Revealing Physical Redundancy in the Two-Dimensional Fermi-Hubbard Model via Transferable Observable Reconstruction

The Fermi-Hubbard Model has long been regarded as a fundamental framework for studying Mott physics and understanding strongly correlated phenomena in lattice systems [24, 1, 8]. It also experimentally serves as a cornerstone for the experimental realization of ultracold-atom quantum simulation in optical lattices [22], underscoring its central role in contemporary quantum research. Three most iconic and extensively studied physical observables of the 2D Fermi-Hubbard Model are total density, double occupancy, and spin-spin interaction. Each of these observables encodes distinct information about the system and plays a unique role in determining its macroscopic behaviors [17, 26, 19, 10]. From a physical perspective, these observables are expected to be intrinsically correlated, and several widely accepted approximate relations have indeed been proposed over the past decades to connect them in specific limiting regimes. The general derivation of one observable from another, however, remains intrinsically intractable [9, 27, 10, 25]. In this work, we take a step beyond this theoretical limitation. We conduct a numerical transferability study, in which we employ the three observables to cross-reconstruct each other’s phase diagram. This process not only empirically probes correlations between individual observables, but also provides a quantitative measure of the intrinsic physical information shared among them, thereby revealing the degree of physical redundancy present in the system.

In this work, we adopt a numerical framework, an approach that has become increasingly prevalent in recent years with the rapid advancement of computational power and artificial intelligence [4, 3, 29, 6]. Our central idea is to employ a carefully designed neural network to perform a series of regression tasks. In each task, one observable is provided as the input, while the neural network is expected to exploit all correlations possible and learn a mapping function to reconstruct another observable’s phase diagram from the given input. After eliminating alternative sources of influence through shuffle and noise tests, the performance of this learned mapping reflects its reproducible reconstructability, and consequently, the amount of intrinsic physical information shared between the two distinct observables. Our results reveal a clear and consistent trend. Despite the fact that these observables occupy different levels in the information hierarchy in the sense of their distinct physical correlation lengths, the transferability tests achieve remarkably strong performance across all input-output pairs. The transferred mappings attain nearly the same level of accuracy as the corresponding self-mapping benchmarks, in which the target observable itself serves as the input for reconstructing its own phase diagram. This capability persists throughout the entire thermodynamic range considered, and deteriorates only in the vicinity of phase-critical regimes. These findings suggest that these seemingly independent observables are more than merely correlated. Instead, they exhibit substantial physical redundancy, implying that distinct observables may reside on a common higher-order many-body manifold that encodes shared physical information.

The Fermi-Hubbard Model describes electron hopping behaviors within a lattice grid. The competing effects include neighboring hopping, local Coulomb interaction and chemical potential bias. There are therefore three competing terms within the system Hamiltonian, as shown in order in Eq 1 [9, 7, 12, 31]. $\sigma$ refers to spin direction and takes two values: $\uparrow$(up) and $\downarrow$(down). $r$ refers to a lattice site that can accommodate up to two opposite-spin electrons according to Pauli exclusion principle, and $\langle r,r^{\prime}\rangle$ refers to a pair of spatially adjacent lattice sites. $c_{r\sigma}^{\dagger}/c_{r\sigma}$ are the canonically anticommute fermion operators that create/annihilate a fermion with spin $\sigma$ at site $r$. $n$ values in the last two terms are the corresponding fermion numbers at certain lattice sites with certain spin directions. Note that $n$ can be easily written in fermion operators, but we choose to write out $n$ explicitly here because we want to show more clearly the physical meaning of each term. It can be easily seen that each of the three terms has a strength coefficient attached, weighting their corresponding competence in the Hamiltonian. $t$ is called the hopping strength, and it can be seen from the expression of the first term that it describes the hopping intensity of electrons across adjacent lattice sites. $U$ refers to local Coulomb repulsion energy, and the second term punishes a fully occupied lattice site with two opposite-spin electrons. Finally, chemical potential $\mu$ acts as a background bias that controls the total electron number. The system in its general form is analytically unsolvable, meaning that it has no known closed-form solution and is exponentially hard to scale numerically with any existing methods. Therefore, in the main part of this study, we will simulate the system in a moderate setting: a single-band 2D 2$\times$2 lattice grid with four lattice sites, which is the basic building block of a 2D band system. It is simple but inspiring, with one plaquette capturing key 2D physical characteristics. At the end of Results section however, we provide a substantial sample feasibility test with several larger lattice architectures, which serves as a core clarification of finite-size effect. We will delay a detailed discussion until then.

Before the transferability test, we need to build our central dataset with a simulator. To do that, we do not prefer the Hamiltonian in its fermion-operator form. Instead, we want an equivalent spin model, which will be directly deployable on our device. Therefore, our next step would be to make adjustments to the fermion-operator Hamiltonian with Jordan-Wigner transformation. This means an effective translation from fermion operators into Pauli spin operators, following the formula in Eq 2. $m$ here refers to any unique electron state with a unique pair of location and spin. It is quite noticeable that different ordering of modes can lead to different implementation practices in simulation while they effectively share the same physics due to basis change symmetry in Jordan-Wigner transformation [2]. A detailed demonstration of our ordering choice can be found in Methods.

After all the conversion between operators, we finally arrive at a convenient spin-form Hamiltonian in Pauli spin operators in the following form [9, 7, 12, 31]:

where $\sigma$ now corresponds to either of the two spin directions u(up) and d(down), $\langle r,r^{\prime}\rangle$ still represents a pair of adjacent lattice sites, and $(i,j)$ refers to either of the two pairs of modes with a same spin direction within a $\langle r,r^{\prime}\rangle$ pair. Note that this Hamiltonian now includes long-range interactions and series multiplication.

The three physical observables we are interested in are total density, double occupancy and spin-spin interaction at $(\pi,\pi)$ respectively. Total density reflects on the total number of electrons induced, double occupancy reflects on the number of sites that are fully occupied with two opposite-spin electrons, and spin-spin interaction reflects on neighboring spin alignment. In terms of correlation length and therefore information hierarchy, total density is only related to a local measurement, while double occupancy includes local interaction within a single lattice site. Spin-spin interaction on the other hand is subject to long-range interaction, and in its least form includes neighboring lattice sites. Together they cover most of the significant charge, interaction, and spin-correlation characteristics of the system. Their corresponding spin operators after Jordan-Wigner transformation are shown in Eq 4, 5 and 6 [9, 7, 12, 31], where $(r-r^{\prime})$ refers to $(x_{r}-x_{r^{\prime}})+(y_{r}-y_{r^{\prime}})$ is a count of coordinate distance in the unit of lattice parameter. The spin-spin interaction observable used in this work is a staggered longitudinal spin-spin correlation. Instead of evaluating the full vector product $\mathbf{S}_{\mathbf{r}}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{\mathbf{r}^{\prime}}$, we retain only the longitudinal component $S^{z}_{\mathbf{r}}S^{z}_{\mathbf{r}^{\prime}}$ and include a staggered phase factor between lattice sites. The final operator is then obtained by summing this weighted longitudinal correlation over lattice-site pairs. We present the observation results in an average manner, where expectation values from all three properties would be averaged to each lattice site. In a 2$\times$2 2D square lattice grid for example, there will be 4 lattice sites.

As we have mentioned, our central dataset, which will be used in the main part of this work, comes from quantum simulation with the above Hamiltonian and observables. For each of the three observables, we evaluate its expected values according to three variables $(T,U,\mu)$. In particular, $T$ is used as a scanning parameter. That is to say, each piece of data (in the form of a phase diagram) in our dataset corresponds to a unique thermodynamic temperature $T$, meaning that all data points included in this piece of data are evaluation results upon the system Gibbs State at this specific temperature. Gibbs State at temperature $T$ is defined with $k_{\mathrm{B}}=1$ as

The other two variables $(U,\mu)$ on the other hand act as the axes in each phase diagram. Details of this treatment can be seen in Methods. Following this process, we complete our dataset for all three observables, and we display a piece of sample data for each of them in Figure 2. Critical crossover regions can be seen on all of the phase diagrams, which originate from different physical mechanisms and serve as different physical indicators. This is not the main focus of this work but we will briefly discuss it in Results.

For the neural network, we choose a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) network [14]. As we have mentioned, the preliminary aim of this transferability test is to numerically capture intrinsic physical redundancy by training, which could very possibly include highly complex non-linear functions. Moreover, we find in practice that when we try to reconstruct observable B’s phase diagram from observable A, we better supervise this process with observable A’s phase diagram as well. Otherwise, the neural network tends to get lost without any reference. Note that this supervision process includes no information leakage and is fully legitimate. Details can be seen in Methods. It can be seen from the above analysis that the choice of our neural network must at least satisfy these two conditions: 1) the work space must be broad enough to simultaneously include data from separate observables; and 2) the expressibility must be strong enough to allow sufficient capture of intrinsic physical correlations. Therefore we consider an MLP network with deep hidden layers appropriate in our case.

To prepare for training, we apply a trainable encoder $E_{\varphi}$ in EDSR style [23] to our input observable A, which would be presented in a clipped-phase-diagram form, also with axes, details can be seen in Methods. Data points in the input would be encoded into vectors, which would later be used non-linearly in mapping. Borrowing ideas from Convolutional Neural Network studies [21], we further do a local concatenation of vectors before mapping, as shown in Eq 8, so that we cover smooth spatial trends across our input. $\mathbf{z}_{m,n}$ is the final concatenated vector at input coordinate $(m,n)$, and it is a concatenation result of initial self and the eight nearest vectors surrounding it on a $3\times 3$ square grid. Note that this grid is on phase diagram rather than lattice.

With vectors at all input coordinates well prepared, we apply a trainable decoding function $f_{\theta}$ to reconstruct our output observable B’s phase diagram. To do that, we need to map our input to every coordinate on B’s phase diagram respectively. If target coordinate is $\mathbf{x}$, this is done by taking into $f_{\theta}$ as arguments input vector $\mathbf{z}_{near}$ located next to $\mathbf{x}$ (because input diagram is clipped and there may not be a $\mathbf{z}_{exact}$ exactly located on $\mathbf{x}$) and the relative coordinate distance $\mathbf{x}_{r}$ between them. This treatment is similar to that has been done in [5]. Demonstrations can be seen in Eq 9 and Figure 3. However, this implementation may cause a sudden jump of mapping result when we spatially sweep across target coordinates, because the judgment of nearest vector can suddenly change at the midpoint of two vectors. To solve this issue, instead of considering only the top one nearest vector, we take into account all the top four nearest vectors in every mapping. That is basically referring to the four corners on a $2\times 2$ square grid which stores the target coordinate. We still apply $f_{\theta}$ respectively onto each of the four vectors, only this time, we take a weighted average of the four mapping results to be our final mapped $\mathbf{x}$, as illustrated in Eq 10 and Figure 3. The weightings trace back to comparison of relative areas between target coordinate and each of the four corners. The core trainable parameter $\theta$ in the decoding function is just in the form of our chosen fully connected MLP.

During training, we take similar approach to [5] and consistently compare mapping results with observable B’s true phase diagrams within our dataset. We perform $L_{1}$ loss evaluation and Adam optimization [20] during each epoch to update $\theta$ and $\varphi$ simultaneously so that both encoder $E_{\varphi}$ and decoding function $f_{\theta}$ can eventually be optimized. This whole architecture including local convolution and coordinate inferring will guarantee that spatial correlations on phase diagrams are best identified and encoded, so that at the end of training, we get the best transferred mapping results possible.

We will display our results following a two-step logic. We will first verify our primary argument, that there indeed is redundancy among our three target observables, before we carry on to explore possible scenarios where observables decouple and this redundancy collapses. As we have discussed above, the three observables can be categorized into different information hierarchy in the sense of their correlation lengths. This would create two different directions of information flow in transferability tests, namely from low to high

and from high to low

We will try to cover both directions of information flow whenever possible to ensure comprehensiveness.

From the theory side, it is physically plausible that quantum many-body systems may contain redundancy among different observables, enabling transferred inference between them. Our results however suggest that the extent of this effect can be substantial: when transferred reconstructions approach comparable accuracy level of self-reconstructions in both information-flow directions, the observables may need to be interpreted as different lower-order projections of a shared higher-order many-body manifold. Further studies are needed to clarify the mechanism and limiting factors of this effect.

From the experimental side, after these results, we may need to reconsider our understanding on modern quantum observations. In many quantum systems, the measurement cost of separate physical observables can differ remarkably. As good examples, total density evaluation can be easily done in cold atom systems or doped condensed matter systems by techniques like STM. However, some other observables like double occupancy can be much harder to evaluate, and in many cases require indirect inference [18, 11, 15]. If physical redundancy can be identified and exploited in these systems, it is very likely that we can bypass the most challenging parts of observation by transferred inference in experiments that do not necessarily require ultra-high precision.

We should also stress here that although we find evidence of strong redundancy generalizability across plaquette boundaries, our study stays at finite-size due to complexity of the system. A future numerical study approaching thermodynamic limit will be greatly helpful to refine this effect in a bulky context.

In this work, we investigate physical redundancy in the Fermi-Hubbard system by conducting transferability tests among three representative observables: total density, double occupancy, and spin-spin correlation. Although these observables probe different physical aspects of the system and belong to different information hierarchies, we find unexpectedly strong transferability between them, indicating substantial observable-level redundancy. Further tests show that this redundancy persists across the investigated temperature range and weakens mainly in critical regimes, where phase structures become sharper and intrinsic physical information changes rapidly. Same behaviors are witnessed in both within-plaquette and across-plaquette scenarios.

Future theoretical and numerical studies will be important for revealing the mechanism of this effect and quantifying its limiting factors. Such understanding may help exploit physical redundancy in quantum simulation and provide further insight into the many-body information structure behind correlated quantum systems.

There is some freedom in ordering fermionic modes due to basis-change symmetry [2] in Jordan-Wigner transformation. The orderings used in this work are shown in Figure 9. Our choice has two advantages. Firstly, it keeps interacting modes as close as possible, although an $(i,j)$ pair may still correspond to second-nearest interaction. In physical implementations, this advantage can greatly reduce setup difficulty. Secondly, the system Hamiltonian contains strings of Pauli operators after Jordan-Wigner transformation, and our orderings here help minimize the length and frequency of such strings.

During generation of our central dataset, parameter $t$ in the system Hamiltonian is fixed to be $1$, while other parameters are set with respect to it. In order to thermodynamically cover different system characteristics [9], we scan temperature $T$ from $T/t=0.01$ to $T/t=10$ to cover all scenarios from quantum dominance to thermal dominance. At each specific temperature $T$, a phase diagram for each of the three observables are generated. In each phase diagram, $U/t$ and $\mu/t$ are used as X and Y axis correspondingly. $U/t$ ranges from $[0,12]$ with 192 equally separated values, while $\mu$ ranges from $[-5,17]$ with the same number of distinct values. These ranges are designed to cover as more different physical regions on phase diagrams as possible, including various density of states within both metal and Mott insulator phase [9, 12]. With more comprehensive physics included, more solidity of the model can be verified. For our sample test with larger architectures however, due to increasing complexity, we only sample within $T/t\in[1.5,3]$, which is a well-behaved range with clear phase structures and well-balanced contributions from different terms within system Hamiltonian. The statistical numbers we present in Figure 8 are collective results respectively from all sample diagrams we generate within this range.

Each data point in the dataset is taken as the sigmoid value by the sigmoid function

This measure helps to re-scale the estimated expected values between [0,1] to increase convergence during training. However, in some of our tests, in order to display results in a more engineering-friendly way, we have converted the values back to real ones by a reverse operation of sigmoid function. MSE values seen in the T-scan experiment and absolute values seen in the error phase analysis are both displayed in this way. $n$ values in the noise test are also managed in this way, because self-proportional Gaussian noises and $(0,2)$ clipping is only meaningful in real values.

The numerical object we use to accommodate a piece of data during training is a 3D array. On dimension $0$, there are three layers, each holding a phase diagram from one observable. Therefore the original architecture of an object include all $(A,B,C)$ observable information. When we try to do a "from A map to B" transferability test, we want our input object to keep only A information, and our ground truth object to keep both A and B information (as discussed above, A information in ground truth is used for supervision). In other words, we need to wipe out B, C information in the input object and C information in the ground truth object. To do that, we manually set these layers to a plain surface of value $0.5$. This value corresponds to a $0$ value prior to sigmoid function, and is optimal for overall convergence. It can be easily seen from mapping results which we do not put in the Results section that this arrangement do not interfere with our task. After cleaning our input object and keeping only A information, we still need a clipping operation because in order to motivate the network to do mapping, we cannot allow full information of A input into it. Ideally, only part of A’s information should be provided, and the network will try to map to B alongside reconstructing A’s self information. In a random clipping and batched training setup, the network will gradually see all of A’s information, but the clipping will make sure that it does not see everything altogether at once.