\subsection{Action density}

A study of the BCNW formula with respect to the action density 
(\ref{actdens}) can only be performed with the standard action (in 
case of the constraint action all contributing configurations have 
action $S_{\rm constraint}=0$). 
Figure \ref{actden2dO3} shows the values of $s$ and $s_{|Q|}$,
$|Q| \leq 2$ in the range $L=32 \dots 84$. The total expectation
value $s$ is stable within $0.0003$ 
for $L \geq 56$, while the topologically constrained results differ 
by ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$ even at $L=84$. Therefore $L = 56 \dots 84$ is a 
regime of moderate volumes, which is suitable for testing the BCNW formula.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.53\textwidth,angle=270]{actden2dO3stan.eps}
\vspace*{-1mm}
\caption{The action density in the 2d O(3) model, on $L \times L$ lattices 
with the standard lattice action, in the sectors with topological
charge $|Q| = 0$, $1$, $2$, and summed over all sectors 
({\it i.e.}\ all configurations used for the numerical measurements).
The latter stabilizes to $0.3$ permille for $L \geq 56$.}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{actden2dO3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The fitting results, for $|Q| \leq 2$ and various ranges of $L$ 
are listed in Table \ref{actden2dO3tab}. The fits do not match
the BCNW formula perfectly, as expected, since the 
latter is an approximation, and the input data have very small
statistical errors of ${\cal O} (10^{-5})$.\footnote{Of course,
the ratio $\chi^{2}/$d.o.f.\ could be reduced by adding more
terms to the $1/V$-expansion. However, in Table \ref{2dO3tab} we
are going to demonstrate that
this does not improve the results for the observable and for 
$\chi_{\rm t}$, in qualitative agreement with Section 3.}
Nevertheless, the value of $s$ is obtained correctly up to a high
precision of $0.2$ permille. On the other hand, the
determination of the topological susceptibility is less successful;
only the fit with $L = 76$ and $84$ yields a result, which is
correct within the errors.

\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||l|l|c|}
\hline
fitting range in $L$ & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$s$} & 
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\chi_{\rm t}$} & $\chi^{2}/$d.o.f. \\
\hline
56 --- 64 & 1.1955(2)  & 0.0035(5) & 2.66 \\
56 --- 76 & 1.19538(6) & 0.0031(3) & 2.66 \\
56 --- 84 & 1.19536(5) & 0.0030(3) & 2.63 \\
\hline
64 --- 76 & 1.19532(7) & 0.0031(3) & 2.65 \\
64 --- 84 & 1.19531(5) & 0.0031(3) & 2.58 \\
76 --- 84 & 1.1953(1)  & 0.0026(3) & 2.60 \\
\hline
\hline
$L=84$, all sectors & 1.195089(5) & 0.002323(3) & \\ 
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fitting results for the action density $s$ and the topological
susceptibility $\chi_{\rm t}$ in the 2d O(3) model. The input data
in fixed topological sectors are plotted in Figure \ref{actden2dO3}.}
\label{actden2dO3tab}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{table}

\subsection{Magnetic susceptibility and correlation length}

We proceed to the constraint action (\ref{act2dO3}) 
where our choice of $\delta$ yields a shorter correlation length,
which favors the stabilization of observables (measured in all sectors)
at smaller $L$. This can be seen in Figure \ref{2dO3constraint},
which shows the magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{\rm m}$, analogous 
to eq.\ (\ref{magsus})
(again the disconnected part vanishes due to rotational symmetry),
and the correlation length $\xi$. Stabilization within the errors
is attained for $\chi_{\rm m}$ at $L\geq 48$
(with errors around $0.2$ permille), 
and for $\xi$ already at $L \geq 16$ 
(with errors of ${\cal O}(1) \, \%$). 
On the other hand, for $L = 128$ the $\chi_{{\rm m},|Q|}$-values
are not distinguished anymore from $\chi_{\rm m}$ beyond the errors,
and the same happens for $\xi_{|Q|}$ already at $L=96$. Finally, we
have to exclude $L=16$, because here we only obtain $\langle Q^{2} \rangle
\simeq 0.63$, hence its inverse is not suitable as an expansion
parameter. This singles out the regime of moderate volumes, 
where the BCNW formula is appropriate,
to the range $L= 48 \dots 96$ for $\chi_{\rm m}$, 
and $L= 32 \dots 64$ for $\xi$. 
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.53\textwidth,angle=270]{magsus2dO3.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.53\textwidth,angle=270]{xi2dO3b.eps} 
\vspace*{-2.5mm}
\caption{Results for the magnetic susceptibility (above) and for the
correlation length (below) in the 2d O(3) model, with the constraint
action at $\delta = 0.55 \, \pi$. The windows, which are 
suitable for applications of the BCNW formula,
are given by $L=48 \dots 96$ for $\chi_{\rm m}$, and by $L=32 \dots 64$ 
for $\xi$.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{2dO3constraint}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Our fitting results are given in Table \ref{2dO3tab}.
In the case of $\chi_{\rm m}$ we probe the
BCNW formula (\ref{approx2}) (with its incomplete second order,
${\cal O}(1/V^{2})$), as well as its extensions to the second order 
plus an incomplete third order as given in formula (\ref{approx3}). 
For the latter option, the approximation is more precise, 
but an additional free parameter $\bar c$ hampers the fits.

\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|}
\hline
 & fitting & BCNW    & incomplete  & all sectors \\
 & range   & formula & 3rd order   & at $L_{\rm max}$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\chi_{\rm m}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{48 --- 64}
& 36.56(4)   & 36.64(11) & 36.590(9) \\
$\chi_{\rm t}$ & & 0.0026(2) & 0.0031(6) & 0.0027935(14) \\
\hline
$\chi_{\rm m}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{48 --- 96}
& 36.58(3) & 36.64(7) & 36.616(9) \\
$\chi_{\rm t}$ & & 0.0026(2) & 0.0032(6) & 0.0027942(11) \\
\hline
$\xi$ & \multirow{2}{*}{32 --- 64} & 3.56(2) & 3.58(4) & 3.59(2) \\
$\chi_{\rm t}$ & & 0.0027(3) & 0.0034(14) & 0.0027935(14) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fitting results based on data for $\chi_{\rm m}$ and for $\xi$ 
in the 2d O(3) model, in fitting ranges $L_{\rm min}$ --- $L_{\rm max}$,
and sectors with $|Q| \leq 2$. 
In the case of $\chi_{\rm m}$, with the optimal range, 
we show results for the BCNW approximation
(\ref{approx2}), as well as its extension to the complete second order 
plus one term of ${\cal O}(1/V^{3})$, according to formula (\ref{approx3}).}
\label{2dO3tab}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\end{table}

For both fitting versions, the results for $\chi_{\rm m}$
and $\chi_{\rm t}$ are compatible with the directly measured values.
We observe, however, that the inclusion of terms 
beyond the BCNW formula enhances 
the uncertainty (due to the additional fitting parameter).
The uncertainty is on the permille level for $\chi_{\rm m}$, but
large for $\chi_{\rm t}$, in particular with extra terms.
(Without these terms it is around $ 8 \, \%$.)
It turns out to be non-profitable to extend the
approximation beyond the BCNW formula.

The simple BCNW approximation is also superior for the fits 
with respect to $\xi$, where the additional terms drastically 
increase the uncertainty.
The results in Table \ref{2dO3tab} are correct, within 
percent level for $\xi$, but again with a large 
uncertainty of the $\chi_{\rm t}$-value.

We add that we also tried fits to the complete second order
approximation, without the third order term that appears in
formula (\ref{approx3}). However, this scenario (which also
involves the fitting parameter $\bar c$) is clearly unfavorable:
in this case, it often happens that the least-square fit even fails 
to converge to values in the correct magnitude.

To conclude, this study suggests that the simple BCNW formula, 
with only three free parameters, is in fact optimal for extracting 
values for the considered observable, and for $\chi_{\rm t}$.
Moreover, we confirm that the method works best for the 
determination of the observable; it is less successful with 
respect to the determination of $\chi_{\rm t}$.



\section{Low temperature expansion of the magnetic susceptibility
of the quantum rotor}

Our point of departure is eq.\ (\ref{intchim}) for the magnetic 
susceptibility of the quantum rotor at fixed topology\footnote{Since 
this entire appendix refers to continuous Euclidean time, we skip for
simplicity the subscripts of $\beta_{\rm cont}$ and $L_{\rm cont}$.}
\begin{equation} 
\chi_{{\rm m},Q} = \int_{0}^{L/2} dt \, e^{( t^{2}/L - t)/(2 \beta)} 
\left[ e^{2 \pi {\rm i} Qt/L} + e^{-2 \pi {\rm i} Qt/L} \right] \ .
\end{equation}
By completing the squares in each term, and defining
\begin{equation}
z_{0} = \sqrt{\frac{L}{8 \beta}} \ 
\Big( 1 + \frac{4 \pi {\rm i} Q \beta}{L} \Big) 
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{{\rm m},Q} &=& \sqrt{2 \beta L} \ e^{\frac{2 \pi^{2} \beta Q^{2}}{L}
- \frac{L}{8 \beta}} (-1)^{Q} \Big[ 
\int_{-z_{0}}^{-\pi {\rm i} Q \sqrt{2\beta /L}} dt \, e^{t^{2}} 
+ \int_{-z_{0}^{*}}^{\pi {\rm i} Q \sqrt{2\beta /L}} dt \, e^{t^{2}} \Big] \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi \beta L}{2}} \ 
e^{\frac{2 \pi^{2} \beta Q^{2}}{L} - \frac{L}{8 \beta}} (-1)^{Q}
\Big[ {\rm erfi}(z_{0}) + {\rm erfi}(z_{0}^{*}) \Big] \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{8 \beta L} \ {\rm Re} \ D(z_{0}) \ .
\eea
We have used two properties of the imaginary error function,
${\rm erfi}(z) = - {\rm erfi}(-z)$ and 
${\rm erfi}(z^{*}) = ({\rm erfi}(z))^{*}$, 
and in the last step we inserted Dawson's function
\begin{equation}
D(z) = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2} \, e^{-z^{2}} \, {\rm erfi}(z) 
= e^{-z^{2}} \int_{0}^{z} dt \, e^{t^{2}} \ .
\end{equation}
We are interested in the case $L \gg \beta$ where 
$| {\rm arg} \, ({\rm i} z_{0}) | \approx \frac{\pi}{2} < \frac{3 \pi}{4}$,
so we can apply the asymptotic expansion \cite{AbSteg}
\begin{equation}
D(z_{0}) = \frac{1}{2z_{0}} \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2 z_{0}^{2})^{n}}
= \frac{1}{2z_{0}} \Big( 1 + \frac{1}{2 z^{2}_{0}} + \frac{3}{4 z^{4}_{0}} 
+ \frac{15}{8 z^{6}_{0}} + {\cal O} (|z_{0}|^{-8}) \Big) \ .
\end{equation} 
If we expand
\begin{equation}
\chi_{{\rm m},Q} \simeq 4 \beta \ {\rm Re} \ 
\Big[ \frac{1}{1 + 4 \pi {\rm i} Q \beta /L} \  
\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{2 z^{2}_{0}} + \frac{3}{4 z^{4}_{0}} 
+ \frac{15}{8 z^{6}_{0}} \Big) \Big]
\end{equation}
to ${\cal O} ((\beta/L)^{3})$, and insert the infinite volume 
limit $\chi_{\rm m} = 4 \beta$, we arrive at
\begin{equation}  \label{chiexpeand}
\chi_{{\rm m},Q} = \chi_{\rm m} + \beta \left[ \frac{16 \beta}{L}
+ \frac{64 \beta^{2}}{L^{2}} \Big( 3 - (\pi Q)^{2} \Big)
+ \frac{768 \beta^{3}}{L^{3}} \Big( 5 - 2 (\pi Q)^{2} \Big)
+ {\cal O} \Big( (\frac{\beta}{L})^{4} \Big) \right] \ . \
\end{equation}
By substituting $\chi_{\rm t} = \frac{1}{4 \pi^{2} \beta}$
(which only has exponentially suppressed finite size effects \cite{slab}), 
we confirm to each order given in eq.\ (\ref{chiexpeand})
the expansion that we anticipated in eq.\ (\ref{BCNWchim}); 
it is not altered by the truncation of the Gauss integrals.





\subsection{Action density}

We first consider the action density 
\begin{equation}  \label{actdens}
s = \langle S \rangle /V \ . 
\end{equation}
This quantity is not directly physical, but it is
suitable for testing the BCNW method, based on topologically 
restricted expectation values $s_{|Q|} = \langle S \rangle_{|Q|}/V$. 
Moreover, the corresponding fits provide a value for $\chi_{\rm t}$,
which {\em is} physical.

Figure \ref{actden1dO2} shows the action density for both lattice
actions under consideration, measured at fixed $|Q| = 0 \dots 4$,
and by including all sectors (the way the simulation samples them). 
The latter is constant to high accuracy for $L=150
\dots 400$, which confirms that ordinary finite size effects are
negligible. On the other hand, at fixed $|Q|$ we see
deviations far beyond the statistical errors, depending on $L$
and $|Q|$, so this setting is appropriate for the application
of the BCNW method.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.375\textwidth,angle=270]{actdenStan.eps}
\hspace*{-8mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.375\textwidth,angle=270]{actdenMant.eps} 
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{The action density in the 1d O(2) model at $\beta =4$
on lattices of size $L=150 \dots 400$, with the standard action (left) 
and the Manton action (right). We show $s$ measured in all sectors 
(which is practically constant in this range of $L$), as well as 
the values of $s_{|Q|}$ in the sectors $|Q|= 0 \dots 4$, which
strongly depend on $|Q|$ and $V$.}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{actden1dO2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Table \ref{actden1dO2tab} presents our results obtained by least-square
fits to the BCNW approximation (\ref{approx2}): we use data for
$s_{|Q|}$ in all six volumes, and in the topological sectors
$|Q|=0 \dots |Q|_{\rm max}$, where $|Q|_{\rm max}$ varies from 1 to 4.
Similar results are obtained when we only involve the larger
volumes, such as $L=250 \dots 400$ or $300 \dots 400$.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{standard action} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Manton action} \\
\hline
$|Q|_{\rm max}$ & $s$ & $\chi_{\rm t}$ & $s$ & $\chi_{\rm t}$ \\
\hline
 1  & 0.545910(1) & 0.007552(4) &  0.500073(3) & 0.006135(9) \\ 
 2  & 0.545910(1) & 0.007555(3) &  0.500072(2) & 0.006132(8) \\
 3  & 0.545912(2) & 0.007559(5) &  0.500072(2) & 0.006132(8) \\
 4  & 0.545912(2) & 0.007559(5) &  0.500072(2) & 0.006131(7) \\
\hline
all & 0.545910(1) & 0.007554\hspace*{5mm}  & 0.500041(1) & 0.006333~~~~ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results based on fits to the formula (\ref{approx2}), 
with input data for the action density
in the range $L= 150 \dots 400$ and $|Q| \leq |Q|_{\rm max}$.
The last line displays $s$ measured in all sectors at $L=400$,
and the analytic value of $\chi_{\rm t}$ at $L=\infty$.}
\label{actden1dO2tab}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{table}

Regarding the value of $s$, the method works perfectly (to the given
precision) for the standard action, and up to a deviation of about
$0.006 \, \%$ for the Manton action.
For the standard action the fits yield values for $\chi_{\rm t}$, which  
are again compatible with the correct value, with uncertainties around
$0.05 \, \%$. In case of the Manton action a systematic discrepancy 
of $3 \, \%$ is observed, as a consequence of the approximations in
formula (\ref{approx2}). 

In summary, this first numerical experiment can be considered a 
success of the BCNW method. The good results for $s$ are highly 
non-trivial in view of the sizable differences in the individual sectors 
(shown in Figure \ref{actden1dO2}), and exactly these differences
give rise to quite good estimates for $\chi_{\rm t}$.
As a generic property, it is easy to measure $s_{|Q|}$ accurately
(in gauge theories it is given by the mean plaquette value),
so it is motivated to estimate $\chi_{\rm t}$ in this way
also in higher dimensional models.

\subsection{Magnetic susceptibility}

In this model, the correlation function in a fixed sector
of topological charge $Q$ has a peculiar form. For a continuous
time variable $t$ it reads \cite{Arthur14}
\begin{eqnarray}  \label{corrfun}
\langle \vec e (0) \cdot \vec e (t) \rangle_{Q} &=& \frac{1}{2} \exp \Big( - 
\frac{t (L_{\rm cont}-t)}{2 \beta_{\rm cont} L_{\rm cont}} \Big) 
\cos \Big( \frac{2 \pi Qt}{L_{\rm cont}} \Big) \ , \\
{\rm with} && \vec e (t) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
\cos \varphi (t) \\ \sin \varphi (t) \end{array} \right) \ . \nonumber
\eea
The unusual last factor in eq.\ (\ref{corrfun}) obstructs the 
determination of a correlation length $\xi_{Q \neq 0}$,
and we recall that the BCNW method does not apply to results,
which are obtained in various volumes, but always at $Q=0$.

By integrating over the time shift $t$, however, we obtain 
a quantity, which is suitable for testing this method, namely
the magnetic susceptibility 
\begin{equation}  \label{magsus}
\chi_{\rm m} = \frac{\langle \vec M^{2} \rangle - \langle \vec M \rangle^{2}}{L_{\rm cont}} 
= \int_{0}^{L_{\rm cont}} dt \, \langle \vec e (0) \cdot \vec e (t) \rangle -
\frac{1}{L_{\rm cont}} 
\Big( \Big\langle \int_{0}^{L_{\rm cont}} dt \, \vec e (t) \Big\rangle \Big)^{2} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\vec M = \int_{0}^{L_{\rm cont}} dt \, \vec e (t)$ is the magnetization.
The subtracted term vanishes in our case due to the global O(2) 
invariance, $\langle \vec M \rangle = \vec 0$.
The magnetic susceptibility is physical in the framework of 
statistical mechanics; we can interpret a configuration $[\vec e \, ]$ 
as a spin chain. Based on eq.\ (\ref{corrfun}) we obtain for its 
topologically restricted counterpart
\begin{equation}  \label{intchim}
\chi_{{\rm m},|Q|}
= 2 \int_{0}^{L_{\rm cont}/2} dt \, \exp \Big( - \frac{t}{2 \beta_{\rm cont}} 
+ \frac{t^{2}}{2 \beta_{\rm cont} L_{\rm cont}} \Big) \, 
\cos \Big (\frac{2 \pi Q t}{L_{\rm cont}} \Big) \ . 
\end{equation}
In each sector, the limit $L_{\rm cont} \to \infty$ leads to 
$\chi_{\rm m} = \chi_{{\rm m},|Q|} = 4 \beta_{\rm cont}$.
If we insert the large volume expansions
of $\exp (t^{2}/(2 \beta_{\rm cont} L_{\rm cont}))$ and 
$\cos (2 \pi Q t /L_{\rm cont})$ up to ${\cal O}(1/L_{\rm cont}^{3})$,
and perform the integral, we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{{\rm m},Q} & = & \chi_{\rm m} +
\frac{4 \beta_{\rm cont}}{\pi^{2} L_{\rm cont} \chi_{\rm t}} \Big( 1 
+ \frac{3/ \pi^{2} - Q^{2}}{L_{\rm cont} \chi_{\rm t}} \Big) \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{12 \beta_{\rm cont}}{\pi^{4} (L_{\rm cont} \chi_{\rm t})^{3}} 
\Big( \frac{5}{\pi^{2}} - 2 Q^{2} \Big) + {\cal O} \Big( \frac{1}
{(L_{\rm cont} \chi_{\rm t})^{4}} \Big) \ ,
\label{BCNWchim}
\eea
where we substituted the infinite volume value 
$\chi_{\rm t} = 1/(4 \pi^{2} \beta_{\rm cont})$ \cite{rot97}, cf.\ 
eq.\ (\ref{contxichi}).\footnote{The finite size effects in $\chi_{\rm t}$, 
and those due to the upper bound of the integral in eq.\ (\ref{intchim}), 
are exponentially suppressed.}
This is exactly the form of the BCNW approximation (\ref{approx3}),
with 
\begin{equation}  \label{ccbar}
c = \frac{4 \beta_{\rm cont}}{\pi^{2}} \ , \quad
\bar c = \frac{12 \beta_{\rm cont}}{\pi^{4}} \ ,
\end{equation}
and in this case the third order is complete.
If we only consider the second order and neglect its $\bar c$-term, 
we are left with the BCNW approximation (\ref{approx2}).
A detailed derivation of the expansion (\ref{BCNWchim}) is given
in Appendix A.

Therefore the magnetic susceptibility is fully appropriate for
numerical tests of the validity of this approximation, where we 
use the  corresponding lattice terms, like 
$\vec M = \sum_{t=1}^{L} \vec e_{t}$. The sources of
systematic errors (errors in the BCNW approximation) are
sub-leading finite size effects and lattice artifacts.

In analogy to Subsection 3.1, Figure \ref{magsus1dO2} gives an
overview over the values of $\chi_{{\rm m},|Q|}$ up to $|Q|=3$,
at different $L$. Again we see that the value measured in all
sectors is stable in $L$, whereas the topologically restricted
results strongly depend on $L$ and $|Q|$. Hence the setting
is suitable for the BCNW method also with respect to the magnetic
susceptibility.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.375\textwidth,angle=270]{magsusStanQ3.eps}
\hspace*{-8mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.375\textwidth,angle=270]{magsusMantQ3.eps} 
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{The magnetic susceptibility in the 1d O(2) model at $\beta =4$
on lattices of size $L=150 \dots 400$, with the standard action (left) 
and the Manton action (right). We show $\chi_{\rm m}$ measured in all
sectors (practically constant in this range of $L$), 
as well as $\chi_{{\rm m},|Q|}$ in the sectors $|Q|= 0 \dots 3$
(well distinct).}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{magsus1dO2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We proceed to the fits to search the optimal values --- according
to formula (\ref{approx2}) --- for the (over-determined) 
susceptibilities $\chi_{\rm m}$ and $\chi_{\rm t}$. Table \ref{magsus1dO2tab}
shows the results in the fitting ranges $L = L_{\rm min} \dots 400$,
$L_{\rm min} = 150,$ $250$, $300$,
and $|Q| = 0 \dots |Q|_{\rm max}$, with $|Q|_{\rm max} =2$ or $3$.

\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||l|l||l|l|}
\hline
& & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{standard action} & 
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Manton action} \\
\hline
$L_{\rm min}$ & $|Q|_{\rm max}$ & 
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\chi_{\rm m}$} & 
\multicolumn{1}{|c||}{$\chi_{\rm t}$} & 
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\chi_{\rm m}$} & 
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\chi_{\rm t}$} \\
\hline
150 & 2 & 13.64(16)  & 0.0072(13) &  16.11(35)  & 0.0054(18) \\ 
150 & 3 & 13.67(22)  & 0.0070(22) &  16.14(41)  & 0.0050(26) \\ 

250 & 2 & 13.64(5)   & 0.0071(5)  &  16.00(14)  & 0.0060(8) \\ 
250 & 3 & 13.65(13)  & 0.0074(15) &  15.99(28)  & 0.0064(20) \\ 

300 & 2 & 13.64(5)   & 0.0071(5)   &  16.02(12)  & 0.0058(8) \\ 
300 & 3 & 13.66(13)  & 0.0073(17)  &  16.02(29)  & 0.0061(23) \\ 
\hline
 & all  & 13.6545(4) & 0.007554   &  16.0187(5) & 0.006333 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results based on fits to formula (\ref{approx2}), with input
data for the magnetic susceptibility
in the range $L= L_{\rm min} \dots 400$ and $|Q| \leq |Q|_{\rm max}$.
The last line displays $\chi_{\rm m}$ measured in all sectors at $L=400$,
and $\chi_{\rm t}$ at $L=\infty$.}
\label{magsus1dO2tab}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{table}

The fitting results for both susceptibilities are compatible 
with the correct values, albeit the uncertainty of $\chi_{\rm t}$
is rather large. Without knowing the exact value one could combine
the results of separate fits, which reduces the uncertainty, but it
leads to a $\chi_{\rm t}$-value which is somewhat too small.
On the other hand, for $\chi_{\rm m}$ the values are far more precise,
and the relative uncertainty is on the percent level (or below) in
each case. Here a combination which reduces the uncertainty is 
welcome, although it has to be done with care since
the partial results are not independent of each other.
We add that the fitting results for the coefficient $c$ are 
consistent with eq.\ (\ref{ccbar}), $c \simeq 1.6$, within 
(considerable) uncertainties.

The observed precisions for $\chi_{\rm m}$ and $\chi_{\rm t}$
can be understood if we consider the impact of the sub-leading 
contributions, which are missing in the BCNW formula (\ref{approx2}): 
taking into account the additional terms up to the incomplete 
third order modifies
the fitting results for $\chi_{\rm m}$ only on the permille level, but
those for $\chi_{\rm t}$ in ${\cal O}(10) \, \%$, both with somewhat
enhanced errors. Also a variety of further fitting variants,
with the terms of a complete second or complete third order of
approximation (\ref{BCNWchim}), with fixed or free additional terms, 
leads to consistent results for $\chi_{\rm m}$ and $\chi_{\rm t}$, but 
with enlarged errors. In summary, there seems to be no fitting
strategy which improves the results compared to the simple 3-parameter
fit based on the BCNW approximation (\ref{approx2}).


\subsection{\label{SEC101}Simulation setup}

We finally proceed to the Schwinger model --- or 2d Quantum 
Electrodynamics --- as a test model with dynamical fermions.
This model has the continuum Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm cont}(\psi,\bar{\psi},A) = 
\sum_{{\rm f}=1}^{N_{\rm f}} \bar{\psi}^{\rm (f)}
\Big(\gamma_{\mu}(\partial_{\mu}+{\rm i} g_{\rm cont} A_{\mu}) +
m^{\rm (f)}\Big)\psi^{\rm (f)} +\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $N_{\rm f}$ is the number of fermion flavors. It
is a widely used toy model, which shares important features
with QCD. In particular the U(1) gauge theory in two (spacetime)
dimensions allows for topologically non-trivial gauge configurations, 
similar to instantons in 4d Yang-Mills theories and in QCD. 
The topological charge is given by 
\begin{equation}
Q[A] = \frac{1}{\pi}\int d^{2}x\,\epsilon_{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu} \ .
\end{equation}
Moreover, for $N_{\rm f}=2$ the low lying energy eigenstates contain
a light iso-triplet composed of quasi Nambu-Goldstone bosons,
which we are going to denote as ``pions''. 
This model also exhibits fermion confinement.

We simulated the Schwinger model on periodic lattices
of volume $V = L \times L$ (as before we use lattice units),
with $N_{\rm f}=2$ mass degenerate flavors. They are represented by
Wilson fermions, and we use the standard plaquette gauge action
(see {\it e.g.}\ Ref.\ \cite{Rothe}).

One can approach the continuum limit by increasing $L$, while
keeping the terms $g L$ and $M_{\pi} L$ fixed, where $M_{\pi}$ 
denotes the pion mass.\footnote{In physical units, $g$ has the 
dimension of a mass, so these products are both dimensionless.
This also introduces a dimensional lattice spacing $a \propto g$.} 
This requires decreasing both $g$ and $M_{\pi}$ 
proportional to $1/L$ (for the latter the fermion mass has to 
be adjusted). It is also common to refer to $\beta = 1/g^{2}$,
in analogy to the previous sections.

As in Sections 3 and 4, we employ a geometric definition of 
the topological charge on the lattice \cite{Luescher82},
\begin{eqnarray}  \label{QUP}
Q[U] = \frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{P} \phi(P) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sum_{P}$ denotes the sum over all 
plaquettes $P = e^{{\rm i} \phi(P)}$, $-\pi < \phi(P) \leq \pi$.
With this definition, $Q \in \mathbb{Z}$ holds for any stochastic 
gauge configuration.

We performed simulations at various values of $\beta$, $m$
and $L$ using the HMC algorithm of Ref.\ \cite{HMC_Urbach}, 
with multiple timescale integration and mass preconditioning 
\cite{Hasenbusch}. We started with rather short simulations 
($\approx 50 \, 000 \ldots 100 \, 000$ HMC trajectories)
on small lattices ($L = 8 \ldots 28$),
to investigate the transition probability between 
topological sectors per HMC trajectory. This probability is plotted 
in Figure~\ref{FIG004xxx}, as a function of $g = 1/\sqrt{\beta}$
and $m / g$, while $g L = 24/\sqrt{5}$ is kept constant. 
(The ratio $m/g$ is proportional to the bare fermion mass in 
physical units.)
As expected, topological transitions are frequent at large 
couplings $g$ (coarse lattices), whereas at weak coupling
(fine lattices) topology freezing is observed. 
Such a freezing is also observed in QCD,
which is the main motivation
of this work. We see that the dependence of the transition probability 
on the ratio $m/ g$, and therefore on the dimensional bare fermion mass, 
is rather weak.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-3mm}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{TopFreezing}
\par\end{centering}
\centering{}\caption{\label{FIG004xxx}The transition probability 
to a different topological sector per HMC trajectory as 
a function of $g = 1/\sqrt{\beta}$ (varying the lattice 
spacing in physical units, $a \propto g$) and $m/ g$ 
(varying the bare fermion mass in physical units) at $g L = 24/\sqrt{5}$ 
(fixed dimensional volume and coupling constant).}
\end{figure}

Similarly to the previous two sections we now explore the possibility
of extracting physical energy levels (the ``hadron'' masses in the 
Schwinger model) from simulations at fixed topology. To obtain
such results with small statistical errors, we focused on
a single coupling and a single ``quark'' mass,
\begin{equation}  \label{paramschwing}
\beta=4 \ , \quad m=0.1 \ ,
\end{equation}
and we performed long simulations ($\approx 500 \, 000$ HMC trajectories) 
for volumes $V = L \times L$, with $L = 40,\, 44\, ,48\, ,52\, ,56\, ,60$. 

\subsection{\label{SEC488}Computation of observables}

We determine the topological charge $Q[U]$ for each gauge configuration
$U$ according to definition (\ref{QUP}).
(To measure observables at fixed topological charge $\nu$, 
we only use the configurations with $Q[U]=\nu$.)

The hadron masses that we investigate are the static potential
$\mathcal{V}_{\bar{q}q}(r)$, which has been discussed before in
Yang-Mills theory (Subsection~\ref{SEC010}), and the pion mass 
$M_{\pi}$. A suitable pion creation operator reads
\begin{eqnarray}
O_{\pi} = \sum_{x}\bar{\psi}^{(u)}_{x} \gamma_{3} \psi^{(d)}_{x} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $u$ and $d$ label the two (degenerate) fermion flavors.\footnote{For 
an introduction about the construction of hadron creation 
operators, see {\it e.g.}\ Ref.\ \cite{Weber}.}
For the static potential we use again
\begin{equation}
O_{q\bar{q}}=\bar{q}(r_{1})U(r_{1};
r_{2})q(r_{2}) \ , \quad r=| r_{1} - r_{2} | \ .
\end{equation}
Also here $\bar{q}$ and $q$ represent spinless
static fermions and $U(r_{1}; r_{2})$ denotes the
product of spatial links connecting the lattice sites $r_{1}$ and $r_{2}$
on a given time slice. 
Since there is only one spatial dimension, we do not apply
any gauge link smearing.

\subsection{Numerical results}

\subsubsection{The pion mass and the static potential}

Similar to eq.\ (\ref{EQN587}) one can define a pion mass at 
fixed topological charge $|Q|$ and volume $V$ by
\begin{equation}  \label{EQN587_} 
M_{\pi,|Q|,V} = -\frac{d}{dt} 
\ln\Big(\Big\langle O_\pi^\dagger(t) O_\pi(0) \Big\rangle\Big)
\end{equation}
for some value of $t$, where approximation (\ref{EQN003}) is
quite precise. Within statistical errors, $M_{\pi,|Q|,V}$ is 
independent of $t$ for large $t$. Therefore, 
we determine $M_{\pi,|Q|,V}$ by a $\chi^2$ minimizing fit of a 
constant to the right-hand-side of eq.\ (\ref{EQN587_}) (with the 
derivative replaced by a finite difference).

Figure~\ref{fig:Pion-mass-discrepnecy} shows that pion masses 
obtained at fixed topology in different topological sectors, 
$M_{\pi, |Q|}$, differ significantly at $V = 40^2$. 
For example $M_{\pi,0}$ and $M_{\pi,3}$
differ by more than $6 \sigma$.
The physically meaningful value measured in all sectors, $M_{\pi}$,
also deviates {\it e.g.}\ from $M_{\pi ,0}$ by more than $7 \sigma$. 
Figure~\ref{fig:Pion-mass-discrepnecy} demonstrates also here
the necessity to analytically assemble fixed topology results,
when the Monte Carlo algorithm is unable to generate
frequent changes in $Q$. 

\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{pion5_V40}
\caption{\label{fig:Pion-mass-discrepnecy}The pion masses 
$M_{\pi ,|Q|}$ in distinct topological sectors $|Q| = 0 \ldots 4$, 
and $M_{\pi}$ obtained in all sectors, in the volume $V =40^2$.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}

To determine the pion mass and the static potential from correlation 
functions evaluated in single topological sectors, 
$M_{\pi , |Q|}$ and ${\cal V}_{q \bar q, |Q|}$,
we follow the lines of Section 5. 
We perform least-square fits using expansion 
(\ref{EQN003}) or (\ref{EQN004}) of the correlation functions.
We choose a suitable fitting range $t_\textrm{min} \ldots t_\textrm{max}$,
which typically leads to
$\chi^2/\textrm{d.o.f.} \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\,\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}\,$} 1$. 
The stability of the resulting $M_{\pi , |Q|}$ and ${\cal V}_{q \bar q, |Q|}$
has been checked by varying $t_\textrm{min}$ and $t_\textrm{max}$
by $\pm 1$. The $t$ ranges used for the determination of the pion 
mass are listed in Table~\ref{tab:Temporal-fitting-ranges-schwinger}.

\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 
$V$ & $t_\textrm{min}$ & $t_\textrm{max}$ & maximum $|Q|$ 
for  & maximum $|Q|$ for \tabularnewline
 &  &  & $1/(\chi_{\rm t}V)$, $|Q|/(\chi_{\rm t}V) < 1$  
& $1/(\chi_{\rm t}V)$, $|Q|/(\chi_{\rm t}V) < 0.5$ \tabularnewline
\hline 
$40^{2}$ & $12$ & $16$ & $7$ & $3$\tabularnewline
$44^{2}$ & $12$ & $18$ & $9$ & $4$\tabularnewline
$48^{2}$ & $12$ & $20$ & $11$ & $5$\tabularnewline
$52^{2}$ & $12$ & $22$ & $13$ & $6$\tabularnewline
$56^{2}$ & $12$ & $24$ & $15$ & $7$\tabularnewline
$60^{2}$ & $12$ & $24$ & $17$ & $8$\tabularnewline
\hline 
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:Temporal-fitting-ranges-schwinger}Temporal 
fitting ranges $t_\textrm{min} \ldots t_\textrm{max}$ and maximum 
topological charges $|Q|$ for the volumes $V$ under consideration.}
\end{table}

We perform fits in three different ways: (``c'')~a 
single combined fit to all five observables ($M_\pi$, 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(r = 1)$, $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(r = 2)$, 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(r = 3)$, $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(r = 4)$); 
(``c$\mathcal{V}$'')~a single combined fit to the four static 
potential observables; (``s'')~five separate fits, one to each 
of the five observables. The results are collected in 
Table~\ref{tab:Results-schwinger}, along with reference values 
obtained in all sectors at $V = 60^2$.\footnote{In the continuum 
2-flavor Schwinger model, the pion mass is predicted as \cite{Smilga} 
$M_{\pi,{\rm cont}} = 2.008 \dots \times (m_{\rm cont}^{2} g_{\rm cont} )^{1/3}$. 
Remarkably, there is almost perfect agreement with our 
result for $M_{\pi}$, if we insert the bare fermion mass and $\beta$
given in eq.\ (\ref{paramschwing}), which yields 
$M_{\pi} \simeq 0.343$.\label{fnschwing}}

The conclusions are essentially the same as for Yang-Mills theory 
discussed in Section 5. Results extracted indirectly, 
from simulations at fixed topology, are in agreement with those 
obtained directly. The magnitude of 
the errors is the same for the two expansions 
(\ref{EQN003}) and (\ref{EQN004}), and for the fitting methods ``c'', 
``c$\mathcal{V}$'' and ``s''. They are, however, larger by factors 
of $\approx 2$ when we use the stringent constraint 
$1/(\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 0.5$, since 
less input data are involved compared to 
$1/(\chi_{\rm t} V) ,\, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$. 
The fits all yield uncorrelated $\chi^{2} / \textrm{d.o.f.} 
\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\,\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}\,$} 1$, indicating that the fixed topology results are well 
described by both formulae (\ref{EQN003}) and (\ref{EQN004}).

\begin{table}
\hspace*{-2.5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 
method & $M_\pi$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(1)$ & 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(2)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(3)$ 
& $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(4)$\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{all sectors,$\quad$ $V = 60^{2}$}\tabularnewline
\hline 
 & 0.3474(3) & 0.1296(2) & 0.2382(5) & 0.3288(7) & 0.4045(10)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{fixed topology,~ 
$V \in\{40^{2},44^{2},48^{2},52^{2},56^{2},60^{2}\}$,~  
$1/(\chi_{\rm t}V)$, $|Q|/(\chi_{\rm t}V) < 1$ }\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})c & 0.3466(16) & 0.1293(19) & 0.2370(23) 
& 0.3261(29) & 0.4022(62)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN003})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & 0.1295(10) & 0.2372(12) 
& 0.3386(15) & 0.4052(16)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN003})s & 0.3477(8) ~~\!\!\! &  0.1285(7) ~~\!\!\! 
& 0.2371(9) ~~\!\!\! & 0.3282(12) & 0.4050(16)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & 0.3467(10) & 0.1293(6) ~~\!\!\! & 0.2377(9) ~~\!\!\!
& 0.3321(32) & 0.4059(69)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & 0.1295(5) ~~\!\!\! & 0.2379(11) 
& 0.3392(14) & 0.4049(16)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})s & 0.3477(9)  ~~\!\!\! & 0.1294(5) ~~\!\!\! & 
0.2374(6) ~~\!\!\! & 0.3288(12) & 0.4040(15)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{fixed topology,~ 
$V \in\{40^{2},44^{2},48^{2},52^{2},56^{2},60^{2}\}$,~
$1/(\chi_{\rm t}V)$, $|Q|/(\chi_{\rm t}V) < 0.5$ }\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})c & 0.3454(32) & 0.1284(27) & 0.2364(28) 
& 0.3311(50) & 0.4049(80)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN003})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & 0.1282(12) & 0.2370(16) 
& 0.3312(35) & 0.4175(82)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN003})s & 0.3478(32) & 0.1292(12) & 0.2377(21) 
& 0.3275(61) & 0.4027(91)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & 0.3455(32) & 0.1285(16) & 0.2365(19) 
& 0.3310(49) & 0.4048(78)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & 0.1287(9) ~~\!\!\! & 0.2371(23) 
& 0.3312(36) & 0.4073(83)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})s & 0.3482(35) & 0.1291(11) & 0.2376(13) 
& 0.3290(22) & 0.4036(55)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:Results-schwinger}Results for the pion 
mass $M_{\pi}$ and the static potential ${\mathcal{V}}_{q\bar{q}}(r)$ 
at separations $r=1,2,3,4$, with and without
topology fixing. In the column ``method'' the equation 
number of the expansion is listed, ``c'' denotes one 
combined fit to all five observables, ``c$\mathcal{V}$'' 
means one combined fit to the four static potential 
observables, and ``s'' indicates separate fits for each of 
the five observables.}
\end{table}

For $|Q| = 0 \ldots 4$ and $V = 40^2 \dots 60^2$, 
the $M_{\pi,|Q|,V}$ values are plotted in 
Figure~\ref{fig:pion_BCNW}. Again we observe a strong dependence 
on the topological sector, in particular in 
small volumes. From the expansion (\ref{EQN003}), $M_{\pi,|Q|,V}$ 
is expected to behave as approximation (\ref{approx2}),
\begin{equation}
\label{EQN491_}M_{\pi,Q,V} = M_{\pi} + 
\frac{c}{V \chi_{\rm t}} \bigg(1 - \frac{Q^2}{V \chi_{\rm t}}
\bigg) \ , \quad c = \frac{1}{2} M_{\pi}''(\theta )_{\pi}|_{\theta =0} \ .
\end{equation}
The corresponding curves for $|Q| = 0 \ldots 4$ with 
parameters $M_{\pi}$, $M''_{\pi}$ and $\chi_{\rm t}$, determined by 
the previously discussed fit ``(\ref{EQN003})s'', are also 
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pion_BCNW}. One can clearly see 
that approximation (\ref{EQN491_}) nicely captures the
lattice results for $M_{\pi,|Q|,V}$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics{pion5c.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:pion_BCNW}The fixed topology pion mass 
$M_{\pi,|Q|,V}$ for $|Q|=0 \dots 4$, as a function of $1/V$, 
and the curves corresponding to formula (\ref{EQN491_}).}
\end{figure}

We conclude, similar to our study in Yang-Mills theory,
that it is possible to extract correct and accurate values for 
the pion mass and the static potential from correlation functions 
computed in a number of fixed topological sectors and volumes. 
The errors are somewhat larger 
than for direct computation, in our case
by factors of $\approx 2 \ldots 7$. This is partly 
due to the smaller amount of gauge configurations of the fixed 
$Q$ ensembles at different $V$, and partly due to the extrapolation 
to infinite volume.

\subsubsection{The topological susceptibility}

Table~\ref{tab:Results-schwinger-sus} presents results 
for the topological susceptibility extracted from our data for
$M_{\pi, |Q|}$ and ${\cal V}_{q \bar q, |Q|}$.
These values for $\chi_{\rm t}$ are obtained 
from the same fits, which lead to the
results in Table~\ref{tab:Results-schwinger}. 
The results for $\chi_{\rm t}$ and their interpretation are 
similar to those obtained in Yang-Mills theory. 
We observe a slight tension of $\approx 2 \sigma$ for some 
values, when using expansion (\ref{EQN003}) and the relaxed 
constraint ($1/(\chi_{\rm t} V) , |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$). This tension 
disappears when we apply the improved expansion (\ref{EQN004}). 
When imposing the strict constraint ($1/\chi_{\rm t} V , \, 
|Q|/\chi_{\rm t} V < 0.5$), we encounter the same problem as in 
Subsection~\ref{SEC588}: all results are in agreement with the 
directly measured $\chi_{\rm t} = \langle Q^2 \rangle / V$ (at $V=60^{2}$), 
but the errors are very large.\footnote{Ref.\ \cite{DuHo1}
presents results for $\chi_{\rm t}$ in the 2-flavor Schwinger model
with staggered and overlap fermions, with or without link smearing. 
The results at $\beta =4$ and $m=0.1$ (in large volume) are in the 
range $\chi_{\rm t} \simeq 0.044 \dots 0.064$. This agrees with our
value in Table~\ref{tab:Results-schwinger-sus}, which confirms the 
mild renormalization of our bare fermion mass (cf.\ footnote 
\ref{fnschwing}).}

{\small
\begin{table}[htb]
\hspace*{-2.5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 
method & $M_\pi$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(1)$ & 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(2)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(3)$ & 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(4)$\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{all sectors,
$\quad$ $ V=60^{2} $}\tabularnewline
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{0.0048(1)}\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{fixed topology, \  
$ V \in\{ 40^{2},44^{2},48^{2},52^{2},56^{2},60^{2} \}$, \ 
$1/(\chi_{\rm t}V)$, $|Q|/(\chi_{t}V) < 1$}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})c & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{{\small{0.0038(5)}}}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{0.0042(5)}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})s & 0.0041(4) & 0.0038(5) & 0.0036(7) 
& 0.0038(11) & 0.0044(9)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{{\small{0.0044(4)}}}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{0.0042(6)}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})s & 0.0046(5) & 0.0043(4) & 0.0045(7) & 0.0036(12) 
& 0.0038(8)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline 
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{fixed topology, \ 
$V \in \{40^{2},44^{2},48^{2},52^{2},56^{2},60^{2} \}$, \ 
$1/(\chi_{\rm t}V)$, $|Q|/(\chi_{\rm t}V)<0.5$ }\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})c & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{{\small{0.0065(35)}}}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{0.0017(30)}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN003})s & 0.0014(38) & 0.0049(32) & 0.0057(31) 
& 0.0037(48) & 0.0032(27)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{{\small{0.0067(32)}}}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c$\mathcal{V}$ &  
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{0.0018(33)}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})s & 0.0017(32) & 0.0043(34) & 0.0022(46) 
& 0.0015(38) & 0.0048(52)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:Results-schwinger-sus}Results for the 
topological susceptibility $\chi_{\rm t}$, directly measured
(at $V=60^{2}$), and based on fixed topology computations of $M_{\pi , |Q|}$ 
and $\mathcal{V}_{q\bar{q}, |Q|}(r)$ for separations $r=1,2,3,4$. 
In the column ``method'' the equation number of the expansion 
is listed, ``c'' denotes a single combined fit to all five 
observables, ``c$\mathcal{V}$'' means a single combined 
fit to the four static potential observables, and ``s'' denotes 
a separate fit to each of the five observables.}
\end{table}
}

We infer that a reasonably accurate determination of 
the topological susceptibility from $M_{\pi, |Q|}$ and 
$\mathcal{V}_{q\bar{q}, |Q|}$ requires extremely 
precise input data. The fixed topology ensembles and correlation 
functions of this work are not sufficient 
to extract an accurate and stable value for $\chi_{\rm t}$.

\section{Motivation}

\input{motivation3}

\section{The BCNW method}

\input{BCNW}

\section{Tests for the quantum rotor}

\input{rotor4}

\section{Applications to the 2d Heisenberg model}

\input{2dO3c}

\section{Results in 4d SU(2) Yang-Mills theory}

\input{YMb}

\section{Results in the Schwinger model}

\input{schwing2}

\section{Conclusions}

\input{conclu} \\

\input{ackno}


\subsection{\label{SEC001}Simulation setup}

We consider 4d SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, which has the continuum action
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm cont} [A] = \beta_{\rm cont} \int d^{4}x \, 
F_{\mu \nu}^{a} (x) F_{\mu \nu}^{a} (x) \ ,
\end{equation}
and the topological charge
\begin{equation}
Q[A] = \frac{1}{16 \pi^{2}} \int d^{4}x \, 
\epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} F_{\mu \nu}^a (x) F_{\rho \sigma}^a (x) \ .
\end{equation}

On the lattice we simulate Wilson's standard plaquette action.
For the topological charge of a lattice gauge configuration $[U]$,
we use an improved field-theoretic definition \cite{Forcrand97},
\begin{equation}
\label{EQN001} Q[U] = \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \sum_x
\epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \sum_{\Box=1,2,3} \frac{c_\Box}{\Box^4} 
F_{x,\mu \nu}^{(\Box \times \Box)}[U] F_{x,\rho \sigma}^{(\Box \times \Box)}[U]  \ ,
\end{equation}
where $F_{x,\mu \nu}^{(\Box \times \Box)}[U]$ denotes the
lattice field strength tensor, clover averaged over square-shaped loops 
of size $\Box \times \Box$, and $(c_{1},c_{2},c_{3}) = (1.5, -0.6, 0.1)$.
Before applying eq.\ (\ref{EQN001}), we perform a number of cooling 
sweeps with the intention to remove local fluctuations in the gauge 
configurations, while preserving the topological structure. 

\begin{figure}[htb!]
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.67\textwidth]{cooling2.ps}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\caption{\label{FIG051}Cooling and assignment of the topological charge 
for three typical gauge configurations, at $\beta = 2.5$, 
in a lattice volume $V = 18^{4}$.}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{figure}
A cooling sweep amounts to a local minimization of the action, 
{\it i.e.}\ a minimization with respect to each gauge link 
within a short range. For this minimization we use again an 
improved lattice Yang-Mills action,
\begin{equation}
\label{EQN002} S[U] = \frac{\beta}{16} \sum_x \sum_{\mu \nu} 
\sum_{\Box=1,2,3} \frac{c_\Box}{\Box^4} \textrm{Tr} 
\Big(1 \!\! 1 - W_{x,\mu \nu}^{(\Box \times \Box)}[U]\Big) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $W_{x,\mu \nu}^{(\Box \times \Box)}[U]$ is a clover averaged loop of 
size $\Box \times \Box$ with the coefficients $c_\Box$ given
above (for comparison, the standard plaquette action corresponds
to $(c_{1},c_{2},c_{3}) = (1,0,0)$). Choosing an appropriate number 
of cooling sweeps is a subtle and somewhat ambiguous task, which 
is carried out for each gauge configuration one by one. 
After every cooling sweep we compute $Q[U]$ according 
to eq.\ (\ref{EQN001}). As soon as $Q[U]$ is stable (it varies by less 
than 10\,\% and is close to an integer for at least 50 cooling sweeps), 
the corresponding close integer is the topological charge that we assign 
to the gauge configuration $[U]$. Figure~\ref{FIG051} shows examples 
for typical cooling histories of gauge configurations with $Q = 0$, 
$1$ and $2$. (Details of this procedure, and a comparison to other 
definitions of the topological charge, are discussed in 
Ref.\ \cite{CichyLat14}.)

Our simulations were performed with a heatbath algorithm,
see {\it e.g.}\ Ref.\ \cite{Creutz}. 
We set $\beta = 2.5$, which corresponds to a lattice 
spacing $a \approx 0.073 \, \textrm{fm}$, if the scale is
set with the QCD Sommer parameter $r_0 = 0.46 \, \textrm{fm}$ 
\cite{PhilipsenWagner}. This value
is in the range of lattice spacings 
$0.05 \, \textrm{fm} \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\,\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}\,$} a \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\,\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}\,$} 0.15 \, \textrm{fm}$ 
typically used in contemporary QCD simulations. We generated 
gauge configurations in lattice volumes $V=L^{4}$, with 
$L = 12, \, 14 , \, 15 , \, 16 , \, 18$.\footnote{Unless stated 
otherwise, we continue using lattice units.} In each volume, 
observables were measured on 4000 configurations, separated by 
100 heatbath sweeps. This guarantees their statistical independence;
in particular, even the auto-correlation time with respect to the
topological charge $Q$ is below 20 heatbath sweeps.

\subsection{\label{SEC010}Computation of observables}

The observable we focus on is the static quark-antiquark 
potential ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ for 
separations $r = 1, 2 \ldots 6$. This quantity 
can be interpreted as the mass of a static-static meson. 
To determine ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$, we consider temporal 
correlation functions of operators
\begin{equation}
O_{q \bar{q}} (r) = \bar{q}(\vec r_{1}) \, U^\textrm{APE}
(\vec r_{1}, \vec r_{2}) \, q(\vec r_{2}) \ , \quad 
r = |\vec r_{1} - \vec r_{2}| \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{q}$, $q$ represent spinless static quarks, while
$U^\textrm{APE}(\vec r_1 , \vec r_2 )$ denotes a product of APE 
smeared spatial links \cite{APE} along a straight line connecting 
the lattice sites $\vec r_1$ and $\vec r_2$ on a given time slice. 
For the quarks we use the HYP2 static action, which is designed 
to reduce UV fluctuations and, therefore, to 
improve the signal-to-noise ratio \cite{HYP2}. 
These temporal correlation functions can be simplified analytically 
resulting in Wilson loop averages $\langle W(r,t) \rangle$ 
with APE smeared spatial and HYP2 smeared temporal lines of 
length $r$ and $t$, respectively. Thus we arrive at the vacuum 
expectation value
\begin{equation}
\langle \Omega | O^\dagger_{\bar{q} q}(t) O_{\bar{q} q}(0) | \Omega \rangle 
\propto \Big\langle W(r,t) \Big\rangle \ .
\end{equation}
We chose the APE smearing parameters as $N_\textrm{APE} = 15$ and 
$\alpha_\textrm{APE} = 0.5$, which (roughly) optimizes the overlap of 
$O_{\bar{q} q} | \Omega \rangle$ with the ground state of the static 
potential (for details of the smearing procedure we refer to
Ref.\ \cite{ETM}, where a similar setup had been used).

\subsection{Numerical results}

\subsubsection{\label{SEC387}The static potential}

Figure~\ref{FIG001} shows results for the static potential 
measured in all topological sectors, {\it i.e.}\ for each $r$ 
and $t$ the Wilson loop average is computed on all configurations, 
which are available in some volume.\footnote{As usual,
we determined ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ by searching for
a plateau value of the effective mass
$m_\textrm{eff}(r,t) = \log(\langle W(r,t+1) \rangle / \langle W(r,t) \rangle)$.} 
The volumes 
$14^4$, $15^4$, $16^4$ and $18^4$ yield identical results within 
statistical errors, but the static potential in the 
$12^4$ volume differs by several $\sigma$ for quark-antiquark 
separations $r \geq 3$. We conclude that $V = 12^4$ 
entails sizable ordinary finite volume effects (not 
associated with topology fixing), whereas for volumes 
$V \geq 14^4$ such ordinary finite volume effects are 
negligible. Consequently, we do not 
use the $12^4$ lattice in the following fixed topology 
studies.\footnote{We repeat that the BCNW formula can be extended
by incorporating ordinary finite volume effects \cite{PolProc}.}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{1_symb.ps}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\caption{\label{FIG001}The static potential ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ 
in a variety of lattice volumes $V = 12^{4} \dots 18^4$.}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{figure}

For $V = 15^4$, Figure~\ref{FIG002} demonstrates that 
static potentials obtained at fixed topology from different 
sectors $|Q| = 0 \ldots 5 $ 
(by averaging only over configurations of a fixed charge $|Q|$),
${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}, |Q|}$, differ
significantly.\footnote{Again we determined 
${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ by fitting constants to effective 
mass plateaux. Even though topology has been fixed, the effective 
masses exhibit a constant behavior (within statistical errors)
at large $t$.} For example 
${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q},0}(r=6)$ and ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q},4}(r=6)$
differ by more than $6 \sigma$. They are also well distinct 
from the corresponding result in all sectors, 
${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|\leq 1}(6) < {\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(6)
< {\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}, |Q| \geq 2}(6)$. 
These observations show that $V = 14^{4} \dots 18^{4}$ is in the
regime that we denoted as {\em moderate volumes} (cf.\ Section 2),
where the BCNW method is appropriate to extract
observables from fixed topology measurements.
Similar results for the static potential in SU(3) Yang-Mills theory 
have been reported in Ref.\ \cite{Bruck10}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.67\textwidth]{2.ps}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\caption{\label{FIG002}The static potential at separation
$r=6$, ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(6)$, for fixed topological 
sectors $|Q| \leq 5$, and without topology 
fixing, in the volume $V = 15^{4}$.}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{figure}

To extract the physical static potential from Wilson loop 
averages, separately computed in distinct topological sectors 
$|Q| \leq 7$ and some volume $V$, $\langle W_{V}(r,t) \rangle_{|Q|}$, 
we follow the procedure discussed in Ref.\ \cite{Arthur13}.
\begin{itemize}
\item We perform $\chi^2$ minimizing fits of either the $1/V$ 
expansion of the correlation function \cite{BCNW},
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber & & \hspace{-0.7cm} C_{Q,V}(t) = 
\Big\langle W_{V}(r,t) \Big\rangle_{|Q|} \\
\label{EQN003} & & \approx \alpha(r) 
\exp\bigg\{ -\bigg[ {\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r) + \frac{1}{2} 
{\mathcal V}''_{q \bar{q}}(r) \frac{1}{V \chi_{\rm t}} 
\bigg(1 - \frac{Q^2}{V \chi_{\rm t}}\bigg)\bigg] t\bigg\}
\end{eqnarray}
(cf.\ formula (\ref{approx2})), or of the improved 
approximation \cite{Arthur14}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber & & \hspace{-0.7cm} C_{Q,V}(t) \simeq 
\frac{\alpha(r)}{\sqrt{1 + 
{\mathcal V}''_{q \bar{q}}(r) t / (\chi_{\rm t} V)}} \\
\label{EQN004} & & \hspace{0.675cm} \times \exp\bigg(
-{\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r) t - \frac{1}{\chi_{\rm t} V} 
\bigg(\frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal V}''_{q \bar{q}}(r) t / 
(\chi_{\rm t} V)} - 1\bigg) \frac{1}{2} Q^2\bigg) \qquad \quad 
\end{eqnarray}
with respect to the parameters ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$, 
${\mathcal V}''_{q \bar{q}}(r) 
= \partial^{2}_{\theta}{\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r, \theta)|_{\theta = 0} $, 
$\alpha(r)$ ($r = 1 \ldots 6$) 
and $\chi_{\rm t}$ to the numerical results for 
$\langle W_{V}(r,t) \rangle_{|Q|}$ in the range 
$t_\textrm{min} \leq t \leq t_\textrm{max}$, where $t_\textrm{min}$ 
and $t_\textrm{max}$ are displayed in Table~\ref{TAB580}.\footnote{Again,
$\theta$ is the vacuum angle that we referred to before 
in eq.\ (\ref{thetaeq}).} 
When fitting formula (\ref{EQN004}), we 
also study the scenario where $\chi_{\rm t}$ is fixed to 
$\chi_{\rm t} = 7 \times 10^{-5}$, which was obtained in 
Ref.\ \cite{Forcrand97} by means of a direct measurement, in 
agreement with the fixed topology study in Ref.\ \cite{topdense}.
Moreover, we checked that the resulting fit 
parameters are stable within errors when we vary $t_\textrm{min}$ 
and $t_\textrm{max}$ by $\pm 1$.

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 
$V$ & $t_\textrm{min}$ & $t_\textrm{max}$ & maximum $|Q|$ 
fulfilling & maximum $|Q|$ fulfilling \\
 & & & $1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$ 
& $1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 0.5$ \\
\hline 
$14^4$ & 5 & 7 & 2 & 1 \\
$15^4$ & 5 & 7 & 3 & 1 \\
$16^4$ & 5 & 8 & 4 & 2 \\
$18^4$ & 5 & 8 & 7 & 3 \\
\hline 
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{TAB580}Temporal fitting ranges $t_\textrm{min}
\ldots t_\textrm{max}$, and maximum topological charges $|Q|$, for 
the lattice volumes $V$ under consideration.}
\end{table}

\item The results for $\langle W_{V}(r,t) \rangle_{|Q|}$ 
entering the fit are restricted to those $|Q|$ and $V$ values for 
which $1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$ or $< 0.5$;
we recall that the approximations (\ref{EQN003}) and (\ref{EQN004}) 
are only valid for sufficiently large 
$\chi_{\rm t} V = \langle Q^{2} \rangle$, and small $|Q|$.
To implement this selection we insert $\chi_{\rm t} = 7 \times 10^{-5}$
\cite{Forcrand97}; Table~\ref{TAB580} gives an overview.

\item We either perform a single combined fit to all considered 
separations $r = 1 \ldots 6$, or six separate fits, one 
for each $r$. In the latter case we obtain 
six results for $\chi_{\rm t}$, which agree within the errors in 
most cases, cf.\ Subsection~\ref{SEC588}.
\end{itemize}

Table~\ref{TAB001} collects the
results for ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ from fixed topology 
computations (using four volumes, $V = 14^4 , \, 
15^4 , \, 16^4 , \, 18^4$), and computed in all sectors
at $V = 18^4$. There is agreement 
between most of these results within about $2 \sigma$.
Only for $r=1$, and the relaxed constraint 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$, there are a few 
cases with discrepancies beyond $3 \sigma$, in particular for the 
expansion (\ref{EQN003}) (the corresponding data in Table~\ref{TAB001} 
are displayed in italics). 

The extent of the errors of the fitting results is fairly 
independent of the choice of the expansion ((\ref{EQN003}), or
(\ref{EQN004}), or (\ref{EQN004}) with $\chi_{\rm t} = 7 \times 10^{-5}$ 
fixed). The errors increase, however, by factors up to 
$\approx 2$, when we implement the stringent constraint 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/( \chi_{\rm t} V) < 0.5$, which is 
expected, since less input data are involved, see Table \ref{TAB580}. 
All fits of the expansions (\ref{EQN003}) and (\ref{EQN004})
capture well the fixed topology results.
\begin{table}[p]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
method & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(1)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(2)$ 
& $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(3)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(4)$ 
& $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(5)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(6)$
\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
 \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{all sectors,$\quad$ $V =18^4$}
\tabularnewline
\hline
 & 0.04229(1) & 0.09329(2) & 0.1646(1) & 0.2190(1) & 0.2664(2) 
& 0.3101(3)\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
 \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{fixed topology,$\quad$ $V \in 
\{ 14^4 , \, 15^4 , \, 16^4 , \, 18^4 \}$,$\quad$ $1 
/ (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$}\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN003})c & {\it 0.04240(3)}
& 0.09343(8) 
& 0.1646(2) & 0.2189(3) & 0.2662(4) & 0.3097(5)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN003})s & {\it 0.04241(3)} & 0.09342(9) 
& 0.1646(2) & 0.2189(3) & 0.2662(4) & 0.3097(6)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & 0.04230(3) & 0.09324(8) & 0.1644(2) 
& 0.2187(3) & 0.2661(4) & 0.3098(6)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})s & {\it 0.04240(3)} & 0.09338(9) 
& 0.1645(2) & 0.2188(3) & 0.2661(4) & 0.3098(6)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c$\chi_{\rm t}$ & 0.04225(3) & 0.09326(8) & 0.1643(2) 
& 0.2186(3) & 0.2660(4) & 0.3097(6)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})s$\chi_{\rm t}$ & 0.04225(3) & 0.09326(8) & 0.1643(2) 
& 0.2186(3) & 0.2660(4) & 0.3097(6)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline
 \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{fixed topology,$\quad$ 
$V \in \{ 14^4 , \, 15^4 , \, 16^4 , \, 18^4 \}$,$\quad$ 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 0.5$}
\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN003})c & 0.04227(4) & 0.09326(14) & 0.1645(3) 
& 0.2190(5) & 0.2665(7) & 0.3103(10)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN003})s & 0.04226(4) & 0.09322(13) & 0.1644(3) 
& 0.2189(5) & 0.2666(8) & 0.3105(11)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & 0.04227(4) & 0.09326(14) & 0.1645(4) 
& 0.2190(5) & 0.2665(7) & 0.3104(10)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})s & 0.04226(4) & 0.09323(13) & 0.1645(3) 
& 0.2189(5) & 0.2665(8) & 0.3104(10)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c$\chi_{\rm t}$ & 0.04225(4) & 0.09317(12) 
& 0.1643(3) & 0.2186(4) & 0.2660(6) & 0.3096(8)\tabularnewline
(\ref{EQN004})s$\chi_{\rm t}$ & 0.04225(3) & 0.09317(12) 
& 0.1643(3) & 0.2186(4) & 0.2660(6) & 0.3096(8)\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{TAB001}Results for the static potential 
${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ for separations 
$r = 1 \ldots 6$ measured with and without topology fixing. 
In the column ``method'' the equation number 
of the expansion is listed, ``c'' denotes a single {\em combined} 
fit for all separations $r= 1 \ldots 6$, ``s'' denotes a 
{\em separate} fit for each separation, and $\chi_{\rm t}$ indicates
that the topological susceptibility is not a fit parameter, but 
fixed to $\chi_{\rm t} = 7 \times 10^{-5}$.
Fixed topology results, which differ by more than $3 \sigma$ 
from the directly computed value, are written in italics.}
\end{table}

For the extraction of the potential it seems essentially
irrelevant whether a single combined fit or six separate 
fits are performed. Both the mean values and the statistical 
errors of ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ are in most cases very 
similar. A single combined fit, however, seems somewhat 
advantageous regarding the determination of $\chi_{\rm t}$,
see Subsection~\ref{SEC588}.

Figure~\ref{FIG003} compares the static potential obtained 
from fixed topology Wilson loops,
and computed without topology fixing at $V = 18^4$. 
As reflected by Table~\ref{TAB001} there is excellent agreement 
within the errors.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{3_new.ps}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\caption{\label{FIG003}Comparison of static potential
obtained from fixed topology Wilson loops, in the volumes 
$V = 14^4 , \, 15^4 , \, 16^4 , \, 18^4$, with
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$, using expansion 
(\ref{EQN004}) with one combined fit, and directly measured at 
$V = 18^4$. (Since unfixed and fixed topology results 
coincide within the errors, they are shifted horizontally
for better visibility.)}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{figure}

The expansion (\ref{EQN003}) of fixed topology Wilson loop 
averages $\langle W_{V}(r,t) \rangle_{|Q|}$ is a decaying exponential 
in $t$. This suggests defining a static potential at fixed 
topological charge $|Q|$ and volume $V$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{EQN587} \mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|,V}(r) = 
-\frac{d}{dt} \ln\Big(\Big\langle W_{V}(r,t) \Big\rangle_{|Q|} \Big)
\end{eqnarray}
for some value of $t$, where formula (\ref{EQN003}) is a rather 
precise approximation. Within statistical errors 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|,V}(r)$ is independent of $t$ for 
$t_\textrm{min} \leq t \leq t_\textrm{max}$. Therefore, we 
determine $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|,V}(r)$ by a $\chi^2$ 
minimizing fit of a constant to the right-hand-side of 
eq.\ (\ref{EQN587}), with the derivative replaced by a finite 
difference (this is the common definition of an effective 
mass) in the interval $t_\textrm{min} \leq t \leq t_\textrm{max}$. 
For $|Q| = 0 \ldots 4$ and $V = 14^4, 15^4, 16^4, 18^4$, the 
values for $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|,V}(r=6)$ are 
plotted in Figure~\ref{FIG690}. As already shown in 
Figure~\ref{FIG002}, there is a strong dependence 
on the topological sector, which becomes increasingly prominent 
for smaller volumes. From expansion (\ref{EQN003}) the fixed 
topology static potential is expected to behave as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EQN491} 
\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|,V}(r) \approx {\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r) 
+ \frac{1}{2} {\mathcal V}''_{q \bar{q}}(r) \frac{1}{V \chi_{\rm t}} 
\bigg(1 - \frac{Q^2}{V \chi_{\rm t}}\bigg) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding curves for $|Q| = 0 \ldots 4$, with 
parameters ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r=6)$, 
${\mathcal V}''_{q \bar{q}}(r=6)$ and $\chi_{\rm t}$ determined by 
the previously discussed fits
($V = 14^4 \dots 18^4$, $1 /(\chi_{\rm t} V)$,$\, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$, 
expansion (\ref{EQN003}) and a single combined fit),
are also shown in Figure~\ref{FIG690}. One clearly sees 
that approximation (\ref{EQN491}) nicely describes the 
numerical results for $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|,V}(r=6)$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{4_symb_new.ps}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\caption{\label{FIG690}The fixed topology static potential 
$\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q},Q,V}(r=6)$ for $|Q| = 0 \ldots 4$, 
as a function of $1/V$, and the curves corresponding to
approximation (\ref{EQN491}).}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We conclude that one can obtain a correct and accurate physical 
static potential from Wilson loops separately computed in different 
topological sectors. The errors are 
larger by factors $\approx 2 \ldots 5$ (cf.\ Table~\ref{TAB001}) 
for a fixed topology computation using four ensembles,
compared to a corresponding direct computation using 
a single ensemble ($V = 18^4$).

\subsubsection{\label{SEC588}The topological susceptibility}

In Table~\ref{TAB003} we present results for the topological 
susceptibility extracted from fixed topology Wilson loops 
$\langle W_{V}(r,t) \rangle_{|Q|}$. Again we use the $1/V$ expansion 
(\ref{EQN003}) or (\ref{EQN004}), the constraints 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$ or $ < 0.5$, 
and either a single combined fit to all considered separations 
$r = 1 \ldots 6$, or six separate fits, one for each $r$. 
The latter yields six different results for $\chi_{\rm t}$.

\begin{table}[htb]
\hspace*{-8mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
method & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(1)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(2)$ 
& $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(3)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(4)$ 
& $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(5)$ & $\mathcal{V}_{q \bar{q}}(6)$\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
 \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{fixed topology,$\quad$ $V \in 
\{ 14^4 , \, 15^4 , \, 16^4 , \, 18^4 \}$,$\quad$ 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$}\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN003})c & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{8.8(0.5)}\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN003})s & 8.8(0.5) & 8.7(0.6) & 8.6(0.7) & 8.6(0.9) 
& 8.8(1.0) & 8.9(1.2)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{7.1(0.6)}\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN004})s & 8.6(0.5) & 8.2(0.7) & 7.7(0.8) & 7.3(0.9) 
& 7.0(1.0) & 6.7(1.1)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\hline
 \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{fixed topology,$\quad$ $V \in 
\{ 14^4 \, , \, 15^4 \, , \, 16^4 \, , \, 18^4 \}$,$\quad$ 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 0.5$}\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN003})c & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{11.8(5.9)}\tabularnewline
\hline
(\ref{EQN003})s & 10.0(14.0) & 20.7(44.3) & 11.1(8.2)\phantom{0} 
& 11.8(16.0) & 12.8(8.7)\phantom{0} & 15.4(52.1)\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})c & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{11.9(5.4)}\tabularnewline
\hline 
(\ref{EQN004})s & 10.2(21.8) & 10.7(12.5) & 11.3(8.7)\phantom{0} 
& 11.8(5.8)\phantom{0} & 13.0(9.7)\phantom{0} & 14.6(12.2)\tabularnewline
\hline 
\end{tabular}
\hspace*{1mm}
\caption{\label{TAB003}Results for the topological susceptibility 
$\chi_{\rm t} \times 10^5$ from fixed topology computations of the 
static potential ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q}}(r)$ for various separations 
$r = 1 \ldots 6$. In the column ``method'' the equation number 
of the expansion is listed, ``c'' denotes a single combined fit 
for all separations $r=1 \ldots 6$, and ``s'' denotes a separate 
fit for each separation. The reference value from a direct computation 
is $\chi_{\rm t} \times 10^5 = (7.0 \pm 0.9)$ \cite{Forcrand97}.}
\end{table}

Not all of the extracted $\chi_{\rm t}$ values perfectly agree 
with each other or with the result $\chi_{\rm t} = (7.0 \pm 0.9) 
\times 10^{-5}$ from Ref.\ \cite{Forcrand97}, which we 
take as a reference. Using the weak constraint 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) ,\, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 1$ there seems to be 
a slight tension in form of $\approx 2 \sigma$ discrepancies, when 
performing fits with formula (\ref{EQN003}). The extended expansion 
(\ref{EQN004}) gives somewhat better results: no tension shows up, 
and most results agree with the reference value within $\sigma$.

One might hope for further improvement by using the stronger 
constraint $1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) , \, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V) < 0.5$,
since then formulae (\ref{EQN003}) and (\ref{EQN004})
are more accurate.
Indeed this leads to consistency with the reference value,
but in most cases the errors are very large, of the order 
of 100\,\% or even more. For this strong constraint 
the available ${\mathcal V}_{q \bar{q},|Q|}$-data are not 
sufficient to extract a useful result for $\chi_{\rm t}$. 
Note that here the error for one combined fit is significantly 
smaller than those for the separate fits.

We conclude that --- in principle --- one can extract the topological 
susceptibility in Yang-Mills theory from the static potential 
at fixed topology using formulae like (\ref{EQN003}) or 
(\ref{EQN004}). In practice, however, one needs precise data
in several large volumes. Only when a variation of the input data
({\it e.g.}\ by using different bounds with respect to 
$1 / (\chi_{\rm t} V) ,\, |Q|/(\chi_{\rm t} V)$) leads to precise 
and stable $\chi_{\rm t}$ values, should one consider the result 
trustworthy. The data used in this work are not sufficient to 
achieve this standard. As we mentioned before, more promising methods
to determine $\chi_{\rm t}$ from simulations at fixed topology using 
the same lattice setup have recently been explored
\cite{topdense,AFHOvari,LSD,slab}.
