text:
# A low-rate bound on the reliability of a quantum discrete memoryless channel1

## 1. Introduction

Derivation of error bounds in quantum information theory is usually performed by translation of the standard methods from its classical counterpart. Error exponents for the classical-quantum channel (transmission of orthogonal states) were derived in . Here we are concerned with the so-called quantum-quantum channel which is the standard universe for quantum error-correcting codes. An exponential upper bound on the distortion (error) probability was derived in a recent paper . Here we show that this bound can be improved for low noise and low values of the transmission rate. In Sect. 2 we give precise definitions of the quantum discrete memoryless channel (henceforth QDMC), codes, decoding, and error probability. Sect. 3 contains a brief review of stabilizer codes and their decoding. It turns out that if we restrict ourselves to the the class of stabilizer codes, then the bounds on their distortion exponent also follow from the corresponding classical results. In particular, in Sect. 4 we give a short proof of the result of . The link to the classical results motivates us to derive a low-rate error exponent for a QDMC (Sect. 5). A condition when it improves the random coding bound of  is given. We conclude by specializing the results to the case of a depolarizing channel and showing a concrete improvement for low code rates in the case of low noise.

## 2. Preliminaries

A quantum $`d`$-ary digit, a qudit, is a $`d`$-dimensional complex space $`H=^d,`$ where $`d`$ will be assumed a prime number. Below by $`𝒳`$ we denote the finite field $`𝔽_q,`$ where $`q=d^2.`$ We consider transmission of unit-length state vectors $`|\psi `$ from the $`d^n`$-dimensional space $`H_n=H^n.`$ Let us fix some orthonormal basis of $`H`$ and write it as $`(|0,|1,\mathrm{},|d1).`$ A unitary basis of error operators (an error basis, for short) is defined as $`\{E_{i,j}=X^iZ^j,i,j𝔽_d\},`$

$$X|i=|(i1)\text{mod }d,Z|j=\omega ^j|j,$$

and $`\omega `$ is a primitive $`d`$th root of unity.

A quantum discrete memoryless channel $`𝒲`$ is defined as an arbitrary collection of operators of the form $`(A_u,u𝒳)`$, where

$$A_u=\underset{v𝒳}{}a_{uv}E_v$$

and where the complex row vectors $`a_v=(a_{uv},u𝒳)`$ define a probability distribution on $`𝒳`$ given by

$$W(v)=a_va_v^{}(v𝒳),\underset{v}{}W(v)=1.$$

We note that this definition is derived from the general definition of the quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is a trace-preserving completely positive map on the set of density operators on $`H_n`$. It is known that any such map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S)=\underset{k}{}A_kSA_k^{}$$

for some set of operators $`A_k`$, where $`S`$ is a density operator on $`H_n`$ (the so-called Kraus representation of the channel). The absence of memory in the channel is reflected by the fact that the operators $`A_k`$ can be written as tensor products of operators on $`H.`$

As an example, let $`d=2`$ and consider the so-called depolarizing channel $`𝒲=\{\sqrt{1p}I,\sqrt{p/3}\sigma _x,\sqrt{p/3}\sigma _z,\sqrt{p/3}\sigma _y\},`$ where $`(\sigma _x,\sigma _z,\sigma _y)`$ is the set of Pauli matrices. This channel acts on qubits by phase flips, amplitude flips, or combinations of both applied with probability $`p/3`$ each. More generally, for any $`d`$ we can define a depolarizing channel as follows: $`𝒲=\{\sqrt{1p}I;\sqrt{\frac{p}{q1}}E_{i,j},i,j𝔽_d\}.`$

A quantum code $`𝒬`$ is a linear subspace of $`H_n.`$ The rate of $`𝒬`$ is defined as $`R=R(𝒬):=(\mathrm{log}_dK)/n,`$ where $`K`$ is the dimension of $`𝒬.`$ Let $``$ be a recovery operator, i.e., another completely positive trace-preserving map on $`H_n`$, restricted to $`𝒬`$. The fidelity of the code $`𝒬`$ for a given channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and a given recovery operator $``$ equals

$$F(𝒬,\{\mathrm{\Phi },\})=\frac{1}{K}\underset{B𝒬}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\psi B}{}\psi |\mathrm{\Phi }[|\psi \psi |]|\psi ,$$

where the minimum is taken over all orthonormal bases $`B`$ of the code. In particular, for the QDMC defined above, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒲^n.`$ Below we will omit the recovery operator from the notation.

For a given rate $`R`$ we wish to define the reliability (exponent) of a QDMC $`𝒲.`$ Let

$$E(n,R,𝒲)=\underset{𝒬H_n:R(𝒬)R}{sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}_d(1F(𝒬,𝒲))$$

be the error exponent for the rate $`R`$ and code length $`n`$. Let

$$E(R,𝒲)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}E(n,R,𝒲).$$

Let $`H_m(Q)=_{x𝒳}Q(x)\mathrm{log}_mQ(x)`$ be the entropy of a probability distribution $`Q`$ on $`𝒳`$. For two probability distributions $`P`$ and $`Q`$, their information divergence is given by $`D_m(QP)=_{x𝒳}Q(x)\mathrm{log}_m\frac{Q(x)}{P(x)}`$ (if the base of the logarithms and exponents below is omitted, it is equal to $`d`$).

The following theorem was proved in .

###### Theorem 1.

 For any rate $`R0`$ and any QDMC $`𝒲`$

(1)
$$E(R,𝒲)E_r(R,𝒲)=\underset{V}{\mathrm{min}}[D(VW)+|1H(V)R|^+],$$

where the minimum is taken with respect to all probability distributions on $`𝒳`$ and $`|a|^+:=\mathrm{max}(a,0).`$

Since $`E_r(R,𝒲)>0`$ for $`0R<1H(W),`$ this result also implies a lower bound of $`1H(W)`$ on the capacity of the channel $`𝒲`$.

Given a vector $`x𝒳^n,`$ we can define an empirical probability distribution $`P`$ on $`𝒳`$ given by $`P(u)=|\{i:x_i=u\}|/n,u𝒳`$. Below we call it the type of the vector $`x`$ and write $`T(x)=P.`$ The type of the all-zero vector will be denoted by $`P_0`$; we have $`P_0(u)=\delta _{u,0}.`$ The set of all sequences of a given type $`P`$ will be denoted as $`𝖳_P(𝒳^n).`$ It is clear that

$$|𝖳_P(𝒳^n)|=\mathrm{exp}_q(n(H_q(P)+o(1))).$$

Let $`𝒫(𝒳^n)`$ be the set of all types on $`𝒳^n.`$ Obviously,

$$|𝒫(𝒳^n)|=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+q1}{q1}\right)n^q(n,q2).$$

For any $`x𝒳^n`$ and any stochastic matrix $`V:𝒳𝒴`$, the $`V`$-shell of $`x`$ is defined as the set $`𝖳_V(x)𝒴^n`$ formed by those $`y`$ whose conditional type is $`V`$. This means that for any such $`y`$ its type is $`T(y)=PV,`$ where $`PV`$ is the probability distribution on $`𝒴`$ given by $`PV(y)=_{x𝒳}P(x)V(y|x).`$

## 3. Stabilizer codes and their decoding

The construction of stabilizer quantum codes in ,  is as follows. Consider the vector space $`V_n=(𝔽_d\times 𝔽_d)^n.`$ Write a typical vector $`xV_n`$ as $`(x_1,x_1^{},x_2,x_2^{},\mathrm{},x_n,x_n^{})`$ and consider a standard symplectic form on $`V_n`$ defined by

$$(x,y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_iy_i^{}x_i^{}y_i.$$

Now let $`𝒞𝒳^n`$ be an additive code, i.e., an additive subgroup of $`𝒳^n`$ and define $`𝒞^{}`$ as the set of vectors in $`(𝔽_q^+)^nV_n`$ that are $`(,)`$-orthogonal to every vector in $`𝒞.`$ Suppose that the number of vectors in $`𝒞`$ is $`q^k`$ so that the rate of $`𝒞`$ equals $`R(𝒞)=k/n.`$ We then have $`|𝒞^{}|=q^{nk}.`$

We begin with a pair of codes $`𝒞^{}𝒞𝒳^n`$ and a set $`𝒳^n`$ such that

$$_{x,y}(yx𝒞)(x=y).$$

According to this definition, we can take at most one error vector per coset of $`𝒳^n/𝒞`$ and therefore, the maximum size of the set $``$ equals $`q^{nk}.`$ It is possible to construct a quantum code $`𝒬H_n`$ of (complex) dimension $`d^{2kn}`$ which is an invariant subspace of the set of error operators $`N_{}=\{N_x,x\}`$ given by

$$N_x=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}N_{x_i},$$

where for every $`i`$ the operator $`N_{x_i}=E_{x_{i,1},x_{i,2}}`$ is an element of the error basis determined by the representation of the coordinate $`x_i𝔽_q`$ of $`x`$ as a pair of elements $`(x_{i,1},x_{i,2})(F_d)^2.`$ Moreover, there are $`d^{2(nk)}`$ such invariant subspaces whose orthogonal direct sum equals $`H_n.`$ Thus the rate $`R`$ of the stabilizer code $`𝒬`$ is related to the rate of $`𝒞`$ as $`R=2R(𝒞)1.`$

A stabilizer code $`𝒬`$ is $``$-error-correcting in the sense that the action of any error operator from the set $`N_{}`$ can be removed from the transmitted state. The received state $`w`$ is measured with respect to the set of pairwise orthogonal operators $`P_i`$, each being an orthogonal projector on the subspace of $`H_n`$ that corresponds to a coset of $`𝒳^n/𝒞.`$ Then within this coset we find one of the most probable error vectors and recover the transmitted state by applying the inverse error operator.

The following bound on the fidelity of a given stabilizer code $`𝒬`$ was proved in  based on a result in .

###### Theorem 2.

 Let $`𝒬`$ be an $``$-error-correcting stabilizer code used over a QDMC $`𝒲`$. Then

$$1F(𝒬,𝒲)\underset{x}{}W^n(x).$$

This theorem provides a link between the quantum and the classical setting which will be pivotal in our argument.

Note that there is substantial freedom in the choice of the error set $`.`$ To derive our result, we will take $``$ as follows. As pointed out above, the channel $`𝒲`$ defines a probability distribution $`W`$ on $`𝒳.`$ For an additive code $`𝒞`$ consider the quotient space $`𝒳^n/𝒞.`$ From each coset $`S`$ we take one of the vectors $`y=y(S)`$ whose probability $`W^n(y)=W(y_i)`$ is the largest in $`S.`$ Finally, we take $`=__Sy(S).`$

We conclude this section by deriving a general analog of the weight distribution and of the Gilbert-Varshamov bound for additive codes over $`𝒳`$. For $`q=4`$ and the Hamming weight distribution this result was proved in .

