-For the assessment of both algorithms we used two different models, the U(1) gauge-Higgs model but couple
-only to one scalar field (see \cite{swa}) and the model presented in this proceedings. In both cases we
-analyzed the bulk observables (and their fluctuations):
-$U_P$ which is the derivative wrt. $\beta$ and $|\phi|^2$ (derivative wrt.
-$\kappa$). First we checked the correctness of the SWA comparing the results for different
+In this section we describe the numerical analysis. We first show the assessment of both algorithms
+and then the physics of the model. In both cases we use thermodynamical observables and their fluctuations.
+We study in particular three observables: The first and second derivatives with respect to the inverse
+gauge coupling $\beta$, i.e., the plaquette expectation value and its susceptibility,
+
+\begin{equation}
+\langle U \rangle = \frac{1}{6 N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} \ln\ Z\quad , \quad
+\chi_{U} = \frac{1}{6 N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \beta^2} \ln\ Z\ .
+\end{equation}
+
+\noindent We also consider the particle number density $n$
+and its susceptibility which are the derivatives
+with respect to the chemical potential,
+
+\begin{equation}
+n = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} \ln\ Z\quad , \quad
+\chi_{n} = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \mu^2} \ln\ Z\ .
+\end{equation}
+
+\noindent Finally, we analyze the derivatives with respect to $M^2$,
+
+\begin{equation}
+\langle |\phi|^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial M^2} \ln\ Z\quad , \quad
+\chi_{|\phi|^2} = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (M^2)^2} \ln\ Z\ .
+\end{equation}
+
+\subsection{Algorithm assessment}
+\noindent
+For the comparison of both algorithms we considered the U(1) gauge-Higgs model coupled
+with two (as described above) and with only one scalar field \cite{swa}.
+First we checked the correctness of the SWA comparing the results for different