Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Minimal Embedding Dimensions of Connected Neural Codes

Minimal Embedding Dimensions of Connected Neural Codes MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN Abstract. Receptive eld code is a recently proposed determinis- tic model of neural ring. The main question is to characterize the set of realizable codes, and their minimal embedding dimensions with respect to a given family of receptive elds. Here we answer both of these questions when the receptive elds are connected. In particular, we show that all connected codes are realizable in dimension at most three. To our knowledge, this is the rst family of receptive eld codes for which both the exact characterization and minimal embedding dimension are known. 1. Introduction The receptive eld code is a deterministic model of neural ring de ned by Curto, Itskov, Veliz-Cuba and Youngs [5]. It consists of n 2 N neurons, each neuron i 2 [n] = f1; 2; : : : ; ng has a receptive eld d d U  R . Given a stimulus x 2 R , the neurons generate a codeword [n] (x)  2 via i 2 (x) , x 2 U : (1) [n] A receptive eld code C(U )  2 is the set of all possible codewords generated from the collection of receptive elds U = (U ; : : : ; U ). For 1 n convenience, we will assume that every receptive eld code includes the empty set, i.e. ; 2 C, which is equivalent to assume that U ( R . i2[n] The results in this paper still hold if one assumes ; 2= C. [n] d Given a code C  2 with ; 2 C and a family F of sets in R , we say that C is realizable in dimension d if C = C(U ) for some U  F . Call the smallest such d the minimal embedding dimension of the code C, denoted d (C;F ). The minimal embedding problem is to nd d (C;F ) [n] d for given a code C  2 and a family F = (F ; d  1) of sets in R . This paper focuses on connected codes. These are codes realizable by connected sets in R , for some d 2 N, which are either all closed or all open. Asking for these sets to be either all closed or all open makes sense in neuroscience, where receptive elds are intrinsically noisy [3], and it also makes the problem non-trivial since all codes can be real- ized with connected sets if there are no other constraints. Furthermore, arXiv:1706.03999v3 [math.CO] 28 Nov 2017 2 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN Figure 1. 4 receptive elds generating the receptive eld code C(U ) = f;; 1; 2; 3; 4; 12; 13; 23; 24; 123g. a code is realizable with closed connected sets if and only if it is re- alizable with open connected sets. In fact, if C = C(U ) where U = (U ; : : : ; U ) is given by closed connected sets, then C = C(U ) where 1 n 0 0 0 0 U := (U ; : : : ; U ) and U is a suciently small open connected set 1 n i containing U . Vice versa, if C = C(U ) where U = (U ; : : : ; U ) is given i 1 n 00 00 00 00 by open connected sets, then C = C(U ) where U := (U ; : : : ; U ) and 1 n U is a suciently big closed connected set contained in U . Our main results completely characterize realizability and minimal embedding dimensions of connected codes. In particular, it is easy to check if a code is connected, and if it is, then the minimal embedding dimension is at most 3. The graph of a family of connected sets U is given in De nition 7. An alternative characterization of connected codes can be found in [13, Theorem 4.1]. Proposition 1 (Realizability of connected codes). A code C is con- nected if and only if for each ;  2 C and for each i 2  \  , there exists a sequence of distinct codewords  ; : : : ;  2 C such that: 1 m either    or    , for every j 2 [m 1] j j+1 j+1 j i 2  for each j 2 [m]. Theorem 2 (Minimal embedding of connected codes). Suppose C is a connected code. Let d (C) denote its minimal embedding dimension with respect to the family of connected sets. d (C) = 1 if and only if the sensor graph of C is bipartite [17]. Else, d (C) = 2 if and only if there exists a realization C(U ) = C by connected sets U in dimension 3 such that the graph of U is planar. Else, d (C) = 3. MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 3 In dimension 1, connected codes equal the convex codes studied by Rosen and Zhang [17]. The characterization for d = 1 via the sensor graph in Theorem 2 belongs to [17], and is included for completeness. We do not de ne the sensor graph of a code here, but note that it is an intrinsic property of the code, independent of any realization U . The minimal embedding dimension d (;F ) and the family F of re- ceptive elds form a trade-o in measuring the complexity of the signal encoded by the neurons, and is thus of particular interest in receptive eld coding. There has been a number of work on criterion for real- izability and bounds for d (;F ) when the set F consists of (open or closed) convex sets [3, 4, 11, 14, 17]. However, complete characterization and the exact minimal embedding dimension of convex codes remain a problem. Giusti and Itskov [11] found necessary conditions for a code to be realizable with open convex sets, and proved lower bounds on the embedding dimensions of such codes. In [3], Cruz, Giusti, It- skov and Kronholm proved that there exists a family of codes, called max-intersection-complete codes, that are both open convex and closed convex, and they gave an upper bound for their embedding dimension. To the best of our knowledge, connected codes form the rst family of receptive eld codes for which an intrinsic characterization and the exact embedding dimension is known. Furthermore, our proof gives explicit constructions for the code realization in each dimension. Receptive eld codes are closely related to Euler diagrams, which found applications in information systems, statistics and logic [6, 16]. Since their main applications are in visualization, the literature on Euler diagrams focus exclusively on 2 and 3 dimensions. Translated to our setup, an Euler diagram in R is a collection U = (U ; : : : ; U ) 1 n of closed, orientable surfaces embedded in R . An Euler diagram in 2 2 R is a similar collection of closed curves embedded in R . A diagram description is a code C such that ; 2 C. The description of an Euler diagram U is the code C(U ), where U := (U ; : : : ; U ) consists of the 1 n relative interior of the sets U 's. The main problem in this literature is realizability: given a code C, is there an Euler diagram U such that C = C(U )? Every code C can be realized by an Euler diagram in dimension 2 [16], and by an Euler diagram in dimension 3 with connected sets U 's [8]. Note the crucial di erence to receptive eld codes: in an Euler diagram, codewords are generated by intersection of the relative interior of the U 's. In particular, all codes C which fail the condition of Proposition 1 satisfy C = C(U ) for some tuple of closed connected sets U in R , but C 6= C(U ) for any tuple of closed connected sets in any dimension. 4 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN In practice, neural ring is stochastic. One could incorporate noise to the receptive eld code by replacing the deterministic equation (1) with some parametrization of the ring probability P(i 2 (x)jx 2 U ). To be well-de ned, this model needs further speci cations, such as the distribution of the signal on R . In this formulation, the minimal em- bedding dimension is a dicult and poorly formed statistical problem. Furthermore, it is clear that the minimal embedding dimension depends heavily on such details. However, underlying such models the assump- tion that there is a set of true receptive elds U . Knowing the minimal embedding dimension for the deterministic model ensures that the neu- roscientist do not have excessively many parameters, which can lead to ill-de ned estimation problems. From this view, Theorem 2 states that if the true receptive elds are only required to be connected, one can assume that they are in dimension 3. Apart from connected and convex sets, there are many biologically relevant models for receptive elds. Finding the minimal embedding dimension of receptive eld codes realizable by any given family is an interesting and challenging problem. To be concrete, we propose another simple family motivated by observations from neuroscience. In experiments, one often encounter a group of neurons which all have the same receptive eld up to translation, such as the retinal ganglion cells, head direction cells [1], place cells and grid cells [10, 15]. This corresponds to the case where F consists of all possible translations of some set S  R . We call this the shift code. Thus, a concrete open problem is: which shift codes can be realized, and what would be their minimal embedding dimensions? 2. Proof of the main results De nition 3. LetC be a code on n neurons. We say thatC is realizable by an atom sequence A = (A  R ;   [n]) if A 6= ; ,  2 C. In this case, write C = C(A). Lemma 4. Let C be a code on n neurons. Then C = C(A) if and only if C = C(U ), where U = A ; (2) i2 or equivalently, \ [ A = U n U ; (3) i j i2 j2= with the convention that A = R n U . ; i i2[n] In other words, A and U determine each other. MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 5 Lemma 5. Let C be a code on n neurons. For any d  1, C = C(U ) for some sequence of sets U in R . Proof. It is sucient to prove this statement for d = 1. For each S S 2 Cnf;g, let A = fig  R, and let A = Rn A . Then i2 2Cnf;g C is realized by the atom sequence A. De ne U via (2). By Lemma 4, C = C(U ). De nition 6. We say that two sets A; B  R are adjacent if A\B = ; and either A\ B 6= ; or A\ B 6= ;, where A denotes the closure of A in the Euclidean topology. De nition 7 (The graph of a realization). Let C = C(U ) be a con- nected code with realization U . Let A be the atoms de ned via U in (3). The graph of U , denoted G(U ), is a graph with one vertex for every connected component of each atom A with  6= ;, and an edge for every pair of connected components of atoms that are adjacent. Lemma 8. Let C = C(U ) be a connected code with realization U in dimension d. If G(U ) can be embedded in R , then C can also be realized by connected sets in dimension d . Proof. Take an embedding of G(U ) in R . Let A be the atoms de ned via U in (3). Let v 2 R be the realization of the vertex of G(U ) indexed by the j-th component of the atom A . For each pair of nodes v and v , let e  R be the realization of the edge between these j k j;k nodes. If they are not connected, de ne e = ;. Now de ne atoms j;k 0 d A in R via [ [ 0 d A := v [ e  R ; j j;k j k: for  2 Cnf;g, and 0 d 0 A := R n A : 2Cnf;g 0 0 It is easy to check that C = C(A ), so C is realizable in dimension d , as needed. 2.1. Proof of Proposition 1. Let C be a code on n neurons. By Lemma 5, C = C(U ) = C(A) for some U ; A  R ; i 2 [n];   [n]. For each i 2 [n], U is connected if and only if for every ;   [n] such that i 2 \  , from each connected component C of A to each connected component C of A there is a path C = C ! C : : : ! C ! 1 2 m1 C = C in G(C(U )), where C  A is a connected component m j j of A , such that A  U for each j 2 [m]. Note that, in order to j j 6 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN have the receptive elds either all open or all closed, two connected components C  A , C  A are allowed to be adjacent if and only if either    or   . Hence U is allowed to be connected if and only if for every ;  such that i 2  \  , there exists a sequence of distinct codewords  ; : : : ;  2 C such that: 1 m either    or    , for every j 2 [m 1] j j+1 j+1 j i 2  for each j 2 [m]. This proves the proposition. 2.2. Proof of Theorem 2. We split the statement of Theorem 2 into two parts, and prove them separately. The rst part, Proposition 9 states that the minimal embedding dimension for a connected code is at most 3. The second part, Proposition 10 gives a characterization for connected codes with d = 2. For the case d = 1, see [17, Proposition 1.9 and Theorem 3.4]. Proposition 9. Let C be a connected code on n neurons. Then C is realizable by connected sets in dimension 3. Proof. For all  2 Cnf;g, choose disjoint balls B  R and for all ;  2 C such that    , let T  R be a tube that connects B and B . Since we are in R , the tubes can always be arranged so that they do not intersect with each other and this can be proved by induction the number of tubes. Given m disjoint tubes between jCnf;gj balls, suppose we need to construct a tube T joining the balls B and B . Since the number m of existing tubes is nite, we can pick a point s 2 B and a point t 2 B such that their projections in the (0; 0; 1) direction is larger than that of any other point on the m existing tubes. Now join s and t by a tube T such that its projection onto the (0; 0; 1) direction is larger than that of all other tubes. Thus, T is disjoint from the rst m tubes, completing the induction argument. Now, let A := B [ T for  2 Cnf;g and let A := R n A : 2Cnf;g Then C = C(A). De ne U from A via (2). By Lemma 4, C = C(U ). By construction ofA and since we are assuming thatC satis es Proposition 1, the U 's are connected. This completes the proof. i MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 7 Figure 2. Illustrative gure for the construction in Proposition 9. Given m disjoint tubes between jCnf;gj balls (picture on the left hand side), construct T such that its projection onto the (0; 0; 1) direction is larger than that of all other tubes (right hand side). Proposition 10. Let C be a connected code on n neurons. Then d (C) = 2 if and only if there exists a realization C = C(U ) by con- nected sets in R such that G(U ) is planar. Proof. Suppose d (C) = 2. Then there exists a realization C = C(U ) with U a collection of connected sets U in R . The graph of U , G(U ), is by construction also embedded in R . One can trivially embed a 2 3 realization in R into R without changing the graph G(U ), so we are done. Conversely, suppose that C = C(U ) for some U in R such that G(U ) is planar. By Lemma 8, C is realizable in dimension 2. We conclude our paper with two examples. Example 11 (Connected code with d = 3). Consider the following code C = f;; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 12; 13; 14; 15; 23; 24; 25; 34; 35; 45g: (4) This satis es Proposition 1, so C is a connected code. It's easy to see that every graph G(U ) associated to this code must be a subdivision of the graph in Figure 3, i.e. if C = C(U ), then G(U ) must be either the graph in in Figure 3 or it can be obtained from it by subdividing some of its edges into two new edges, which must be connected to a new vertex. This is due to the fact that C is the code that contains 8 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN exactly every i 2 [5] and every pair ij of distinct i; j 2 [5]. This implies, by Kuratowski's Theorem [2], that every graph associated to C is not planar. By Theorem 2, C has minimal embedding dimension 3. Figure 3. The graph of a connected realization of a code C with d (C) = 3 in Example 11. Example 12 (Connected code with d = 2). LetC = f;; 1; 2; 3; 12; 123g be a code on 3 neurons. By Proposition 1, this code is connected. Figure 4 shows its realization by connected sets in R , and the corre- sponding graph. We claim that the minimal embedding dimension of this code is 2. One could verify by computing the sensor graph of C. Alternatively, note that for the code to be realizable by connected sets, we must have U \ U \ U 6= ; and U can not be contained in U for 1 2 3 i j every i; j 2 [3], i 6= j. This is clearly not possible in dimension 1. Figure 4. The realization of a connected code C with d (C) = 2 in Example 12 and its graph. References [1] L. F. Abbott and P. Dayan, Theoretical neuroscience 806, MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA (2001). MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 9 [2] J. A. Bondy and U.S.R. Murty, Graph Theory, Grad. Texts in Math., 244, Springer (2008). [3] J. Cruz, C. Giusti, V. Itskov and B. Kronholm, On open and closed convex codes, arXiv:1609.03502, (2016). [4] C. Curto, E. Gross, J. Je ries, K. Morrison, M. Omar, Z. Rosen, A. Shiu and N. Youngs, What makes a neural code convex?, SIAM J. Appl. Algebra Geom., 1(1), 222-238, (2016). [5] C. Curto, V. Itskov, A. Veliz-Cuba, N. Youngs, The neural ring: an algebraic tool for analyzing the intrinsic structure of neural codes, Bull. Math. Biol., 75(9):1571-1611, (2013). [6] A. