glement hamiltonian via entanglement eigenstates, Phys. Rev. B99, 235109 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Parisen Toldin and F

    F. Parisen Toldin and F. F. Assaad,Entanglement hamil- tonian of interacting fermionic models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 200602 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Tarruell and L

    L. Tarruell and L. Sanchez-Palencia,Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model with ultracold fermions in optical lattices, Comptes Rendus. Physique19(6), 365 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    F. Alam, J. L. Bosse, I. Cepaite, A. Chapman, L. Clinton, M. Crichigno, E. Crosson, T. Cubitt, C. Derby, O. Dowin- ton, P. K. Faehrmann, S. Flammia,et al.,Programmable digital quantum simulation of 2d fermi-hubbard dynamics using 72 superconducting qubits(2025), arXiv:2510.26845, URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.26845

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26845 2025

  39. [39]

    G. S. Hartnett, K. S. Najafi, A. Khindanov, H. Liao, M. Schutzman, M. R. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, and Y. Baum, Fast, accurate, high-resolution simulation of large-scale fermi-hubbard models on a digital quantum processor (2026), arXiv:2605.04025, URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2605.04025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.04025 2026

  40. [40]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett,et al.,Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the fermi- hubbard model(2020), arXiv:2010.07965, 2010.07965, URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.07965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.07965 2020

  41. [41]

    Dalmonte, B

    M. Dalmonte, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller,Quantum simulation and spectroscopy of entanglement hamiltonians, Nature Phys.14, 827 (2018). End matter Charge and spin separation in the Luttinger liquid.– We introduce the bosonic operators corresponding to the charge and spin sectors as bpc = bp↑ +b p↓√ 2 bps = bp↑ −b p↓√ 2 ,(16) Consequently, the charge-sector...

    2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.