###### Theorem 3.

For any rate $`R(𝒞)>0`$ and any $`\delta >0,`$ there exists an additive code $`𝒞𝒳^n`$ of size $`\mathrm{exp}(nR(𝒞))`$ such that $`𝒞^{}𝒞`$ and for any type $`PP_0`$,

(2)
$$|𝒞𝖳_P|\mathrm{exp}_q[n(R(𝒞)+H_q(P)1+\delta )].$$

In particular, for any $`x𝒞\backslash \{0\}`$ with $`T(x)=P`$ we have

$$R(𝒞)1H_q(P)\delta .$$

Proof. Let

$$S_{n,k}=\{𝒞𝒳^n:\mathrm{log}_q|𝒞|=k,𝒞^{}𝒞\}.$$

It was observed several times in the literature (e.g., , ) that every vector $`x𝒳^n\backslash \{0\}`$ is contained in the same number of codes in $`S_{n,k}.`$ Denote this number by $`B`$ and let $`S=|S_{n,k}|.`$ Counting in two ways the sum of sizes of all the codes in $`S_{n,k}`$ we obtain $`(q^n1)B=(q^k1)S.`$ Let us fix a type $`P`$. Clearly,

$$\underset{P^{}𝒫^n(𝒳):H_q(P^{})H_q(P)}{}|𝖳_P^{}|n^qq^{nH_q(P)}.$$

Thus as long as $`n^qq^{nH_q(P)}B<S`$ or

$$n^qq^{nH_q(P)}<\frac{q^n1}{q^k1}=q^{n(1R(𝒞))}(1+o(1)),$$

there exists a code $`𝒞S_{n,k}`$ such that for every $`x𝒞\backslash \{0\}`$ we have $`H_q(T(x))H_q(P).`$ This proves the last part of the claim.

For any $`PP_0`$ the average number of code vectors of type $`P`$ in a code $`𝒞S_{n,k}`$ equals

$$\frac{1}{S}\underset{𝒞S_{n,k}}{}|\{x(𝒞𝖳_P)\}|=\frac{B|𝖳_P|}{S}=\mathrm{exp}_q[n(R(𝒞)+H_q(P)1+o(1))].$$

Since there are no more than $`n^q`$ different types, this proves the first part of the claim. ∎

## 4. The random coding bound

Let $`𝒳`$ be an input and $`𝒴`$ an output alphabet of a classical DMC given by a stochastic matrix $`W(y|x)`$. Suppose that $`𝒳𝒴`$ and that $`𝒴`$ is an abelian group, written additively. A channel is called additive if $`W(y|x)`$ depends only on the difference $`yx,`$ i.e., $`W(y|x)=W(yx)`$ (the last term is actually $`W(yx|0),`$ but below we abuse the notation slightly and use unconditional distributions). Note that an additive channel $`W`$ is symmetric in the sense that every row is a permutation of a fixed probability vector, and the same is true with respect to every column. By Theorem 2 the problem of bounding from below the reliability exponent of a QDMC is now reduced to the corresponding classical problem for a symmetric, additive DMC with $`𝒴=𝒳.`$ With this observation Theorem 1 follows by a combination of standard arguments; so having in mind the reader well familiar with error exponents of classical channels we could as well stop here. In the interest of staying self-contained we will supply some more details.

A. General form of the random coding exponent. For any type $`P𝒫(𝒳^n)`$ and any stochastic $`|𝒳|\times |𝒴|`$ matrix $`V`$, let

$$D(VW|P)=\underset{x,y}{}P(x)V(y|x)\mathrm{log}\frac{V(y|x)}{W(y|x)}$$

be the conditional divergence and

$$I(P,V)=\underset{x,y}{}P(x)V(y|x)\mathrm{log}\frac{V(y|x)}{_xP(x)V(y|x)}$$

be the mutual information between $`x𝖳_P(𝒳^n)`$ and $`y𝖳_V(x)`$. The following theorem (reformulated slightly from ) gives one of the general forms of the error exponent of a classical DMC.

###### Theorem 4.

For a given type $`P𝒫(𝒳^n)`$ let $`A𝖳_P(𝒳^n),|A|=d^{(R^{}ϵ)n}`$ be a code such that for every stochastic matrix $`\stackrel{~}{V}:𝒳𝒳`$

(3)
$$|\{(x_i,x_j)A\times A:x_j𝖳_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(x_i)\}|\mathrm{exp}[n(R^{}I(P,\stackrel{~}{V}))].$$

Suppose that $`A`$ is used over a DMC $`W:𝒳𝒴`$ together with a maximum mutual information decoder. Then the exponent $`E(A,W)`$ of the maximum error probability $`\mathrm{max}_{xA}p_e`$ satisfies $`E(A,W)E_r(P,R^{},W),`$ where

(4)
$$E_r(P,R^{},W)=\underset{V}{\mathrm{min}}[D(VW|P)+|I(P,V)R^{}|^+],$$

and where $`V`$ runs over the set of all channels $`𝒳𝒴.`$

Remarks. 1. This theorem is a generalization of a classical fact of coding theory, that “binary linear codes of rate $`R`$ and weight distribution $`A_w2^{n(R1)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{w}\right),w=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ achieve the random coding exponent of the binary symmetric channel.”

2. The best bound on the reliability exponent of the channel $`W`$ is obtained by computing the maximum on $`P`$ in (4). The quantity $`E(R^{},W)=\mathrm{max}_PE_r(P,R^{},W)`$ is usually called the random coding exponent of $`W`$.

3. The maximum mutual information decoder, which is used to prove this result and which was employed in , is different from the decoder defined in Sect. 3.

B. Additive channels and codes. Recall that in our problem $`𝒳`$ is an additive group and that $`𝒴=𝒳`$. Further, since the channel $`W`$ is symmetric, the maximizing input distribution $`P`$ in (4) is known to be uniform : $`P_u(x)=|𝒳|^1`$ for any $`x𝒳.`$

Let us substitute $`P_u`$ into the condition (3) on the “distance distribution” of the code $`A.`$ Let $`x`$ be a vector such that $`T(x)=P_u`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ be a stochastic matrix such that $`𝖳_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(x)𝖳_{P_u}(𝒳^n)\mathrm{}.`$ Then for any letter $`x𝒳`$ the sum $`_{xf𝒳}\stackrel{~}{V}(y|x)=1.`$ We compute

$$I(P_u,\stackrel{~}{V})=\mathrm{log}|𝒳|H(\stackrel{~}{V}|P_u),$$

So the upper bound in (3) takes the form

(5)
$$|\{(x_i,x_j)A\times A:x_j𝖳_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(x_i)\}|\mathrm{exp}[n(R^{}+H(\stackrel{~}{V}|P_u)\mathrm{log}|𝒳|)].$$

Now consider the code $`𝒞`$ from Theorem 3. Almost all of its codewords are of type $`P_u`$ and nearby types (types close to it in some suitable metric, say, the $`\mathrm{}_1`$-distance). We claim that the “distance distribution” of the code $`𝒞`$ satisfies (5). Since the code is additive, it suffices to consider matrices $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(y|x)`$ depends only on the difference $`yx.`$ Any such matrix defines a distribution $`\stackrel{~}{V}(z)=\stackrel{~}{V}(z|0)`$ on $`𝒳.`$ Using this in (5), we observe that this condition reduces to the condition (2) satisfied by the “weight” distribution of $`𝒞.`$ Now recall from  that the function $`E_r(P,R^{},W)`$ is uniformly continuous on $`P`$ and that, on account of the channel and code being additive, the error probability of decoding does not depend on the transmitted codeword. Therefore for growing $`n`$ the error exponent of the code $`𝒞`$ attains the bound $`E(R^{},W)`$. This proves Theorem 1.

Transforming the exponent (4) to the form (1) is a matter of calculation. Indeed, let us substitute $`P_u`$ in (4). Clearly, $`D(VW|P)=D(VW),`$ where on the right-hand side $`V`$ and $`W`$ are probability distributions on $`𝒳`$ given by $`W(z)=W(y|x),V(z)=V(y|x)`$ for any $`y,x`$ such that $`z=xy.`$ Further,

$`I(P,V)R^{}=|𝒳|^1{\displaystyle \underset{z𝒳}{}}H(V)+\mathrm{log}|𝒳|1R=1RH(V),`$
where we have used the relation $`R^{}=2R(𝒞)=1+R.`$

Further observations.

1. By the same token, the capacity of the quantum channel $`𝒲`$ is bounded below by the capacity of the classical symmetric channel $`W.`$ Again the mutual information is maximized for the uniform input distribution, which implies the bound $`𝒞1H(W)`$ independently of the results on error exponents. Note however that when this result is specialized to the depolarizing channel (see Example in the next section), it falls below the best currently known estimate of .

2. If we return from (4) to Gallager’s original form of the random coding bound (by a method outlined in \[5, pp. 192-193\]), the exponent (1) can be written in a somewhat more convenient form. Namely:

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`E_0(\rho ,W)=\rho (1+\rho )\mathrm{log}_{x𝒳}W(x)^{\frac{1}{1+\rho }}.`$ Then

$$E_r(R,𝒲)=1R\mathrm{log}\left(\underset{x𝒳}{}\sqrt{W(x)}\right)^2(0R<\frac{E_0}{\rho }|_{\rho =1})$$

and

$$E_r(R,𝒲)=\underset{0\rho 1}{\mathrm{max}}[\rho R+E_0(\rho ,W)](\frac{E_0}{\rho }|_{\rho =1}R1H(W)).$$

3. In the classical setting, the line of thought realized in Theorem 1 would correspond to an attempt to prove error bounds for a general DMC relying on the class of additive codes. It is well known ,  that this approach produces good results only when the optimizing probability distribution on the input alphabet is uniform. The classical channel derived from a general QDMC for stabilizer codes turns out to be additive and hence symmetric. Hence the lower bounds on the reliability exponent thus obtained are arguably rather strong.

## 5. Expurgation exponent for a QDMC

Let $`𝒬H_n`$ be a stabilizer code of rate $`R=R(𝒬)`$ used over a QDMC $`𝒲`$ together with the decoder defined in Sect. 3. Define the $`W`$-weight of a letter $`x𝒳`$ as

$$|x|__W=\mathrm{log}\underset{e𝒳}{}\sqrt{W(e)W(ex)},$$

where $`\mathrm{log}0=\mathrm{}`$ by definition.

###### Theorem 6.

$$E(R,𝒲)E_x(R,𝒲)=\underset{P:H(P)1R}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\underset{x𝒳}{}P(x)|x|__W(R+H(P)1)\right].$$

Proof. We start with the code $`𝒞`$ whose existence is proved in Theorem 3. Let $`𝒬`$ be the stabilizer quantum code associated with it. By Theorem 2

$`1F(𝒬,𝒲)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{e}{}}W^n(e)={\displaystyle \underset{x𝒞\{0\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{y𝒳^n}{W^n(yx)W^n(y)}}{}}W^n(y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x𝒞\{0\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y𝒳^n}{}}\sqrt{W^n(y)W^n(yx)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{P𝒫(X^n)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{x𝒞𝖳_p(𝒳^n)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}\sqrt{W^n(y)W^n(yx)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{P𝒫(X^n)}{}}\mathrm{exp}_d[2n(R(𝒞)+H_q(P)1+o(1))n{\displaystyle \underset{x𝒳}{}}P(x)|x|__W],`$
where the last step follows because the channel is memoryless. Conclude by computing the logarithm and substituting the relation $`2R(𝒞)=1+R.`$

Note that it is possible that $`E_x(R,𝒲)`$ becomes infinite for $`RR_{\mathrm{}}(𝒲)>0,`$ which means that for rates $`R<R_{\mathrm{}}(𝒲)`$ errors outside the set $``$ occur with probability zero. The quantity $`R_{\mathrm{}}(𝒲)`$ gives a lower bound on the zero-error capacity of the channel $`𝒲`$. Shannon’s classical example of a channel with $`R_{\mathrm{}}(𝒲)>0`$ \[8, p. 532\] is given by the additive channel with $`𝒳=_5`$ and $`W(x)=W(x+1)=1/2.`$ Clearly, $`R_{\mathrm{}}(𝒲)>0`$ if and only if $`|x|__W=0`$ for some $`x𝒳`$. A channel is called indivisible if this condition does not hold, and hence $`R_{\mathrm{}}(𝒲)=0.`$

The function $`E_x`$ can be transformed to a different form, also due to Gallager :

$$E_x(R,𝒲)=\underset{\rho 1}{sup}[\rho R+E_{ex}(\rho ,W)],$$

where

$$E_{ex}(\rho ,W)=\rho \mathrm{log}_d\frac{1}{d^2}\underset{x𝒳}{}\left(\underset{e𝒳}{}\sqrt{W(e)W(e+x)}\right)^{1/\rho }.$$

Let us state a condition for the bound $`E_{ex}(R,𝒲)`$ to improve the result of Theorem 1. As remarked above, the optimizing probability distribution on $`𝒳`$ for the random coding bound (4) in our case is uniform. Moreover, the exponent $`E_x`$ is also derived under the same assumption. It is known  that for one and the same input distribution and for code rates $`R<E_{ex}(\rho ,W)/\rho |_{\rho =1}`$ the function $`E_x(R,𝒲)`$ is greater than $`E_r(R,𝒲)`$, so in this region of rates Theorem 6 improves the result of Theorem 1. Hence if the point $`R_x=E_{ex}(\rho ,W)/\rho |_{\rho =1}>0`$ then there is a nonempty interval of code rates where $`E_x(R,𝒲)>E_r(R,𝒲).`$ Note that typically such an interval exists only for low noise level in the channel. To make an analogy with the classical case, the improvement takes place if the value of the code rate $`R(𝒞)`$ that corresponds to $`R_x`$ is greater than $`1/2`$. In the range where it improves the bound (1), the exponent $`E_x(R,𝒲)`$ can be written as

(6)
$$E_x(R,𝒲)=\underset{P:H(P)=1R}{\mathrm{min}}𝖤|X|__W,$$

where $`X`$ is a random variable on $`𝒳`$ distributed according to $`P.`$ This follows by the Gilbert-Varshamov bound of Theorem 3.

Remark. The general form of the function $`E_x(R,𝒲)`$ for a given additive, indivisible channel $`𝒲`$ is as follows:

$$E_x(R,𝒲)=\underset{P}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{\rho 1}{sup}[\rho R+E_{ex}(\rho ,P,𝒲)],$$

where

$$E_{ex}(\rho ,P,𝒲)=\rho \mathrm{log}_d\underset{x,x^{}𝒳}{}P(x)P(x^{})\left(\underset{e𝒳}{}\sqrt{W(xe)W(x^{}e)}\right)^{1/\rho }.$$

Optimization on the input distribution $`P`$ in this expression is easy if the $`q\times q`$ matrix

$$[(\underset{e𝒳}{}\sqrt{W(xe)W(x^{}e)})^{1/\rho }]$$

is nonnegative definite for every $`\rho 1`$ , and turns into a difficult problem otherwise. For the channel to be nonnegative definite it is sufficient that for every pair of distinct vectors $`(x,x^{})`$ the sum on $`e`$ in the expression for $`E_x(\rho ,P,𝒲)`$ takes one and the same value (the so-called equidistant channels ). For equidistant channels the maximum on $`P`$ is achieved for the uniform distribution $`P(x)=1/q,x𝒳.`$ For instance, the $`d`$-ary depolarizing channel is equidistant. However, there are many examples of not nonnegative definite additive, indivisible channels. For instance, let $`d=3.`$ Consider the channel given by the following probability distribution:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}\hfill u& 00& 01& 02& 10& 11& 12& 20& 21& 22\\ \hfill W(u)& 0& 0.49& 0& 0.01& 0.01& 0& 0.49& 0& 0\end{array},$$

where $`u(𝔽_9)^+_3\times _3.`$ It is easily verified that this channel is not nonnegative definite for $`\rho 1.37.`$

Example. Let us specialize the results of Theorems 1 and 6 for the case of the $`d`$-ary depolarizing channel $`𝒲.`$ Let us denote the reliability exponent of $`𝒲`$ by $`E(R,p).`$ The result can be expressed in a closed form. Let

$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{log}_q{\displaystyle \frac{x}{q1}}(1x)\mathrm{log}_qx`$
$`D(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{log}_q{\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}+(1x)\mathrm{log}_q{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1y}}`$
$`\delta _0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`h^1(1x).`$
We have

$$E(R(𝒬),𝒲)2E_{\mathrm{}}((1+R)/2,p),$$

where

(7) $`E_{\mathrm{}}(r,p)`$ $`=\delta _0(r)\mathrm{log}_q\gamma _q(p)`$ $`(0rr_x)`$
$`E_{\mathrm{}}(r,p)`$ $`=D(\rho _0p)+r_cr`$ $`(r_xrr_c)`$
$`E_{\mathrm{}}(r,p)`$ $`=D(\delta _0(r)p)`$ $`(r_cr1h(p)),`$
$$r_x=1h\left(\rho _0\left(2\frac{q\rho _0}{q1}\right)\right),r_c=1h(\rho _0),$$

$$\rho _0=\frac{\sqrt{p(q1)}}{\sqrt{p(q1)}+\sqrt{1p}},\gamma _q(p)=p\frac{q2}{q1}+2\sqrt{\frac{p(1p)}{q1}}.$$

This reliability exponent can be obtained from Theorems 5, 6 or computed directly starting with codes whose existence is proved in Theorem 3. The expurgation exponent (7) is straightforward from (6). If $`R_x:=2r_x1>0,`$ then from (7) we obtain an improvement over the result of Theorem 1 in the interval of values of $`R`$ between zero and $`R_x.`$ It turns out that this condition is satisfied for low noise level (see an example in Fig. 1). For $`d=2`$ the expurgation bound improves the random coding exponent for $`0<p0.004.`$

Acknowledgment. The author is grateful to A. Ashikhmin and G. Kramer for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Quantum information is incompressible without errors

## Abstract

A classical random variable can be faithfully compressed into a sequence of bits with its expected length lies within one bit of Shannon entropy. We generalize this variable-length and faithful scenario to the general quantum source producing mixed states $`\rho _i`$ with probability $`p_i`$. In contrast to the classical case, the optimal compression rate in the limit of large block length differs from the one in the fixed-length and asymptotically faithful scenario. The amount of this gap is interpreted as the genuinely quantum part being incompressible in the former scenario.

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 03.67.Hk

One of the fundamental questions in the information theory is about the data compression, namely, what is the shortest description of a data. This question is important not only for quantification of the amount of information, but also for understanding how well we can manipulate information stored in physical systems, which is a central topic in the field of quantum information. In the case of compressing a classical random variable $`X`$ which takes letter $`x`$ with probability $`p(x)`$, the answer is given by the quantity called the Shannon entropy, which is defined as $`H(X)=_xp(x)\mathrm{log}_2p(x)`$ when measured in bits . More precisely, a compression scheme is regarded as an assignment of each letter $`x`$ with a codeword of length $`l(x)`$ bits, which is not fixed and dependent on $`x`$. Under the requirement that the codewords are uniquely decodable (faithful) even when they are concatenated to describe a sequence of letters, the minimum $`L_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the expected length $`L_xp(x)l(x)`$ satisfies  $`H(X)L_{\mathrm{min}}H(X)+1`$. When a sequence of $`n`$ letters independently drawn according to $`p(x)`$ is collectively compressed, the minimum expected length lies between $`nH(X)`$ and $`nH(X)+1`$ because of the additivity of the entropy function. Hence the optimum compression rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}`$ for block length $`n`$, defined as the minimum expected length per letter, satisfies

$$H(X)R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}H(X)+1/n,$$
(1)
and thus $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}lim_n\mathrm{}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}=H(X)`$.

In addition to this ‘variable-length and faithful’ (VLF) scenario, we encounter the Shannon entropy also in a slightly different scenario of compression, in which all codewords have a common fixed length, and small errors in decoding are allowed as long as they vanish in the limit of large block-length. In this ‘fixed-length and asymptotically faithful’ (FLAF) scenario, we consider a sequence of compression schemes labeled by the block length $`n`$, which have code length $`L^{(n)}`$ and error probability $`p_{\mathrm{err}}^{(n)}`$. The sequence is asymptotically faithful when $`lim_n\mathrm{}p_{\mathrm{err}}^{(n)}=0`$. The asymptotic rate of compression for the sequence is characterized by $`R\overline{lim}_n\mathrm{}L^{(n)}/n`$. The optimal compression rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$ in this scenario is defined as the infimum of $`R`$ among all asymptotically faithful sequences. Requirement for this scenario is weaker than the VLF scenario in spite of the constraint on the codeword length. This is seen by composing a FLAF sequence with asymptotic rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}+\delta `$ by just repeating $`m`$ times a VLF scheme with rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}`$ and treat the concatenated codewords longer than $`mn(R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}+\delta )`$ as errors. With $`n`$ fixed and in the limit of $`m\mathrm{}`$, this sequence is asymptotically faithful for any $`\delta >0`$ due to the law of large numbers. Hence we have

$$R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}},$$
(2)
and $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$. In the case of compressing a classical random variable $`X`$, it is known that $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$ is also equal to the Shannon entropy, namely, $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}=R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}=H(X)`$ .

In the quantum case of compressing an ensemble $`=\{p_i,\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$, we consider a source that emits a quantum system in state (letter) $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ with probability $`p_i`$, and $`n`$ systems drawn from this source are compressed into qubits. The discussions were first focused on the FLAF scenario, and the result when $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ are all pure states  is $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}=S(\widehat{\rho })`$, where $`S(\widehat{\rho })\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{log}_2\widehat{\rho }]`$ is the von Neumann entropy of the average state $`\widehat{\rho }_ip_i\widehat{\rho }_i`$. When $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$ includes mixed states, $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$ is still given by the von Neumann entropy after removing hidden redundancy . This striking similarity to the classical case implies that there is no big difference in the compressibility between classical and quantum information, at least in the FLAF scenario. Recently, the investigations on different scenarios  have been started to reveal how the optimal rates vary depending on small differences in the constraints. A notable example is the information defect, the difference between the rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$ defined above (which is referred to as the blind scenario in this context) and the rate in an easier scenario (the visible scenario) in which the identity of the index $`i`$ is available in the compression stage. The information defect has turned out to be nonzero  even in the classical cases where all $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$ commute, implying that the origin of this gap does not necessarily lie in the nature of quantum information.

In this Letter, we discuss the VLF scenario for general quantum ensemble $`=\{p_i,\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$, and derive inequalities corresponding to Eq. (1), which identify $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}`$. We show that the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$ is generally nonzero, and nonzero only if $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$ do not commute. When we further separate the information in $``$ into the classical part and the quantum part, the origin of the gap becomes transparent, namely, the genuinely quantum part of the information turns out to be incompressible in the VLF scenario.

The keystone in our derivation of $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the observation that the length of the qubits used in a single round of the compression operation can be regarded as an outcome of a measurement on the system to be compressed. This is justified in an operational sense as follows. Suppose that initially there is a resource of $`N`$ qubits, and an input state from the source $`=\{p_i,\widehat{\rho }_i\}(p_i>0)`$ acting on Hilbert space $`_A^{}`$ are compressed into a number of qubits via a VLF scheme. The notion that “$`L`$ qubits has been used to compress the input state” means that there should remain $`NL`$ qubits in the resource which can be utilized in other independent tasks. This means that after the state is decompressed back in $`_\mathrm{A}^{}`$, the value $`L`$ can be determined without accessing $`_\mathrm{A}^{}`$. In other words, if we generally write the whole quantum operation of the compression and decompression as a unitary operation $`\widehat{U}`$ on the combined system of $`_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ and an auxiliary system $`_\mathrm{E}`$ initially prepared in a standard pure state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E}`$, we should be able to define an observable $`\widehat{L}`$ acting on $`_\mathrm{E}`$, which corresponds to the length of qubits used to compress. The expected length $`\widehat{L}`$ of the compression scheme $`\widehat{U}`$ applied to the source $``$ is then written as

$$\widehat{L}=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}\{\widehat{L}\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{A}[\widehat{U}(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{U}^{}]\},$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_ip_i\widehat{\rho }_i`$. At the same time, since the compression scheme is faithful (no errors), $`\widehat{U}`$ obeys

$$\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}[\widehat{U}(\widehat{\rho }_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{U}^{}]\}=\widehat{\rho }_i.$$
(4)
The length of qubits is thus regarded as the outcome of a generalized measurement on $`_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ that introduces no disturbance on the initial states $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$.

The property of the operations that preserves the initial states $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$ was analyzed in detail recently, and it was shown that, given $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$, we can find a unique decomposition of $`_\mathrm{A}`$, the support of $`\widehat{\rho }`$, written as

$$_\mathrm{A}=\underset{l}{}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}.$$
(5)
Under this decomposition, $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ is written as

$$\widehat{\rho }_i=\underset{l}{}p^{(i,l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ are normalized density operators acting on $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ and $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$, respectively, and $`p^{(i,l)}`$ is the probability for the state to be in the subspace $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ is independent of $`i`$, and $`\{\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(1,l)},\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(2,l)},\mathrm{}\}`$ cannot be expressed in a simultaneously block-diagonalized form. Any $`\widehat{U}`$ that satisfies Eq. (4) is then expressed in the following form

$$\widehat{U}(\widehat{1}_\mathrm{A}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E})=\underset{l}{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}(\widehat{1}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E}),$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}`$ are unitary operators acting on the combined space $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}_\mathrm{E}`$, satisfying $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}[\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}]\}=\widehat{\rho }^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}`$. An explicit procedure to obtain this particular decomposition is also given in .

The total density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_ip_i\widehat{\rho }_i`$ for the ensemble $``$ is also decomposed as

$$\widehat{\rho }=\underset{l}{}p^{(l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(8)
where $`p^{(l)}_ip_ip^{(i,l)}`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}(_ip_ip^{(i,l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)})/p^{(l)}`$. Now, let us take a basis $`\{|a_j_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}\}`$ $`(j=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})`$ for each $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$, and consider another source $`^{}=\{q_\lambda ,\widehat{\sigma }_\lambda \}`$ with double index $`\lambda (l,j)`$, which is defined through the decomposition (8) such that $`q_\lambda =(\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})^1p^{(l)}`$ and

$$\widehat{\sigma }_\lambda =|a_j^{(l)}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{J}a_j|\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}.$$
(9)
The total density operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_\lambda q_\lambda \widehat{\sigma }_\lambda `$ for this source is

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\underset{l}{}p^{(l)}(\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})^1\widehat{1}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}.$$
(10)
Suppose that this source is used as an input to the same compression scheme. The form (7) assures that the operation $`\widehat{U}`$ also preserves $`\widehat{\sigma }_\lambda `$, namely, the scheme $`\widehat{U}`$ works as a VLF scheme for $`^{}`$. We further note that, since the difference between $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ lies in the internal states of $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$, and the form (7) ensures that the state of the auxiliary system ($`_\mathrm{E}`$) after the operation $`\widehat{U}`$ is insensitive to them, we obtain $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{A}[\widehat{U}(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{U}^{}]=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{A}[\widehat{U}(\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{U}^{}]`$. Then, according to Eq. (3), the same expected length $`\widehat{L}`$ should be observed even when the source is replaced with $`^{}`$. Hence we have

$$L_{\mathrm{min}}()L_{\mathrm{min}}(^{}).$$
(11)
In order to find a lower bound of $`L_{\mathrm{min}}(^{})`$, we use Eq. (2), which also holds for general quantum ensembles. Since the letter states $`\widehat{\sigma }_\lambda `$ of the ensemble $`^{}`$ are all orthogonal, the optimum rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}(^{})`$ should be equal to that of an orthogonal pure-state ensemble $`\{q_\lambda ,|\lambda \}`$, and hence $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}(^{})=_\lambda q_\lambda \mathrm{log}_2q_\lambda `$. Using this with $`q_\lambda =(\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})^1p^{(l)}`$, Eq. (2) with $`n=1`$, and $`L_{\mathrm{min}}(^{})=R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(1)}(^{})`$ (by definition), we have

$$L_{\mathrm{min}}(^{})R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}(^{})=I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}(),$$
(12)
where $`I_\mathrm{C}()_lp^{(l)}\mathrm{log}_2p^{(l)}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{NC}}()_lp^{(l)}\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$.

For an upper bound for $`L_{\mathrm{min}}()`$, we consider a specific example of the VLF scheme as follows. The compressor first makes a projection measurement to determine the index $`l`$, which appears in the decomposition (5). The projected state should be supported by subspace $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. Since the outcome $`l`$ occurs with probability $`p^{(l)}`$, there exists an instantaneous code for encoding $`l`$ with an expected length not larger than $`H(\{p^{(l)}\})+1`$ bits . The compressor write down this classical codeword onto qubits using the standard basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$. It then discards $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$, and transfer the state of $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ (which should be $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$) into $`\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ qubits and concatenate them after the qubits holding the classical codeword for $`l`$. The expected total length of the qubits is then not larger than $`I_\mathrm{C}()+1+D_{\mathrm{NC}}()+1`$. The decompression is done by measuring qubits in the standard basis one by one, until the end of the codeword is reached. Note that the decompressor knows this end point since the code for $`l`$ is instantaneous. Learning $`l`$, it then transfers the contents of the next $`\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ qubits into $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$, and prepare $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ in the known state $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. When the input to the compressor was $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$, the conditional probability of $`l`$ is $`p^{(i,l)}`$. Hence the whole process faithfully reproduces $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ \[see Eq. (6)\]. We thus obtain an upper bound $`I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}()+2`$ for $`L_{\mathrm{min}}()`$. Together with Eqs. (11) and (12), we have

$$I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}()L_{\mathrm{min}}()I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}()+2.$$
(13)
In order to extend this result to the case of $`n`$-block coding, we need to know the behavior of the functions $`I_\mathrm{C}()`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{NC}}()`$ for the concatenation of independently drawn letters (states). Suppose that $`_\mathrm{A}`$ is prepared by a source $`_\mathrm{A}=\{p_i^\mathrm{A},\widehat{\rho }_i^\mathrm{A}\}`$, and let $`_\mathrm{A}=_l_{\mathrm{AJ}}^{(l)}_{\mathrm{AK}}^{(l)}`$ be the decomposition determined by $`_\mathrm{A}`$. Suppose further that another system $`_\mathrm{B}`$ is independently prepared by a source $`_\mathrm{B}=\{p_j^\mathrm{B},\widehat{\rho }_j^\mathrm{B}\}`$, and let $`_\mathrm{B}=_m_{\mathrm{BJ}}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{BK}}^{(m)}`$ be the decomposition determined by $`_\mathrm{B}`$. This preparation can be also considered as the combined system $`_{\mathrm{AB}}_\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{B}`$ being prepared by $`_{\mathrm{AB}}=\{p_i^\mathrm{A}p_j^\mathrm{B},\widehat{\rho }_i^\mathrm{A}\widehat{\rho }_j^\mathrm{B}\}`$. It was shown  that the decomposition determined by $`_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ is simply given by the direct product $`_{\mathrm{AB}}=_{\{l,m\}}(_{\mathrm{AJ}}^{(l)}_{\mathrm{BJ}}^{(m)})(_{\mathrm{AK}}^{(l)}_{\mathrm{BK}}^{(m)})`$. This implies that $`I_\mathrm{C}()`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{NC}}()`$ are additive, namely, $`I_\mathrm{C}(_{\mathrm{AB}})=I_\mathrm{C}(_\mathrm{A})+I_\mathrm{C}(_\mathrm{B})`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{NC}}(_{\mathrm{AB}})=D_{\mathrm{NC}}(_\mathrm{A})+D_{\mathrm{NC}}(_\mathrm{B})`$. Just as in the classical case, this additivity leads to our main results,

$$I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}()R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(n)}()I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}()+2/n,$$
(14)
and

$$R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}()=I_\mathrm{C}()+D_{\mathrm{NC}}().$$
(15)
This optimal compression rate $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}()`$ for the VLF scenario is generally larger than the one in the FLAF scenario, which was derived in  for general mixed-state cases as

$$R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}()=I_\mathrm{C}()+I_{\mathrm{NC}}(),$$
(16)
where $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}()_lp^{(l)}S(\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)})`$, and $`I_\mathrm{C}()=_lp^{(l)}\mathrm{log}_2p^{(l)}`$ is the same function as defined above. The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{(\mathrm{})}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}=D_{\mathrm{NC}}()I_{\mathrm{NC}}()=\underset{l}{}p^{(l)}[\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}S(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})],$$
(17)
which is nonzero when there exists $`l`$ such that $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}(\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})^1\widehat{1}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$. The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}`$ is zero when $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}=(\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})^1\widehat{1}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ for all $`l`$. In particular, for the classical cases in which all $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ commutes, $`(\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)})=1`$ for all $`l`$  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}=0`$.

The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}`$ stems from the internal state of each $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$, which is regarded as the genuinely quantum (nonclassical) part of the ensemble $``$ in the following sense: (i) This part is inaccessible without introducing disturbance \[Eq. (7)\] and (ii) this part can be compressed only into qubits, not into classical bits . Then, the present results are summarized in a simple statement, ‘the genuinely quantum part of the information is incompressible if no errors are allowed.’ In contrast, the classical part of the information, which is represented by $`\{p^{(i,l)}\}`$, can be compressed into $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ bits in either one of the scenarios. The difference between the classical and the quantum part in the nature of compressibility may be understood as follows. The classical information can be effectively compressed by changing the description length adaptively depending on the input states, namely, using shorter descriptions for frequent inputs and longer descriptions for rare inputs. The quantum information, if it is to be compressed faithfully, does not allow such adaptation because learning the input state inevitably introduces irreversible disturbance.

It may be quite instructive to contrast the derived gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}`$ with the information defect, the gap between the blind and the visible scenario. In the visible scenario, the classical index $`i`$ is given to the compressor, rather than the state $`\rho _i`$ to be reproduced in the decompression. The optimal compression rate $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for asymptotically faithful schemes in the visible scenario is called the effective information. By definition, $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}I_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{v}}R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}I_{\mathrm{eff}}0`$ is called the information defect. While the explicit form of the effective information is still open, it is bounded from below by the Levitin-Holevo function  $`I_{\mathrm{LH}}S(\widehat{\rho })_ip_iS(\widehat{\rho }_i)`$, namely, $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}I_{\mathrm{LH}}`$ . An upper bound for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{v}}`$ is hence $`R_{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{AF}}I_{\mathrm{LH}}=I_\mathrm{C}+I_{\mathrm{NC}}I_{\mathrm{LH}}`$, and using Eqs. (6) and (8), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{v}}\underset{i}{}p_iS(\widehat{\rho }_i)\underset{l}{}p^{(l)}S(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)})=\underset{i}{}p_iS(\widehat{\rho }_i^\mathrm{R}),$$
(18)
where the state $`\widehat{\rho }_i^\mathrm{R}_lp^{(i,l)}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$ is the one obtained from $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ by removing the redundant part $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ \[see Eq.(6)\]. Let us call an ensemble $``$ ‘pure’ when all the states $`\widehat{\rho }_i^\mathrm{R}`$ are pure states, and call it ‘mixed’ otherwise. Then, Eq. (18) implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{v}}=0`$ for pure ensembles. It should be noted that the pure/mixed classification is independent of the one by classical (all $`\rho _i`$ commutes) and quantum. It has been shown  that there exist classical ensembles with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{v}}>0`$. The properties of the two gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{AF}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{v}}`$ are summarized in Table I. When the letter states are distinct, namely, $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i\}`$ are all orthogonal, the optimal compression rates for the three scenarios are equal. When the letter states overlap with each other and are not completely distinguishable, there can be two types of overlaps. One is the cases when each letter state is noisy. In such cases, whether or not the identity of each letter is given as side information affect the compressibility. The other way of overlapping is quantum one, where the letter states are pure and suffers no noises, but are not completely distinguishable from each other due to nonorthogonality. In such cases, the compressibility depends on whether small errors (even an asymptotically vanishing one) are allowed or not.

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (Grant No. 12740243) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (Grant No. 12440111) by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

$`E`$-string was first discovered in the study of zero-size instantons in heterotic string theory . In the M-theory description  $`E`$-string appears at the intersection of the (end-of-world) 9-brane and a membrane which connects the 9-brane to a 5-brane representing the small instanton. An $`E`$-string carries a level one $`E_8`$ current algebra and possesses one half of the degrees of freedom of the heterotic string. In fact an $`E`$-string may be obtained by wrapping a M5-brane around $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ surface  while a heterotic string is obtained by wrapping M5-brane around $`K_3`$. The second homology $`b_2^+=1,b_2^{}=9`$ of $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ generates 1 (9) right-(left-)moving bosonic degrees of freedom in 2-dimensions. Together with the freedom representing the position of the M5-brane one obtains 4 (12) right (left) bosonic degrees of freedom of $`E`$-string which is one half of the heterotic string. $`E`$-string possesses one half of supersymmetry of the heterotic theory and the reduction of supersymmetry leads to threshold BPS bound states and non-trivial dynamics in low energy $`E`$-string theory.

It is known that the $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ can be obtained by blowing up 9 points of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^2`$ and is also called as an almost del Pezzo surface $`_9`$. Elements in the second homology group of $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ span a unimodular lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{9,1}`$ with signature $`(1,9)`$ which contains the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^8`$ of $`E_8`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{9,1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^8\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1,1}`$. The existence of the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^8`$ is the origin of the $`E_8`$ symmetry in $`E`$-string theory.

It is known that the del Pezzo surface $`_9`$ possesses an elliptic fibration over a $`𝐏^1`$ with 12 singular fibers. The fibration is described by a family of elliptic curves written in a Weierstrass form

$$𝒞:y^2=4x^3f(u,\tau ;m_i)xg(u,\tau ;m_i),i=1,2,\mathrm{},8$$
(1.1)
where the coefficient functions $`f,g`$ are degree 4 and 6 polynomials in $`u`$, respectively

$`f(u,\tau ;m_i)=a_0(\tau )u^4+a_1(\tau ;m_i)u^3+a_2(\tau ;m_i)u^2+a_3(\tau ;m_i)u+a_4(\tau ;m_i),`$ (1.2)
$`g(u,\tau ;m_i)=b_0(\tau )u^6+b_1(\tau ;m_i)u^5+b_2(\tau ;m_i)u^4+b_3(\tau ;m_i)u^3+b_4(\tau ;m_i)u^2`$
$`+b_5(\tau ;m_i)u+b_6(\tau ;m_i).`$ (1.3)
$`u`$ parametrizes the base $`𝐏^1`$ and $`m_ii=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$ represent the position of the blow-up points (position of the 9th blow-up point is fixed by the other 8 points). $`\tau `$ gives the modulus of the elliptic fiber at $`u=\mathrm{}`$ and is also the modulus of the torus $`T^2`$ upon which $`E`$-string theory is compactified down to 4-dimensions. $`\{m_i\}`$ correspond physically to the masses of $`8`$ hypermultiplets in $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory on $`𝐑^4\times T^2`$.

With $`\tau `$ being the modulus at $`u=\mathrm{}`$, $`a_0(\tau ),b_0(\tau )`$ are fixed to

$$a_0(\tau )=\frac{1}{12}E_4(\tau ),b_0(\tau )=\frac{1}{216}E_6(\tau ),$$
(1.4)
where $`E_n`$ is the Eisenstein series with weight $`n`$,

$$E_{2n}(\tau )=1+\frac{(2\pi i)^{2n}}{(2n1)!\zeta (2n)}\underset{m=1}{}\sigma _{2n1}(m)q^m,\sigma _k(m)=\underset{d|m}{}d^k,q=e^{2\pi i\tau }.$$
(1.5)
By shifting the variable $`u`$ we can eliminate either one of the functions $`a_1`$ or $`b_1`$. In the following we choose a “gauge” where we put

$$a_1(\tau ;m_i)=0.$$
(1.6)
We call eq.(1.1) as the six-dimensional Seiberg–Witten (SW) curve: the six-dimensional curve determines the prepotential of $`E`$-string theory and gives a complete description of its low-energy dynamics. Previously there were attempts at deriving the six-dimensional curve , however, only partial results with a few non-vanishing mass parameters $`\{m_i\}`$ were obtained. In this paper we will determine all the coefficient functions $`a_j,b_j`$ and the curve (1.1) for arbitrary values of $`\{m_i\}`$. It turns out that the functions $`a_j,b_j`$ are expressed in terms of characters of affine $`E_8`$ at level $`j`$.

Six-dimensional curves with lower-rank symmetry groups can be easily obtained from (1.1) by taking some of the mass parameters $`\{m_i\}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ or adjusting them to special values. We shall show that the known five-dimensional SW curves  are reproduced from the six-dimensional curve by taking the limit $`\text{Im}\tau +\mathrm{}`$. Four-dimensional curves  are also obtained by further taking the remaining period of $`T^2`$ to 0. Thus our six-dimensional curve serves as some kind of master theory encompassing all possible SW theories.

Let us now recall the relation between BPS states of the $`E`$-string and holomorphic curves in the Calabi–Yau 3-fold  and also the partition function of the $`𝒩=4`$ $`U(n)`$ Yang–Mills theory on $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ . Consider an F-theory compactification down to 6-dimensions on a Calabi–Yau 3-fold $`K`$ which is elliptically fibered over a base $`B`$. We choose a curve $`C`$ inside the base $`B`$ so that the elliptic fibration restricted to $`C`$ gives the $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$. Consider a D3-brane wrapped around $`C`$, which gives rise to a string in 6-dimensions. Low energy dynamics of such a string can be studied by looking at its BPS spectrum. We compactify the 5th dimension on a circle $`R`$ and count the BPS states of the string with winding number $`n`$ and momentum $`k`$. We denote the number of these states as $`Z_{n,k}`$.

Next by using a duality between F- and M-theory we go to a M-theory description: a compactification of F-theory on $`K\times S^1`$, where the $`S^1`$ has radius $`R`$, is equivalent to a compactification of M-theory on $`K`$ with the Kähler parameter of the elliptic fiber being equal to $`1/R`$. In M-theory 5-dimensional BPS states are obtained by wrapping a membrane around holomorphic curves. Then the number of BPS states $`Z_{n,k}`$ is given by the number of curves in the class $`n[C]+k[E]`$ where $`[C]`$ ($`[E]`$) denotes the class of the base (elliptic fiber) of $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$. Thus the counting of BPS states of 6-dimensional $`E`$-string wrapped around a circle is related to the counting of holomorphic curves in $`K`$ which can be analyzed by using the technique of mirror symmetry.

If we introduce M5-branes, the number of BPS states becomes further related to the partition function of $`U(n)`$ Yang–Mills theory on $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ . Consider a M5-brane wrapped around $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$. One then obtains a string in 5-dimensions. In order to study its spectrum we may wrap the string around a circle and compute its toroidal partition function. Then the M5-brane becomes effectively wrapped around $`\frac{1}{2}K_3\times T^2`$. If we consider the string $`n`$-times wound around a circle, M5-brane wraps around $`T^2`$ $`n`$-times and one obtains $`𝒩=4`$ $`U(n)`$ Yang–Mills theory on $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$. The gauge coupling constant is given by the modulus $`\tau `$ of the torus and the momentum $`k`$ is mapped to the instanton number. Thus $`Z_{n,k}`$ is also interpreted as the $`k`$-instanton contribution to the partition function of $`U(n)`$ gauge theory on $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$.

We want to determine the prepotential of the theory

$`(\varphi ,\tau ;m_i)=_{classical}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}q^{n/2}Z_n(\tau ;m_i)e^{2\pi in\varphi },q^{n/2}Z_n(\tau ;m_i)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{}}Z_{n,k}(m_i)q^k,`$
$`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$ (1.7)
where $`\varphi `$ is the Kähler parameter which is dual (mirror) to the variable $`u`$. We have inserted a factor $`q^{n/2}`$ for the sake of a good modular property of $`Z_n`$: $`Z_n`$ becomes a (quasi-)Jacobi form of weight $`2`$.

Actually the functions $`Z_n`$ have already been computed recursively up to $`Z_4`$ by making use of the holomorphic anomaly and the gap condition ($`Z_{n,k}=0`$ for $`0<k<n`$) in . One may continue this computation and obtain more data on $`Z_n`$. On the other hand, from the SW curve (1.1) one can compute the prepotential by making use of the mirror-type transformation and express $`Z_n`$ in terms of the coefficient functions $`a_j,b_j`$. It turns out that $`Z_n`$ is written as a polynomial in $`a_j,b_j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}jn`$ and in particular linear in $`a_n,b_n`$. Hence given the data $`\{Z_n\}`$ it is easy to determine $`\{a_j,b_j\}`$. In our actual computation we have used the data up to $`Z_8`$ to determine the Seiberg–Witten curve.

## 2. Instanton Expansion

Let us next describe the standard mirror-type transformation in Seiberg–Witten theory adopted to the present situation . The coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ of $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory is given by the modulus of the elliptic curve

$$j(\stackrel{~}{\tau })=\frac{1728f(u,\tau ;m_i)^3}{f(u,\tau ;m_i)^327g(u,\tau ;m_i)^2}.$$
(2.1)
Here $`j`$ is the elliptic j-function. We may expand the right-hand side of the above equation in $`1/u`$ and obtain

$`j(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1728E_4(\tau )^3}{E_4(\tau )^3E_6(\tau )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4(\tau )^3E_6(\tau )b_1(\tau ;m_i)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.2)
$`=`$ $`j(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4(\tau )^3E_6(\tau )b_1(\tau ;m_i)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}E_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/1728=\eta ^{24}`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau `$ at $`u=\mathrm{}`$. By inverting the j-function in (2.2) we can generate a Taylor series expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ around $`u=\mathrm{}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau +\frac{i}{8\pi }\frac{E_4b_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{u}+\frac{i}{384\pi }\frac{4E_6\mathrm{\Delta }a_2+48E_4\mathrm{\Delta }b_2+5E_4E_6b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+E_2E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{1}{u^2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(2.3)
Periods of the torus $`\omega _1,\omega _2`$ are given by

$$\omega _1=\frac{i}{2\pi }\left(\frac{E_4(\stackrel{~}{\tau })}{12f(u,\tau ;m_i)}\right)^{1/4},\omega _2=\stackrel{~}{\tau }\omega _1.$$
(2.4)
Both of these $`\omega _i`$ are also expanded in Taylor series in $`1/u`$. We can then easily integrate them and obtain functions $`\varphi ,\varphi _D`$

$$\varphi =𝑑u\omega _1(u,\tau ;m_i),\varphi _D=𝑑u\omega _2(u,\tau ;m_i)=𝑑u\stackrel{~}{\tau }(u,\tau ;m_i)\omega _1(u,\tau ;m_i).$$
(2.5)
Since $`\varphi /u=\omega _1,\varphi _D/u=\omega _2`$, $`\varphi ,\varphi _D`$ correspond to the variables of the Coulomb branch $`a,a_D`$ in the 4-dimensional Seiberg–Witten theory. Prepotential is defined by

$$\frac{}{\varphi }=\varphi _D$$
(2.6)
as usual.

Lower order computation goes as follows: $`\omega _1`$ has an expansion

$`\omega _1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{96\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(E_2E_4E_6)b_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^2}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (2.7)
$`\varphi `$ is then given by

$$\varphi =\varphi _0+\frac{i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}u+\frac{i}{96\pi }\frac{(E_2E_4E_6)b_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{u}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.8)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is an integration constant. Thus

$$\frac{1}{u}=e^{2\pi i(\varphi \varphi _0)}+\frac{1}{48}\frac{(E_2E_4E_6)b_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}e^{4\pi i(\varphi \varphi _0)}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.9)
and therefore

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}=\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau `$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4b_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{2\pi i(\varphi \varphi _0)}`$ (2.10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{192\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_6\mathrm{\Delta }a_2+24E_4\mathrm{\Delta }b_2+2E_4E_6b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+E_2E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}e^{4\pi i(\varphi \varphi _0)}+\mathrm{}.`$
By integrating twice in $`\varphi `$ we obtain the prepotential. In the following we choose $`\varphi _0=(\mathrm{ln}\eta ^{12})/2\pi i1/2`$.

We have performed the above transformation up to higher orders and obtained the partition functions expressed in terms of the coefficient functions of the SW curve. We present lower order terms

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4}{\eta ^{12}}}b_1,`$ (2.11)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}E_6a_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_4b_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4E_6}{\eta ^{24}}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\eta ^{24}}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (2.12)
$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\eta ^{12}E_6a_3{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\eta ^{12}E_4b_3{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\eta ^{12}a_2b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{512}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{\eta ^{12}}}a_2b_1`$ (2.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{512}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2E_4E_6}{\eta ^{12}}}a_2b_1{\displaystyle \frac{15}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4E_6}{\eta ^{12}}}b_2b_1{\displaystyle \frac{9}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\eta ^{12}}}b_2b_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{591}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_4}{\eta ^{12}}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2048}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{\eta ^{36}}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{512}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E_6}{\eta ^{36}}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2048}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{\eta ^{36}}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}).`$
We have obtained similar formulas up to $`Z_8`$.

## 3. Holomorphic Anomaly and Gap Condition

Partition functions $`Z_n`$ of $`U(n)`$ gauge theory on $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ have been computed in  by imposing the relation of holomorphic anomaly and gap condition (see  for a different analysis). Holomorphic anomaly occurs in the gauge theory due to the appearance of reducible connections and corresponds to the existence of threshold bound states in the $`E`$-string spectrum. Holomorphic anomaly enters via the dependence on $`E_2`$ of $`Z_n`$ and governed by the relation

$$\frac{Z_n}{E_2}=\frac{1}{24}\underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}m(nm)Z_mZ_{nm}.$$
(3.1)
(3.1) corresponds to the reduction of the $`U(n)`$ connection down to that of $`U(m)\times U(nm)`$. Holomorphic anomaly is tied with the fact that $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ does not possess a holomorphic 2-form and there exists no mass perturbation of $`𝒩=4`$ theory which splits the location of $`n`$ M5-branes. Reduction of supersymmetry leads to a binding force among the branes.

Gap condition on the other hand requires that instantons with degree $`k<n`$ do not exist in $`U(n)`$ gauge theory. This comes from the positivity of intersection numbers among holomorphic curves in $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$.

These two conditions and consideration of modular invariance uniquely determine the amplitudes. We list the first 3 instanton amplitudes rewritten slightly from

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(m_i;\tau )}{\eta ^{12}}}`$ (3.2)
where $`P(m_i;\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\theta _{\mathrm{}}(m_j|\tau )\right],`$ (3.3)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^{24}}}\left[f_{20}(\tau )P(2m_i;2\tau )+f_{21}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})+f_{21}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{2}})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}E_2Z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
where $`f_{20}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\theta _3(\tau )^4\theta _4(\tau )^4\left(\theta _3(\tau )^4+\theta _4(\tau )^4\right),`$ (3.6)
$`f_{21}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{384}}\theta _3(\tau )^4\theta _2(\tau )^4\left(\theta _3(\tau )^4+\theta _2(\tau )^4\right),`$
$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^{36}}}[f_{30}(\tau )P(3m_i;3\tau )+f_{31}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{3}})`$ (3.7)
$`+f_{31}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{3}})+f_{31}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{3}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{288}}E_4(\tau )P(m_i;\tau )^3]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}E_2Z_2Z_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{288}}E_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$
where $`f_{30}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{5}{216}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{36}}{\eta (3\tau )^{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\eta (\tau )^{24},`$ (3.9)
$`f_{31}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{5}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{36}}{\eta (\tau /3)^{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}\eta (\tau )^{24}.`$
Note that the function $`P(m_i;\tau )`$ is (up to $`\eta ^8`$) the character of the level-one representation of $`\widehat{E}_8`$ and $`P(2m_i;2\tau ),P(m_i;\frac{\tau }{2}),P(m_i;\frac{\tau +1}{2})`$ are linear combinations of characters of 3 level-two representations of $`\widehat{E}_8`$. In general the amplitude $`Z_n`$ is expressed in terms of level-$`n`$ representations of $`\widehat{E}_8`$. There exist 1,3,5,10,15,27 distinct representations of $`\widehat{E}_8`$ at the levels 1,2,3,4,5,6, respectively. Coefficient functions $`f_{n0}`$ are modular forms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(n)`$ which consists of matrices of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ with $`adbc=1`$ and $`a,d=1,c=0\text{mod}n`$. Functions $`f_{n1}`$ are the S-transform of $`f_{n0}`$.

Using holomorphic anomaly and the gap condition we have obtained the partition functions up to $`Z_8`$.

## 4. Six-dimensional Curve

Now by using these data we can determine the coefficient functions of SW curve. We present the first few terms and relegate the rest to Appendix A.

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{P(m_i;\tau )}{E_4}},`$ (4.1)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_4\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[f_{a2,0}(\tau )P(2m_i;2\tau )+f_{a2,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})+f_{a2,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{2}})\right]`$ (4.2)
where $`f_{a2,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(E_4(\tau )9\theta _2(\tau )^8\right),`$ (4.4)
$`f_{a2,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(E_4(\tau )9\theta _4(\tau )^8\right),`$
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[f_{b2,0}(\tau )P(2m_i;2\tau )+f_{b2,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})+f_{b2,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{2}})\right]`$ (4.5)
where $`f_{b2,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\left(\theta _3(\tau )^4+\theta _4(\tau )^4\right)\left(E_4(\tau )^2+60E_4(\tau )\theta _2(\tau )^845\theta _2(\tau )^{16}\right),`$ (4.7)
$`f_{b2,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{576}}\left(\theta _3(\tau )^4+\theta _2(\tau )^4\right)\left(E_4(\tau )^2+60E_4(\tau )\theta _4(\tau )^845\theta _4(\tau )^{16}\right),`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_4^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[f_{a3,0}(\tau )P(3m_i;3\tau )+f_{a3,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{3}})+f_{a3,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{3}})`$ (4.8)
$`+f_{a3,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{3}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}E_6(\tau )P(m_i;\tau )^3],`$
where $`f_{a3,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}E_4(\tau )h_2(\tau )^2\left(7E_4(\tau )9h_0(\tau )^4\right),`$ (4.10)
$`f_{a3,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3^8}}E_4(\tau )h_3(\tau /3)^2\left(7E_4(\tau )h_0(\tau /3)^4\right),`$
$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[f_{b3,0}(\tau )P(3m_i;3\tau )+f_{b3,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{3}})+f_{b3,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{3}})`$ (4.11)
$`+f_{b3,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{3}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{54}}(8E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}5E_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})P(m_i;\tau )^3],`$
where $`f_{b3,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}E_4(\tau )^2h_2(\tau )^2\left(32h_2(\tau )^2+48h_2(\tau )h_0(\tau )^381h_0(\tau )^6\right),`$
$`f_{b3,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{23^{12}}}E_4(\tau )^2h_3(\tau /3)^2\left(32h_3(\tau /3)^2+48h_3(\tau /3)h_0(\tau /3)^381h_0(\tau /3)^6\right).`$
Here functions $`h_i`$ are defined by

$`h_0(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{n_1^2+n_2^2n_1n_2}=\theta _3(2\tau )\theta _3(6\tau )+\theta _2(2\tau )\theta _2(6\tau ),`$ (4.14)
$`h_2(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^9}{\eta (3\tau )^3}},h_3(\tau )=27{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (3\tau )^9}{\eta (\tau )^3}}.`$ (4.15)
It is fortunate that the six-dimensional curve can be written in a relatively compact expression. As we have mentioned, coefficient functions $`a_j,b_j`$ are expressed in terms of affine $`E_8`$ characters at level-$`j`$. Functions $`f_{n,0}`$ are modular forms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(n)`$ and $`f_{n,1}`$ are their S-transform. We have checked that our curve reduces to the results of  when six of the mass parameters are set equal to zero.

## 5. Five-dimensional Curve

Let us next see how our result reproduces the five-dimensional curve in the limit $`q0`$. Affine $`E_8`$ characters are reduced to those of the representations of finite-dimensional $`E_8`$ algebra in this limit. Let us first introduce a labeling of the fundamental representations of $`E_8`$ as in Fig. 1 where we also show the level of each representation. We then introduce a notation

$$\rho =\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & n_2& & & & \\ n_1& n_3& n_4& n_5& n_6& n_7& n_8\end{array}\right]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}n_i\rho _i,n_i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(5.1)
for a representation $`\rho `$ of $`E_8`$ whose highest weight is given by the sum of highest weights of the fundamental representation $`\rho _i`$ with multiplicity $`n_i`$. The level of the representation $`\rho `$ is given by $`_i\mathrm{}_in_i`$ where $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is the level of $`\rho _i`$. Weyl-orbit character for the representation $`\rho `$ is given by

$$w_\rho (m_i)=\underset{\stackrel{}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho )}{}e^{i\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{\alpha }}$$
(5.2)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ runs over the weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho )`$ of the $`E_8`$ Weyl orbit containing the highest-weight state of the representation $`\rho `$.

With this preparation we can present the five-dimensional $`E_8`$ curve

$`y^2=4x^3F(u;m_i)xG(u;m_i),`$ (5.3)
$`F(u;m_i)=A_0u^4+A_2(m_i)u^2+A_3(m_i)u+A_4(m_i),`$
$`G(u;m_i)=B_0u^6+B_1u^5+B_2(m_i)u^4+B_3(m_i)u^3+B_4(m_i)u^2+B_5(m_i)u+B_6(m_i)`$
with

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{12},A_2=\frac{2}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+12w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]1440,`$ (5.4)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`2w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+96w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]1152w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+103680,`$ (5.5)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{4}{3}w[{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{4}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{8}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{16}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+24w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}]`$ (5.6)
$`+\frac{328}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+48w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{8960}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+28128w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]2105280,`$
$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{216},B_1=4,B_2=\frac{1}{18}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]3w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+840,`$ (5.7)
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{6}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]4w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]8w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+528w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]79680,`$ (5.8)
$`B_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{9}w[{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+\frac{1}{9}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{28}{9}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{152}{9}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]92w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}]`$ (5.9)
$`\frac{316}{9}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+416w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+\frac{13088}{9}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]35536w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+3911520,`$
$`B_5`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{2}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{16}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{74}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]96w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]\frac{160}{3}w[{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]`$ (5.10)
$`\frac{280}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+80w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+1088w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+7872w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}]+\frac{9680}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]`$
$`15264w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{196448}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+1075776w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]97251840,`$
$`B_6`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{8}{27}w[{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+\frac{4}{9}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+\frac{2}{9}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{16}{9}w[{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]\frac{8}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]`$
$`8w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]\frac{88}{9}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]\frac{112}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]\frac{1000}{9}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}]\frac{992}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}]`$
$`70w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]64w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+\frac{112}{9}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+636w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+3472w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]`$
$`+1584w[{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+3038w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+\frac{7376}{9}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]18480w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]176608w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}]`$
$`\frac{196384}{3}w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+197968w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]+936200w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}]12291232w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}]+971250560.`$
(It is also possible to represent this curve using Weyl-orbit characters only for fundamental representations of $`E_8`$. See Appendix B. In this case products of characters appear in the formula.)

This curve has a manifest $`E_8`$ symmetry and can be derived from the expression of  with $`SO(16)`$ symmetry by a suitable shifting of variables and rearrangement of terms. Note that $`A_j,B_j`$ contain representations with levels $`1lj`$ (constant term is interpreted as level-one representation). This is consistent with the fact that an affine representation of level $`j`$ is reduced to finite-dimensional representations with levels $`lj`$ in the limit $`q0`$.

In fact we can explicitly show that

$`\underset{q0}{lim}a_j(\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`A_j(m_i),j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},4,`$ (5.12)
$`\underset{q0}{lim}b_j(\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`B_j(m_i),j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},6`$ (5.13)
hold. Since

$$P(m_i;\tau ),E_4(\tau )1\text{as}q0$$
(5.14)
we can easily check the relation (5.13) for $`b_1`$. In general it is convenient to use the basis of affine Weyl-orbit characters which are given by, for instance,

$`\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`P(2m_i;2\tau ),`$ (5.15)
$`\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(P(m_i;\tau /2)+P(m_i;\tau /2+1/2)\right)P(2m_i;2\tau ),`$ (5.16)
$`\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(P(m_i;\tau /2)P(m_i;\tau /2+1/2)\right)`$ (5.17)
at level-two. Then by taking the limit $`q0`$ we find

$`a_2(\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24E_4(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )}}((16E_4(\tau )+9\theta _2(\tau )^8)\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)`$ (5.18)
$`+9(\theta _3(\tau )^8\theta _4(\tau )^8)\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)135\theta _2(\tau )^8\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i))`$
$``$ $`\frac{2}{3}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](m_i)+12w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}](m_i)1440=A_2(m_i),`$ (5.19)
$`b_2(\tau ;m_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{576E_4(\tau )^2\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )}}`$ (5.20)
$`\times ((\theta _3(\tau )^4+\theta _4(\tau )^4)(16E_4(\tau )^215E_4(\tau )\theta _2(\tau )^8+45\theta _2(\tau )^{16})\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)`$
$`+9\theta _2(\tau )^4(12E_4(\tau )^2+25E_4(\tau )\theta _2(\tau )^815\theta _2(\tau )^{16})\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i)`$
$`+135\theta _2(\tau )^8(\theta _3(\tau )^4+\theta _4(\tau )^4)(7E_4(\tau )5\theta _2(\tau )^8)\widehat{w}^{(2)}[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](\tau ;m_i))`$
$``$ $`\frac{1}{18}w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}](m_i)3w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}](m_i)+840=B_2(m_i).`$ (5.21)
Flow of $`E_8`$ theory to theories with smaller symmetry groups has been extensively discussed in the literature . In Appendix C we present five-dimensional curves with manifest $`E_n`$ symmetry for $`n=6,7`$.

## 6. Four-dimensional Curve

In order to derive four-dimensional curve we first have to reinstate the radius $`R`$ of the 5th dimension and redefine the mass parameter as

$$m_iRm_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},8.$$
(6.1)
Now the new mass parameters carry the dimension of mass. Four-dimensional limit is obtained at $`R0`$. Thus we expand the characters $`w_\rho `$ in power series of $`R`$. Lower order terms of the series are canceled if we make a suitable shift of the parameter as

$$uu+6c_2R^2\frac{1}{4}c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R^4+\frac{1}{240}c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}R^6$$
(6.2)
where $`c_2`$ is the second order Casimir invariant

$$c_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}m_i^2.$$
(6.3)
When we rescale variables as

$$xR^{10}x,yR^{15}y,uR^6u,$$
(6.4)
all the terms in the curve cancel up to order $`R^{29}`$ and the $`E_8`$ curve of 4-dimensional theory  appears as the coefficient of $`R^{30}`$.

Flow of $`E_8`$ theory to theories with lower symmetry has been discussed in .

## 7. Discussions

In this paper we have constructed the six-dimensional Seiberg–Witten curve which amounts to an equation describing the complex structure of $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ : by applying the mirror symmetry technique one can generate the number of holomorphic curves and gauge theory partition functions on $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ at any higher order. It will be interesting to see if a similar construction of SW curves is possible for manifolds other than the $`\frac{1}{2}K_3`$ surface.

In  it was suggested that $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ symmetry of $`N_f=4`$ four-dimensional SW theory should be identified as the $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ symmetry of the torus $`T^2`$ of six-dimensional theory. Thus there must be a way to obtain four-dimensional $`N_f=4`$ theory directly from the six-dimensional theory without going through the degenerate limit of $`T^2`$ as described in the previous sections. It is interesting to see if there in fact exists such a direct link between four- and six-dimensional theories.

## Acknowledgements

K.S. would like to thank M. Naka, Y. Ohtake, S. Terashima for valuable discussions. Research of T.E. is supported in part by the fund for the Special Priority Area no.707 “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles” by the Japan Ministry of Education.

## Appendix A. Coefficient Functions of Six-dimensional SW Curve

$`a_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[16\theta _4(2\tau )^8P(4m_i;4\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}}\theta _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}\right)^8P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4}})`$ (A.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}}\theta _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{2}}\right)^8P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{4}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}}\theta _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{2}}\right)^8P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{4}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}}\theta _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{2}}\right)^8P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{4}})+\theta _4(2\tau )^8P(2m_i;\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`+E_4P(2m_i;\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}E_4\mathrm{\Delta }a_2b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{128}}E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}],`$
$`b_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[f_{b4,0}(\tau )P(4m_i;4\tau )+f_{b4,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4}})`$ (A.2)
$`+f_{b4,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{4}})+f_{b4,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{4}})`$
$`+f_{b4,1}(\tau +3)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{4}})+f_{b4,2}(\tau )P(2m_i;\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{48}}E_6P(2m_i;\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}E_4E_6\mathrm{\Delta }b_3b_13E_4\mathrm{\Delta }b_2b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{55}{384}}E_4E_6b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}]`$
where $`f_{b4,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\left(32\theta _3(2\tau )^{12}75\theta _3(2\tau )^4\theta _4(2\tau )^8+2\theta _4(2\tau )^{12}\right),`$ (A.5)
$`f_{b4,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{11}9}}\left(32\theta _3(\tau /2)^{12}75\theta _3(\tau /2)^4\theta _2(\tau /2)^8+2\theta _2(\tau /2)^{12}\right),`$
$`f_{b4,2}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}\left(32\theta _2(2\tau )^{12}75\theta _2(2\tau )^4\theta _4(2\tau )^82\theta _4(2\tau )^{12}\right),`$
$`b_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}[f_{b5,0}(\tau )P(5m_i;5\tau )+f_{b5,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{5}})+f_{b5,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{5}})`$ (A.6)
$`+f_{b5,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{5}})+f_{b5,1}(\tau +3)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{5}})`$
$`+f_{b5,1}(\tau +4)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +4}{5}})`$
$`+(g_{b5,0}(\tau )P(4m_i;4\tau )+g_{b5,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4}})`$
$`+g_{b5,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{4}})+g_{b5,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{4}})`$
$`+g_{b5,1}(\tau +3)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{4}})+g_{b5,2}(\tau )P(2m_i;\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}))P(m_i;\tau )]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2b_3b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}E_6\mathrm{\Delta }b_2b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9216}}(53E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+67E_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}\right]`$
where $`f_{b5,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta (\tau )^{16}\eta (5\tau )^{16}`$ (A.11)
$`\times \left(5^{11}+45^9{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^6}{\eta (5\tau )^6}}+225^6{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{12}}{\eta (5\tau )^{12}}}+45^4{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{18}}{\eta (5\tau )^{18}}}31{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{24}}{\eta (5\tau )^{24}}}\right),`$
$`f_{b5,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta (\tau )^{16}\eta (\tau /5)^{16}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^6}{\eta (\tau /5)^6}}+22{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{12}}{\eta (\tau /5)^{12}}}+20{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{18}}{\eta (\tau /5)^{18}}}31{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )^{24}}{\eta (\tau /5)^{24}}}\right),`$
$`g_{b5,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta _3(2\tau )^4\theta _4(2\tau )^8(1024\theta _3(2\tau )^{12}+1664\theta _3(2\tau )^8\theta _4(2\tau )^4`$
$`644\theta _3(2\tau )^4\theta _4(2\tau )^8+55\theta _4(2\tau )^{12}),`$
$`g_{b5,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{19}3}}\theta _3(\tau /2)^4\theta _2(\tau /2)^8(1024\theta _3(\tau /2)^{12}+1664\theta _3(\tau /2)^8\theta _2(\tau /2)^4`$
$`644\theta _3(\tau /2)^4\theta _2(\tau /2)^8+55\theta _2(\tau /2)^{12}),`$
$`g_{b5,2}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\theta _2(2\tau )^4\theta _4(2\tau )^8(1024\theta _2(2\tau )^{12}+1664\theta _2(2\tau )^8\theta _4(2\tau )^4`$
$`+644\theta _2(2\tau )^4\theta _4(2\tau )^8+55\theta _4(2\tau )^{12}),`$
$`b_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_4\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}[f_{b6,0}(\tau )P(6m_i;6\tau )+f_{b6,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{6}})+f_{b6,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{6}})`$ (A.12)
$`+f_{b6,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{6}})+f_{b6,1}(\tau +3)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{6}})`$
$`+f_{b6,1}(\tau +4)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +4}{6}})+f_{b6,1}(\tau +5)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +5}{6}})`$
$`+f_{b6,2}(\tau )P(3m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{3\tau }{2}})+f_{b6,2}(\tau +1)P(3m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{3\tau +1}{2}})+f_{b6,3}(\tau )P(2m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{3}})`$
$`+f_{b6,3}(\tau +1)P(2m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau +2}{3}})+f_{b6,3}(\tau +2)P(2m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau +1}{3}})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{E_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[g_{b6,0}(\tau )P(4m_i;4\tau )+g_{b6,1}(\tau )P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4}})`$
$`+g_{b6,1}(\tau +1)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +1}{4}})+g_{b6,1}(\tau +2)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +2}{4}})`$
$`+g_{b6,1}(\tau +3)P(m_i;{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +3}{4}})+g_{b6,2}(\tau )P(2m_i;\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{83}{7344}}E_6\mathrm{\Delta }^2b_5b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{83}{408}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2b_4b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{34}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2b_3b_2b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{6528}}E_6\mathrm{\Delta }b_3b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+{\displaystyle \frac{669}{1088}}\mathrm{\Delta }b_2b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7344}}E_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2a_3a_2b_1{\displaystyle \frac{419}{235008}}E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }a_3b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36864}}E_4E_6\mathrm{\Delta }a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1536}}E_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }a_2b_2b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}}E_6\mathrm{\Delta }b_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1215}{69632}}E_6b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}]`$
where $`f_{b6,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{4}{17}}\left(h_0(\tau )+h_0(2\tau )\right)\left(h_0(\tau )2h_0(2\tau )\right)^2`$ (A.19)
$`\times \left(27h_0(\tau )^3+84h_0(\tau )^2h_0(2\tau )+72h_0(\tau )h_0(2\tau )^232h_0(2\tau )^3\right),`$
$`f_{b6,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{297432}}\left(2h_0(\tau /3)+h_0(\tau /6)\right)\left(h_0(\tau /3)h_0(\tau /6)\right)^2`$
$`\times \left(27h_0(\tau /3)^3+42h_0(\tau /3)^2h_0(\tau /6)+18h_0(\tau /3)h_0(\tau /6)^24h_0(\tau /6)^3\right),`$
$`f_{b6,2}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{136}}\left(2h_0(\tau )+h_0(\tau /2)\right)\left(h_0(\tau )+h_0(\tau /2)\right)^2`$
$`\times \left(27h_0(\tau )^342h_0(\tau )^2h_0(\tau /2)+18h_0(\tau )h_0(\tau /2)^2+4h_0(\tau /2)^3\right),`$
$`f_{b6,3}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{4}{37179}}\left(h_0(\tau /3)h_0(2\tau /3)\right)\left(h_0(\tau /3)+2h_0(2\tau /3)\right)^2`$
$`\times \left(27h_0(\tau /3)^384h_0(\tau /3)^2h_0(2\tau /3)+72h_0(\tau /3)h_0(2\tau /3)^2+32h_0(2\tau /3)^3\right),`$
$`g_{b6,0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{640}{51}}\theta _3(2\tau )^4+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}\theta _4(2\tau )^4,`$
$`g_{b6,1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{5}{408}}\theta _3(\tau /2)^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{288}}\theta _2(\tau /2)^4,`$
$`g_{b6,2}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{40}{51}}\theta _2(2\tau )^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\theta _4(2\tau )^4.`$
## Appendix B. Coefficient Functions of 5d SW Curve in terms of <br>Characters of Fundamental Representations

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{12},A_2=\frac{2}{3}w_1+12w_81440,A_3=2w_2+96w_11152w_8+103680,`$ (B.1)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{4}{3}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4w_316w_648w_1w_8144w_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (B.2)
$`+400w_2+1440w_7+1728w_1+41472w_82073600,`$
$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{216},B_1=4,B_2=\frac{1}{18}w_13w_8+840,`$ (B.3)
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{6}w_24w_78w_1+528w_879680,`$ (B.4)
$`B_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{9}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{3}w_3\frac{16}{3}w_624w_1w_8120w_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (B.5)
$`+\frac{424}{3}w_2+1272w_7+4608w_125920w_8+3939840,`$
$`B_5`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{3}w_1w_24w_516w_1w_7+64w_2w_8+288w_7w_896w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}60w_3160w_6+3456w_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (B.6)
$`+800w_224480w_7108480w_1+933120w_897873920,`$
$`B_6`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{8}{27}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+w_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{4}{3}w_1w_34w_4\frac{32}{3}w_1w_648w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}w_8+48w_2w_7+288w_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}40w_3w_8`$ (B.7)
$`480w_6w_82592w_1w_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}9792w_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+\frac{1124}{3}w_1w_2+548w_5+6688w_1w_7+1884w_2w_8`$
$`+25632w_7w_8+24576w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+12920w_3+88320w_6+578688w_1w_8+1714176w_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`1694400w_28460000w_730102720w_1104198400w_8+721612800`$
where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_8`$ denote $`E_8`$ Weyl-orbit characters of fundamental representations and are defined as

$`w_1=w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_2=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_3=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_4=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],`$
$`w_5=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_6=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_7=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_8=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}].`$ (B.8)
## Appendix C. Five-dimensional $`E_n`$ SW Curve

$`E_7`$ curve:

$`y^2`$ $`=`$ $`4x^3\left(\frac{1}{12}u^4+(\frac{2}{3}w_1+12)u^22w_2u+(\frac{4}{3}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4w_316w_648w_1144)\right)x`$ (C.1)
$`(\frac{1}{216}u^6+(\frac{1}{18}w_13)u^4+(\frac{1}{6}w_24w_7)u^3+(\frac{2}{9}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{3}w_3\frac{16}{3}w_624w_1120)u^2`$
$`+(\frac{2}{3}w_1w_24w_516w_1w_7+64w_2+288w_7)u+(\frac{8}{27}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+w_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{4}{3}w_1w_34w_4`$
$`\frac{32}{3}w_1w_648w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+48w_2w_7+288w_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}40w_3480w_62592w_19792))`$
where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_7`$ denote $`E_7`$ Weyl-orbit characters and are defined as

$`w_1=w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_2=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_3=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_4=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],`$
$`w_5=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_6=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_7=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}].`$ (C.2)
$`E_6`$ curve:

$`y^2=4x^3`$ $``$ $`\left(\frac{1}{12}u^4\frac{2}{3}w_1u^22w_2u+(\frac{4}{3}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4w_316w_6)\right)x`$ (C.3)
$``$ $`(\frac{1}{216}u^6\frac{1}{18}w_1u^4+(\frac{1}{6}w_24)u^3+(\frac{2}{9}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{3}w_3\frac{16}{3}w_6)u^2`$
$`+(\frac{2}{3}w_1w_24w_516w_1)u`$
$`+(\frac{8}{27}w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+w_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{4}{3}w_1w_34w_4\frac{32}{3}w_1w_6+48w_2+288))`$
where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_6`$ denote $`E_6`$ Weyl-orbit characters and are defined as

$`w_1=w[{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_2=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_3=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_4=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],`$
$`w_5=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}],w_6=w[{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}].`$ (C.4)