Strengthening Relationships between Neural Ideals and Receptive

arXiv:1803.03204v1 [] 8 Mar 2018

Fields
Angelique Morvant
March 8, 2018

Abstract
Neural codes are collections of binary vectors that represent the firing patterns of neurons.
The information given by a neural code C can be represented by its neural ideal JC . In turn,
the polynomials in JC can be used to determine the relationships among the receptive fields
of the neurons. In a paper by Curto et al., three such relationships, known as the Type 1-3
relations, were linked to the neural ideal by three if-and-only-if statements. Later, Garcia et al.
discovered the Type 4-6 relations. These new relations differed from the first three in that they
were related to JC by one-way implications. In this paper, we first show that the converses of
these new implications are false at the level of both the neural ideal JC and the larger ideal
I(C) of a code. We then present modified statements of these relations that, like the first three,
can be related by if-and-only-if statements to both JC and I(C). Using the modified relations,
we uncover a new relationship involving JC , I(C), and the Type 1-6 relations.

1

Introduction
One of the goals of neuroscience is to determine how the firing of neurons helps the brain

understand its environment. Some neurons are observed to fire rapidly in response to particular
stimuli; the set of such stimuli is known as the neuron’s receptive field. One aim of the study of such
neurons is to determine how their firing patterns encode the relationships among their receptive
fields. For example, place cells, discovered in 1971 by O’Keefe and Dostrovsky, fire more rapidly
when an animal is in certain regions, allowing the animal to navigate its environment [4]. In this
case, the receptive field of a place cell is the spatial region in which it fires, and the firing patterns
of the place cells allow the brain to construct a “map” of these regions. We want to understand how
the brain does this.
To this end, Curto, Itskov, Veliz-Cuba, and Youngs introduced the neural ideal [1]. Firing
patterns of neurons can be recorded as collections of binary vectors known as neural codes, and the
1

neural ideal JC of a code C is a polynomial ideal that contains the same information as the code
itself. Curto et al. showed that the presence of certain types of polynomials in the neural ideal gives
information about the relationships among receptive fields [1]. For example, consider two neurons
that never fire at the same time. The corresponding neural code might be C = {[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, 0]},
and this code is associated with the ideal JC = hx1 x2 i. As we will see, the fact that x1 x2 ∈ JC
implies that the receptive fields of neuron 1 and neuron 2 do not overlap. So if U1 is the receptive
field of neuron 1 and U2 is the receptive field of neuron 2, U1 ∩ U2 = ∅ is a receptive field relation
that can be read off from JC ; it is known as a Type 1 relation. Also, it can be shown that the
presence of a Type 1 relation implies that x1 x2 ∈ JC . Thus, the relationship between JC and the
Type 1 relation is if-and-only-if.
Curto et al. found three receptive field relationships, known as the Type 1-3 relationships, that
can be read off from the neural ideal. The three if-and-only-if statements relating the Type 1-3
relationships to the polynomials in the neural ideal are also loosely called the Type 1-3 relations.
Later, Garcia et al. discovered three more such relations, known as the Type 4-6 relations, but
proved only one direction of the relations [2]. It is therefore natural to ask whether the converses
of any of the Type 4-6 relations might also hold.
In the sections that follow, we will prove that the answer is no for all three relations, but that
we can modify the Type 4-6 relations to be if-and-only-if statements. Like the original Type 1-3
relations, the modified versions of the Type 4-6 relations are if-and-only-if at the level of both JC
and a larger ideal I(C), called the ideal of C. This suggests that, at least for the purposes of
receptive field relations, the ideal and neural ideal of a code are interchangeable.
The rest of this paper will be organized as follows. In Section 2, we will introduce the background
and definitions needed in the rest of the work. In Section 3, we will show by counterexample that
the converses of the Type 4-6 relations do not hold. In Section 4, we will present modified versions
of these relations and prove that these modified relations are if-and-only-if. Finally, in Section 5,
we will discuss the implications of our results and suggest topics for future research.

2

Background
In this section we introduce neural codes, pseudo-monomials, and neural ideals, as well as the

prior results on which our work is based. Our notation matches that in [1, 2]. We begin with neural
codes.
Definition 2.1. A neural code (or binary code) C is a set of vectors in Fn2 . A vector c ∈ C is
called a codeword.
Each codeword c in a neural code represents a firing pattern of n neurons: the ith com2

X
U3
U1

U2

Figure 1: Receptive fields associated with the code C(U ) = {∅, 3, 13, 23}.
ponent of c is 1 if neuron i is firing and 0 if it is not.

For example, the neural code C =

{[0, 1, 1], [1, 0, 1], [0, 0, 1], [0, 0, 0]} consists of the codewords c1 = [0, 1, 1], c2 = [1, 0, 1], c3 = [0, 0, 1],
and c4 = [0, 0, 0]. The codeword c1 tells us that neurons 2 and 3 fire together while neuron 1 does
not, c2 tells us that neurons 1 and 3 fire together while neuron 2 does not, c3 tells us that neuron 3
fires alone, and c4 tells us that none of the neurons fire.
Alternatively, each codeword c ∈ C can also be represented by the set
supp(c) = {i ∈ [n] | ci = 1},
where [n] := {1, 2, ..., n}. So in the example above, supp(c1 ) = {2, 3}, supp(c2 ) = {1, 3}, supp(c3 ) =
{3}, and supp(c4 ) = ∅. By dropping the set notation, we can write C in shorthand as C =
{∅, 3, 13, 23}.
As mentioned in the previous section, neurons such as place cells fire in specific regions of a stimulus space known as receptive fields. For a (nonempty) stimulus space X, let U = {U1 , U2 , ..., Un },
where each Ui ⊆ X is the receptive field of neuron i. Then we can define the associated receptive
field code as
C(U ) = {c ∈ Fn2 | (∩i∈supp(c) Ui ) \ (∪j ∈supp(c)
Uj )}.
/
In addition, for any point p ∈ X, we will let c(p) denote the codeword such that supp(c(p)) = {i ∈
[n] | p ∈ Ui }. Going back to our example, the code C = {∅, 3, 13, 23} is the receptive field code for
the set U = {U1 , U2 , U3 } shown in Figure 1.
The information in a code on n neurons can also be encoded in an ideal generated by pseudomonomials in F2 [x1 , ...xn ].
Definition 2.2. A pseudo-monomial f ∈ F2 [x1 , ..., xn ] is a polynomial with the form
Y Y
(1 + xj ),
f=
xi
i∈σ

j∈τ

where σ, τ ∈ [n] and σ ∩ τ = ∅.
3

For any vector v ∈ Fn2 , we define
pv =

Y

Y

xi

(1 + xj ).

j ∈supp(v)
/

i∈supp(v)

Such a pseudo-monomial is called the characteristic function for v because pv (v) = 1, but pv (x) = 0
for all x ∈ Fn2 such that x 6= v. The neural ideal of a code is defined in terms of characteristic
functions.
Definition 2.3. The neural ideal JC of a code C is the ideal generated by all pv ∈ F2 [x1 , ..., xn ]
such that v ∈
/ C. That is,
JC := h{pv | v ∈
/ C}i.
Notice that this implies that if f ∈ JC , then f (c) = 0 for any c ∈ C. In [1], Curto et al. define
the ideal of a code as follows:
Definition 2.4. Let C ⊆ Fn2 be a neural code. Then the ideal of C is
I(C) := {f ∈ F2 [x1 , ..., xn ] | f (c) = 0 ∀c ∈ C}.
By this definition, JC ⊆ I(C). This fact will be important in later sections.
The polynomials in a neural ideal give information about the relationships among the receptive
fields in a stimulus space. The first three relations (known as the Type 1-3 relations) were discovered
by Curto, Itskov, Veliz-Cuba, and Youngs [1]. To simplify notation, we let
Y
xi and Uσ = ∩i∈σ Ui
xσ =
i∈σ

for any σ ∈ [n]. Note that if σ = ∅, then xσ =

Q

i∈σ

xi = 1 and Uσ = X.

Proposition 2.5 (Curto, Itskov, Veliz-Cuba, and Youngs). Let X be a stimulus space, let U =
{Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in X, and consider the receptive field code C = C(U ). Then for any
pair of subsets σ, τ ⊆ [n], we have the following receptive field relations:
Type 1: xσ ∈ JC ⇔ Uσ = ∅ (where σ 6= ∅).
Type 2: xσ
Type 3:

Q

Q

i∈τ (1

i∈τ (1

+ xi ) ∈ JC ⇔ Uσ ⊆ ∪i∈τ Ui (where σ, τ 6= ∅).

+ xi ) ∈ JC ⇔ X ⊆ ∪i∈τ Ui (where τ 6= ∅), and thus X = ∪i∈τ Ui .

In addition, Garcia et al. found three more receptive field relationships [2, Theorem 5.1]:
Proposition 2.6 (Garcia, García Puente, et al.). Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a
stimulus space X. Let C = C(U ) denote the corresponding receptive field code, and let JC denote
the neural ideal. Then for any subsets σ1 , σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n], and m indices 1 ≤ ii < i2 < ... < im ≤ n,
with m ≥ 2, we have receptive field relationships as follows:
4

Type 4: xσ1

Q

i∈τ1 (1

+ xi ) + xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1

+ xj ) ∈ JC ⇒ Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ).

Type 5: xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC ⇒ Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m, and if, additionally, m
is odd, then ∩m
k=1 Uik = ∅.
Type 6: xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ JC ⇒ ∪m
k=1 Uik = X.
Notice that, unlike the Type 1-3 relations, the Type 4-6 relations are not stated as if-and-only-if
statements. That is, knowing the relations among receptive fields in a stimulus space, we cannot
use the Type 4-6 relations in their current form to conclude anything about the associated neural
ideal. It is therefore natural to wonder whether each of these statements can be reversed, and in
Section 3 we show that in fact none of them can. However, in Section 4 we will present modified
versions of the Type 4-6 relations that are if-and-only-if statements.

3

Disproving the Converses of the Type 4-6 Relations
In this section, we show by counterexample that none of the converses of the Type 4-6 relations

hold (Theorem 3.3). The converses of the relations are stated below:
Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a stimulus space X. Let C = C(U ) denote the
corresponding receptive field code, and let JC be the neural ideal of C. Then for any subsets σ1 , σ2 ,
τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n] and m indices 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < ... < im ≤ n, with m ≥ 2, we have the following:
Converse of Type 4: Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) ⇒ xσ1
for any subsets σ1 , σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n].

Q

i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1 + xj )

∈ JC

Converse of Type 5: For all m ≥ 2 indices 1 ≤ ii < i2 < ... < im ≤ n,
1. m is even and Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m ⇒ xi1 +...+xim ∈ JC ,
and
2. m is odd, Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m, and ∩m
k=1 Uik = ∅ ⇒
xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC .
Converse of Type 6: ∪m
k=1 Uik = X ⇒ xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ JC for all m ≥ 2 indices 1 ≤ ii < i2 < ... <
im ≤ n.
Again, each of the converses is false. The receptive fields for all of the counterexample codes are
shown in Figure 2. In the case of the Type 5 and 6 relations, we will first use the counterexample
codes to prove that the converses of these statements do not hold even when JC is replaced by the
larger ideal I(C).
5

X
X
U1

U2

X

U3

U2

U1

U4

U1 ∩ U2

U2

U1
(a) Counterexample for Type 4

(b) Counterexample for Type 5

(c) Counterexample for Type 6

Figure 2: Receptive fields for which the converses of the Type 4, 5, and 6 relations do not hold.
X
U2

U3
U4
U5
U1

Figure 3: Receptive fields for which the converse of the Type 5 relation is false when m is odd.
Lemma 3.1. For each of the following relations, there exists a collection of sets U = {Ui }ni=1 in a
stimulus space X (with corresponding neural code C = C(U )) and m ≥ 2 indices 1 ≤ ii < i2 < ... <
im ≤ n such that the relation does not hold:
Converse of Type 5:

1. m is even and Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m ⇒ xi1 + ... + xim ∈
I(C), and
2. m is odd, Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m, and ∩m
k=1 Uik = ∅ ⇒
xi1 + ... + xim ∈ I(C).

Converse of Type 6: ∪m
k=1 Uik = X ⇒ xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ I(C)
Proof. Converse of Type 5: To disprove the converse of the Type 5 relation, it is enough to prove
that the first implication is false. To this end, let C = {∅, 12, 13, 14, 123}. The corresponding
stimulus space is shown in Figure 2b. From the figure, we can see that Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[4]\{k} Uij , where
i1 = 1, ..., i4 = 4. However, if f := x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 , then for any point p ∈ (U1 ∩ U2 ∩ U3 ) \ U4 ,
f (c(p)) = (x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 )(c(p)) = 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 ≡ 1 mod 2, so f = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ∈
/ I(C).
There are also counterexamples for the second implication.

For instance, the code C ′ =

{∅, 12, 13, 14, 123, 145} (shown in Figure 3) with i1 = 1, ..., i5 = 5 satisfies Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[5]\{k} Uij for all
6

k = 1, ..., 5, and ∩5k=1 Uik = ∅. But, again, if g := x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 +x5 and p ∈ (U1 ∩U2 ∩U3 )\(U4 ∪U5 ),
then g(c(p)) = (x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 )(c(p)) = 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 ≡ 1 mod 2. So g ∈
/ I(C ′ ).
Converse of Type 6: Now consider the code C = {1, 2, 12} on 2 neurons pictured in Figure 2c.
We compute that
JC = h(1 + x1 )(1 + x2 )i,
and we can see that ∪2i=1 Ui = X. If the converse of the Type 6 relation held, then it would be true
that
x1 + x2 + 1 ∈ I(C).

(1)

(1 + x1 )(1 + x2 ) = 1 + x1 + x2 + x1 x2 ∈ JC ⊆ I(C).

(2)

However,

Adding expressions (1) and (2) would then imply that f := x1 x2 ∈ I(C). However, for a point
p ∈ U1 ∩ U2 , f (c(p)) = 1 · 1 = 1 and thus f ∈
/ I(C), a contradiction. So x1 + x2 + 1 ∈
/ I(C).
Now we are ready to show that none of converses of the Type 4-6 relations hold.
Theorem 3.2. For each of the following relations, there exists a collection of sets U = {Ui }ni=1 in a
stimulus space X (with corresponding neural code C = C(U )) such that the relation does not hold:
Converse of Type 4: Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) ⇒ xσ1
for any subsets σ1 , σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n].

Q

i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1 + xj )

∈ JC

Converse of Type 5: For all m ≥ 2 indices 1 ≤ ii < i2 < ... < im ≤ n,
1. m is even and Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m ⇒ xi1 +...+xim ∈ JC ,
and
2. m is odd, Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m, and ∩m
k=1 Uik = ∅ ⇒
xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC .
Converse of Type 6: ∪m
k=1 Uik = X ⇒ xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ JC for all m ≥ 2 indices 1 ≤ ii < i2 < ... <
im ≤ n.
Proof. We present a counterexample of each of the three statements, beginning with the converse
of the Type 4 relation. The counterexamples for the Type 5 and 6 relations are the same as in the
proof of Lemma 3.1. As we will see, we can use the same counterexamples for these two relations
because JC ⊆ I(C).
Converse of Type 4: Consider the code C = {∅, 1, 2, 12} on 2 neurons pictured in Figure 2a.
Also let σ1 = τ1 = 1 and σ2 = τ2 = 2. Then U1 ∩ U1c = ∅ = U2 ∩ U2c , but JC = h0i, so
x1 (1 + x1 ) + x2 (1 + x2 ) ∈
/ JC .
7

Converse of Type 5: Again let C = {∅, 12, 13, 14, 123}. The realization of this code is shown in
Figure 2b. From the proof of Lemma 3.1, we know that x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 ∈
/ I(C), so x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 ∈
/
JC ⊆ I(C). This shows that the first implication is false.
As before, however, we can also show that the second implication is false. The code C ′ =
{∅, 12, 13, 14, 123, 145} again serves as a counterexample. By the proof of Lemma 3.1, x1 + x2 +
x3 + x4 + x5 ∈
/ I(C ′ ), so x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 ∈
/ JC ′ ⊆ I(C ′ ).
Converse of Type 6: Finally, the proof of Lemma 3.1 tells us that for the code C = {1, 2, 12}
pictured in Figure 2c, x1 + x2 + 1 ∈
/ I(C). Therefore, x1 + x2 + 1 ∈
/ JC ⊆ I(C).
Notice that if we replace JC with I(C) in the Type 4 relation, the counterexample we used in
the proof of Theorem 3.2 no longer works since x1 (1 + x1 ) + x2 (1 + x2 ) ∈ I(C). In fact, we will
prove in the next section that the converse of the Type 4 relation is actually true when JC replaced
with I(C). This suggests that the Type 4-6 relations may be modified so that their converses hold.
Possible modifications will be discussed in Section 4.
We finish this section by showing that the counterexample codes presented all have the smallest
possible numbers of neurons.
Theorem 3.3. Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a stimulus space X. Let C = C(U ) denote
the corresponding receptive field code, and let JC denote the neural ideal. Then for any subsets σ1 ,
σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n], and m indices 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < ... < im ≤ n, with m ≥ 2, the following hold:
Q
Q
Converse of Type 4: When n = 1, Uσ1 ∩(∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩(∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) ⇒ xσ1 i∈τ1 (1+xi )+xσ2 j∈τ2 (1+
xj ) ∈ JC .

Converse of Type 5: When n ≤ 3,
1. m is even and Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m ⇒ xi1 +...+xim ∈ JC ,
and
2. m is odd, Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, ..., m, and ∩m
k=1 Uik = ∅ ⇒
xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC .
Converse of Type 6: When n = 1, ∪m
k=1 Uik = X ⇒ xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ JC .
Proof. Converse of Type 4: For n = 1, the possible neural codes are C1 = {∅, 1} and C2 = {1}.
In the case of C1 , JC = h0i, and the possible values for Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) are U1 ∩ U1c = ∅ (when
σ1 = τ1 = 1), U1 ∩ X = U1 (when σ1 = 1 and τ1 = ∅), X ∩ U1c = U1c (when σ1 = ∅ and τ1 = 1),
and X ∩ X = X (when σ1 = τ1 = ∅). Since the possible values of Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) are also ∅,
U1 , U1c , and X, and since none of these four sets are equal, Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc )
Q
Q
only when σ1 = σ2 and τ1 = τ2 . This implies that xσ1 i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2 j∈τ2 (1 + xj ) =
Q
Q
xσ1 i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ1 j∈τ1 (1 + xj ) = 0 ∈ JC .
8

In the case of C2 , JC = h1 + x1 i, U1 = X, and U1c = ∅. This means that there are two choices
of σ1 and τ1 for which Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = ∅: σ1 = τ1 = 1, or σ1 = ∅ and τ1 = 1. Similarly,
Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = X when either σ1 = 1 and τ1 = ∅, or σ1 = τ1 = ∅. The same is true for
Uσ2 ∩ (∩i∈τ2 Uic ), so Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) implies that we have one of the following
cases:
Case 1: σ1 = σ2 and τ1 = τ2
Case 2: σ1 6= σ2 and τ1 = τ2 = {1}
Case 3: σ1 6= σ2 and τ1 = τ2 = ∅
In case 1, we can use the same reasoning we used when dealing with C1 , so it is enough to show
that the converse of the Type 4 relation holds in cases 2 and 3. For these cases, we can assume
without loss of generality that σ1 = 1 and σ2 = ∅.
In case 2,
xσ1

Y

(1 + xi ) + xσ2

Y

(1 + xj ) = x1 (1 + x1 ) + (1)(1 + x1 ) = (1 + x1 )2 ∈ JC

j∈τ2

i∈τ1

because 1 + x1 ∈ JC .
Similarly, in case 3,
xσ1

Y

(1 + xi ) + xσ2

i∈τ1

Y

(1 + xj ) = x1 (1) + (1)(1) = 1 + x1 ∈ JC .

j∈τ2

So the implication holds.
Converse of Type 5: We consider the cases where n = 1, n = 2, and n = 3 separately.
In the case where n = 1, we cannot have m ≥ 2 indices , so the implication is vacuously true.
When n = 2, in order for the left-hand side of the implication to be true, we must have m = 2,
U1 ⊆ U2 , and U2 ⊆ U1 , which implies that U1 = U2 . This means that neither 1 nor 2 is in the
associated code C, so x1 (1 + x2 ), x2 (1 + x1 ) ∈ JC . Therefore, x1 (1 + x2 ) + x2 (1 + x1 ) = x1 + x2 ∈ JC
Finally, when n = 3, we can have m = 2 or m = 3. If m = 2, then Ui1 = Ui2 as in the n = 2
case. If we let i3 be the remaining element of {1, 2, 3}, then i1 , i2 , i1 i3 , i2 i3 ∈
/ C, which implies that
the following pseudo-monomials are in JC :
xi1 (1 + xi2 )(1 + xi3 ) = xi1 + xi1 xi2 + xi1 xi3 + xi1 xi2 xi3
xi2 (1 + xi1 )(1 + xi3 ) = xi2 + xi1 xi2 + xi2 xi3 + xi1 xi2 xi3
xi1 xi3 (1 + xi2 ) = xi1 xi3 + xi1 xi2 xi3
xi2 xi3 (1 + xi3 ) = xi2 xi3 + xi1 xi2 xi3

9

Adding these four terms together gives us xi1 + xi2 ∈ JC .
If m = 3, similar reasoning applies, but we also must assume that ∩3k=1 Uik = ∅. We know that
the codewords 1, 2, 3 ∈
/ C since Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[3]\{k} Uij for all k = 1, 2, 3, and we know that 123 ∈
/ C
because ∩3k=1 Uik = ∅ by assumption. Therefore, the following are in JC :
x1 x2 x3
x1 (1 + x2 )(1 + x3 ) = x1 + x1 x2 + x1 x3 + x1 x2 x3
x2 (1 + x1 )(1 + x3 ) = x2 + x1 x2 + x2 x3 + x1 x2 x3
x3 (1 + x1 )(1 + x2 ) = x3 + x1 x3 + x2 x3 + x1 x2 x3 .
Adding the four terms again gives x1 + x2 + x3 ∈ JC .
Converse of Type 6: Again, when n = 1, it is impossible to have m ≥ 2 different indices, so the
implication is vacuously true.

4

Modifying the Type 4-6 Relations
In this section, we discuss modified versions of the Type 4-6 relations and prove that their

converses hold. The modifications are marked in bold in the following result.
Theorem 4.1. Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a stimulus space X. Let C = C(U ) denote
the corresponding receptive field code, and let JC be the neural ideal of C. Then for any subsets σ1 ,
σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n] such that σ1 ∪σ2 and τ1 ∪τ2 are disjoint, and m indices 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < ... < im ≤ n,
with m ≥ 2, we have the following equivalences:
Modified Type 4: xσ1

Q

i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1 + xj )

∈ JC ⇔ Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc )

Modified Type 5: xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC ⇔ for any σ ⊆ [m] such that |σ| is odd, ∩k∈σ Uik ⊆
∪j∈[m]\σ Uij
Modified Type 6: xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ JC ⇔ ∪m
k=1 Uik = X whenever Ui1 , ..., Uim are pairwise
disjoint.
Proof. By Proposition 2.6, we know that the forward direction of each of the three implications is
true, so it only remains to prove the reverse implications.
Modified Type 4: Given a neural code C that satisfies a relation of the form Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) =
Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ), we will construct the desired sum by adding pseudo-monomials known to be in JC .
There are two cases: one where τ1 ∪ τ2 is empty, and the remaining case where τ1 ∪ τ2 is nonempty.
We deal with each of these cases in turn.

10

Case 1 (τ1 ∪ τ2 = ∅): In this case, Uσ1 = Uσ2 (we ignore the trivial cases where σ1 or σ2 is empty
or where σ1 = σ2 ). Then any codeword c for which σ1 ⊆ c but σ2 6⊆ c, or σ2 ⊆ c but σ1 6⊆ c, cannot
Q
Q
be in C (this would contradict the fact that Uσ1 = Uσ2 ), and so pc = i∈c xi j ∈c
/ (1 + xj ) ∈ JC for

every such c. Letting C1 = {c ⊆ [n] | σ1 ⊆ c but σ2 6⊆ c}, C2 = {c ⊆ [n] | σ2 ⊆ c but σ1 6⊆ c}, and
P
f = c∈C1 ∪C2 pc , we claim that f = xσ1 + xσ2 and that f ∈ JC as desired.
To see this, first note that f ∈ JC because each pc is in JC by the remarks above. To prove that

f = xσ1 + xσ2 , we will consider xσ for all σ ⊆ [n] and determine whether xσ appears as a summand
in f .
First consider xσ , where σ1 6⊆ σ and σ2 6⊆ σ. Then xσ is not a term in the pseudo-monomial pc
for any c ∈ C1 ∪ C2 since all terms in such a pseudo-monomial must be of the form xσ1 xσ′ or xσ2 xσ′
for some σ ′ ⊆ [n]. So xσ is not a term in f .
If σ1 ⊆ σ but σ2 6⊆ σ, then xσ is not a term in pc for any c ∈ C2 or for any c ∈ C1 such that
c 6⊆ σ. But xσ appears once as a term in pc for all c ∈ C1 such that c ⊆ σ. There are 2m such c,
where m = |σ \ σ1 |. Therefore, if m ≥ 1, xσ will be added an even number of times in the expansion
of f and will therefore cancel out since we are working in F2 [x]. We get m = 0 only when σ = σ1 ,
which tells us that xσ1 is a monomial term in f . Similar reasoning applies when σ2 ⊆ σ but σ1 6⊆ σ.
Finally, if σ1 ∪ σ2 ⊆ σ, then xσ is a term in pc for any c ∈ C1 ∪ C2 such that c ⊆ σ. As before,
we need to determine how many c ∈ C1 ∪ C2 are contained in σ. We know there are 2m codewords
c such that σ1 ⊆ c ⊆ σ and 2k codewords c′ such that σ2 ⊆ c′ ⊆ σ, where m = |σ \ σ1 | ≥ 1 and
k = |σ \ σ2 | ≥ 1 1 . However, if we count all such c and c′ , we will also count twice the 2l codewords
c′′ such that σ1 ∪ σ2 ⊆ c′′ ⊆ σ. (Here l = |σ \ (σ1 ∪ σ2 )| ≥ 0.) These codewords c′′ are not in C1 ∪ C2
and therefore must be excluded twice from our count of codewords in C1 ∪ C2 contained in σ. So
there are 2m + 2k − 2(2l ) codewords contained in σ that are in C1 ∪ C2 . This implies that xσ will
be added 2m + 2k − 2(2l ) times in f and therefore will cancel out since 2m + 2k − 2(2l ) is even.
Thus, the only terms that appear in f are xσ1 and xσ2 , so f = xσ1 + xσ2 ∈ JC as desired.
Case 2 (τ1 ∪ τ2 6= ∅): In the case where τ1 ∪ τ2 6= ∅ and Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ), we
can apply the same reasoning used in the previous case if we first define a new stimulus space {Ui′ }
(with receptive field code C ′ ) as follows:
Ui′ =


Ui

U c
i

if i 6∈ τ1 ∪ τ2

(3)

if i ∈ τ1 ∪ τ2 .

Because σ1 ∪ σ2 and τ1 ∪ τ2 are disjoint and Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ), we know
that Uσ′ 1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Ui′ ) = Uσ′ 2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Uj′ ) as well. Therefore, we can say from the first case that
xσ1 ∪τ1 + xσ2 ∪τ2 ∈ JC ′ .
1

Note that if m = 0, then σ1 ∪ σ2 ⊆ σ = σ1 , which would imply that σ1 = σ2 . We can ignore this case because in

this case xσ1 + xσ2 = 0, and 0 ∈ JC for all C.

11

Q

Now we need to show that the corresponding pseudo-monomial xσ1

i∈τ1 (1+xi )+xσ2

xj ) is in JC . Consider the i-th bit flip map δi : F2 [x1 , ..., xn ] → F2 [x1 , ..., xn ] given by

δi (xj ) =


 xj

1 + x

if j 6= i
j

Q

j∈τ2 (1+

(4)

if i = j

as defined in Jeffs, Omar, and Youngs [3], and let δτ1 ∪τ2 be the composition of all δi such that
i ∈ τ1 ∪ τ2 . Also as in [3], for a neural code C we define the following code:
δi (C) := {u ∈ Fn2 | supp(u) = supp(c) ⊕ {i} for some c ∈ C},
where ⊕ denotes the symmetric difference. Then by Theorem 2.13 in [3], we know that δi (JC ′ ) =
Jδi (C ′ ) for each i ∈ τ1 ∪ τ2 , so δτ1 ∪τ2 (JC ′ ) = δi1 ◦ δi2 ◦ ... ◦ δim (JC ′ ) = Jδi1 ◦

= Jδτ1 ∪τ2 (C ′ )

for i1 , i2 , ...im ∈ τ1 ∪ τ2 . But from (3), we can see that δτ1 ∪τ2

and because

δi2 ◦...◦ δim (C ′ )
maps C ′ into C,

δτ1 ∪τ2 (δτ1 ∪τ2 (c)) = c for any c ∈ C ′ , δτ1 ∪τ2 is a bijection, which implies that Jδτ1 ∪τ2 (C ′ ) = JC . Since
each δi is a homomorphism [3], δτ1 ∪τ2 is also a homomorphism from JC ′ to JC , so δτ1 ∪τ2 (xσ1 ∪τ1 +
Q
Q
xσ∪ τ2 ) = xσ1 i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2 j∈τ2 (1 + xj ) ∈ JC .

Modified Type 5: Suppose that for any σ ⊆ [m] such that |σ| is odd, ∩k∈σ Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\σ Uij .
Q
Q
Then by the Type 2 relation, k∈σ xik j∈[m]\σ (1 + xij ) ∈ JC for any such σ. So if S is the set of
all σ ⊆ [m] such that |σ| is odd, then
f :=

XY

σ∈S

k∈σ

Y

x ik


(1 + xij ) ∈ JC .

j∈[m]\σ

We claim that f = xi1 +...+xim . To see this, consider the monomial

Q

k∈τ

xik , where τ ⊆ [m]. (Note

that such terms are the only possible monomials that can appear in the expansion of f .) We know
Q
Q
Q
that k∈τ xik will appear exactly once in the expansion of every summand k∈σ xik j∈[m]\σ (1+xij )
for which σ ⊆ τ and σ ∈ S, and never in the expansions of the other summands. Call the number

of such summands Nτ . If |τ | = 1, then the only odd-sized subset of τ is τ itself, so the term
Q
k∈τ xik must appear exactly once in the expansion of f . That is, Nτ = 1. If |τ | ≥ 2, then

Q
P
Nτ = 1≤i≤|τ |, i odd |τi | = 2|τ |−1 , and since |τ | ≥ 2, Nτ must be even. This means that k∈τ xik

cancels out of f when |τ | ≥ 2, so the only terms that appear in the expansion of f are xi1 , ..., xim ,

which implies that f = xi1 + ... + xim .
Modified Type 6: Finally, suppose that ∪m
k=1 Uik = X and that Ui1 , ..., Uim are pairwise disjoint.
Q
Also let M = {i1 , ..., im }. Then by the Type 3 relation we know that i∈M (1 + xi ) ∈ JC . But
Q
P
i∈M (1 + xi ) =
σ⊆M xσ , and since Ui1 , ..., Uim are pairwise disjoint, xσ ∈ JC for all σ ⊆ M such
that |σ| ≥ 2 by the Type 1 relation. Therefore,
X

σ⊆M

xσ +

X

σ⊆M , |σ|≥2

xσ =

X

σ⊆M , |σ|<2

12

xσ = 1 + xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC .

Recall that in the previous section we showed that the converses of the original Type 5 and 6
relations are false when JC is replaced by I(C). However, it turns out that the converses of the
modified Type 4-6 relations all hold when JC is replaced by I(C).
Theorem 4.2. Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a stimulus space X. Let C = C(U ) denote
the corresponding receptive field code, and let I(C) be the ideal of C. Then for any subsets σ1 , σ2 ,
τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n] such that σ1 ∪ σ2 and τ1 ∪ τ2 are disjoint, and m indices 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < ... < im ≤ n,
with m ≥ 2, we have the following equivalences:
Modified Type 4: xσ1

Q

i∈τ1 (1+xi )+xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1+xj )

∈ I(C) ⇔ Uσ1 ∩(∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩(∩j∈τ2 Ujc )

Modified Type 5: xi1 + ... + xim ∈ I(C) ⇔ for any σ ⊆ [m] such that |σ| is odd, ∩k∈σ Uik ⊆
∪j∈[m]\σ Uij
Modified Type 6: xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ I(C) ⇔ ∪m
k=1 Uik = X whenever Ui1 , ..., Uim are pairwise
disjoint.
Proof. The backward directions of all the statements are true by Theorem 4.1 and the fact that
JC ⊆ I(C). Therefore, it remains to prove the forward implications. We do this by essentially
repeating the proofs in [2].
Modified Type 4: Let f1 := xσ1

Q

Q

i∈τ1 (1 + xi ), let f2 = xσ2
j∈τ2 (1 + xj ), and suppose that f1 +
c
f2 ∈ I(C). Also suppose that p ∈ Uσ1 ∩(∩i∈τ1 Ui ). Then because f1 +f2 ∈ I(C), f1 (c(p))+f2 (c(p)) =
0, which implies that f1 (c(p)) = f2 (c(p)). But p ∈ Uσk ∩ (∩j∈τk Ujc ) if and only if fk (c(p)) = 1, so
p ∈ Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ). The same argument can be used to show that if p ∈ Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ), then
p ∈ Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ).

Modified Type 5: Suppose g := xi1 + ... + xim ∈ I(C). Let σ ⊆ [m] such that |σ| is odd, and
let p ∈ ∩k∈σ Uik . (We can assume that ∩k∈σ Uik 6= ∅ because the desired containment would be
P
automatic otherwise.) Then because g ∈ I(C), g(c(p)) = 0 = c(p)i1 + ... + c(p)im = k∈σ c(p)ik +
P
P
P
j∈[m]\σ c(p)ij = 1, which implies
j∈[m]\σ c(p)ij = 1 +
j∈[m]\σ c(p)ij in F2 since |σ| is odd. Then

that c(p)ij = 1 for some j ∈ [m] \ σ, so p ∈ Uij for this j. Therefore, ∩k∈σ Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\σ Uij .

Modified Type 6: Finally, suppose h := xi1 + ... + xim + 1, and let p ∈ X. Since h ∈ I(C),
0 = c(p)i1 + ... + c(p)im + 1. Since we are working in F2 , this implies that for some k ∈ [m],
c(p)ik = 1, and thus p ∈ Uik ⊆ ∪m
k=1 Uik .
Directly from Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, we get the following corollary, which we view as the “corrected” Type 4-6 relations.

13

Corollary 4.3. Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a stimulus space X, and let C = C(U )
denote the corresponding receptive field code. Then for any subsets σ1 , σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n] such that
σ1 ∪ σ2 and τ1 ∪ τ2 are disjoint, and m indices 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < ... < im ≤ n, with m ≥ 2, we have the
following:
Modified Type 4: xσ1

Q

Uσ1 ∩

i∈τ1 (1 + xi )+ xσ2

(∩i∈τ1 Uic )

Q

j∈τ2 (1 + xj )

= Uσ2 ∩

∈ JC ⇔ xσ1

(∩j∈τ2 Ujc ).

Q

i∈τ1 (1 + xi )+ xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1 + xj )

∈ I(C) ⇔

Modified Type 5: xi1 + ... + xim ∈ JC ⇔ xi1 + ... + xim ∈ I(C) ⇔ for any σ ⊆ [m] such that |σ| is odd,

∩k∈σ Uik ⊆ ∪j∈[m]\σ Uij .
Modified Type 6: xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ JC ⇔ xi1 + ... + xim + 1 ∈ I(C) ⇔ ∪m
k=1 Uik = X whenever

Ui1 , ..., Uim are pairwise disjoint.
Essentially, Corollary 4.3 tells us that we get the same information from the modified relations
regardless of whether we consider JC or I(C). In fact, this is true for the Type 1-3 relations as well,
as shown in [1, Lemma 4.2].
As a final note, we can use Theorem 4.1 and part of the proof of Theorem 4.2 to show that, as
stated in the previous section, the original Type 4 relation is if-and-only-if when JC is replaced by
I(C).
Corollary 4.4. Let U = {Ui }ni=1 be a collection of sets in a stimulus space X, and let C = C(U )
denote the corresponding receptive field code. Then for any subsets σ1 , σ2 , τ1 , τ2 ⊆ [n], we have the
following:
Type 4: xσ1

Q

i∈τ1 (1

+ xi ) + xσ2

Q

j∈τ2 (1

+ xj ) ∈ I(C) ⇔ Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ).

Proof. We prove the forward direction using the same reasoning used to prove the forward direction
of the modified Type 4 relation in Theorem 4.2. Thus, it remains to prove the backward direction.
To this end, assume that Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ), and consider the following three
cases.
Case 1 ((σ1 ∪ σ2 ) ∩ (τ1 ∪ τ2 ) = ∅): If σ1 ∪ σ2 and τ1 ∪ τ2 are disjoint, then by Theorem 4.1, we
Q
Q
know that xσ1 i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2 j∈τ2 (1 + xj ) ∈ JC ⊆ I(C).

Case 2 (σ1 ∩ τ1 6= ∅ or σ2 ∩ τ2 6= ∅): Assume without loss of generality that σ1 ∩ τ1 6= ∅. This

implies that Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = ∅, which implies by hypothesis that Uσ2 ∩ (∩i∈τ2 Uic ) = ∅ as well.
Q
Q
Now let f1 = xσ1 i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) and f2 = xσ2 j∈τ2 (1 + xj ). If p ∈ X, then f1 (c(p)) = 1 would imply

that p ∈ Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = ∅, a contradiction. Since any codeword c is associated with some p ∈ X,

f1 (c) = 0 for all c ∈ C. Thus, f1 ∈ I(C). By the same reasoning, f2 ∈ I(C), and so f1 + f2 ∈ I(C)
as well.

14

Case 3 (σ1 ∩ τ2 6= ∅ or σ2 ∩ τ1 6= ∅): Assume without loss of generality that σ1 ∩ τ2 6= ∅. This
means that there is some k ∈ σ1 ∩ τ2 . Then Uk ⊇ Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) ⊆ Ukc , which
implies that Uσ1 ∩ (∩i∈τ1 Uic ) = Uσ2 ∩ (∩j∈τ2 Ujc ) = ∅. So by the same reasoning used in Case 2,
Q
Q
xσ1 i∈τ1 (1 + xi ) + xσ2 j∈τ2 (1 + xj ) ∈ I(C).

5

Discussion
In this work we proved that not only are the converses of the Type 4-6 relations in [2] false as

stated, but the converses of the Type 5 and 6 relations are also false even when the neural ideal
JC is replaced by the larger ideal I(C). However, our modified versions of the Type 4-6 relations
are if-and-only-if statements at the level of both JC and I(C). From this we concluded that, in the
case of these modified relations, JC and I(C) give the same information about the stimulus space.
In fact, this is true for the Type 1-3 relations as well [1]. These observations suggest that future
receptive field relationships should only involve polynomials that are in JC if and only if they are
in I(C). Identifying such receptive field relationships is an interesting direction for future work.
In addition, there may be other modifications of the Type 4-6 relations that are also if-and-onlyif statements. For instance, replacing JC with I(C) in the original Type 4 relation also gives an
if-and-only-if statement. If each of the relations could be modified in more than one way, it would
be natural to ask which modifications were the “right” modifications; that is, which would reveal
the most useful information about the corresponding receptive fields.
Finally, for some codes the original Type 4-6 relations are already if-and-only-if. Therefore, we
can ask if all such codes have some property in common, and, conversely, we can ask if all codes
with a certain property (convexity, for instance – see [1]) also have the property that the reverse
implications of the Type 4-6 relations hold.

Acknowledgments
This research was conducted under the mentorship of Dr. Anne Shiu in the Department of Mathematics at Texas A&M University. The author would like to thank Dr. Shiu for all of her guidance
and support, as well as Dr. Kaitlyn Phillipson for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References
[1] Carina Curto, Vladimir Itskov, Alan Veliz-Cuba, and Nora Youngs. The neural ring: An algebraic tool for analyzing the intrinsic structure of neural codes. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology,
75:1571–1611, Sept 2013.

15

[2] Rebecca Garcia, Luis David García Puente, Ryan Kruse, Jessica Liu, Dane Miyata, Ethan
Petersen, Kaitlyn Phillipson, and Anne Shiu. Gröbner bases of neural ideals. Dec 2016. Available
at arXiv:1612.05660.
[3] R. Amzi Jeffs, Mohamed Omar, and Nora Youngs. Neural ideal preserving homomorphisms.
Dec 2016. Available at arXiv:1612.06150.
[4] J. O’Keefe and J. Dostrovsky. The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from
unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Research, 34:171–175, Nov 1971.

16

