1: \begin{abstract}      

2: The low-energy physics of the one-dimensional Pair-Hopping (PH) 

3: and attractive Hubbard models are expected to be similar.

4: Based on numerical calculations on small chains, several 

5: authors have recently challenged this idea and predicted the existence of 

6: a phase transition at half-filling and finite positive

7: coupling for the pair-hopping model.  

8: We re-examine the controversy by making systematic comparisons 

9: between numerical results obtained for the PH and attractive Hubbard models. 

10: To do so, we have calculated the Luttinger parameters 

11: (spin and charge velocities,

12: stiffnesses, etc...) of the two models

13: using both the Density Matrix Renormalization Group method for large systems

14: and Lancz\'os calculations with twisted boundary conditions for smaller systems.

15: Although most of our results confirm that both models are very similar we 

16: have found some important differences

17: in the spin properties for the small sizes considered by previous 

18: numerical studies (6-12 sites).

19: However, we show that these differences disappear at larger sizes (14-42 sites)

20: when sufficiently accurate eigenstates are considered.

21: Accordingly, our results strongly suggest that the ground-state phase 

22: transition previously found for small systems is a finite size artefact.

23: Interpreting our results within the framework of the Luttinger liquid theory,

24: we discuss the origin of the apparent contradiction between 

25: the predictions of the perturbative Renormalization group 

26: approach and numerical calculations at small sizes.

27: 

28: \end{abstract}

29: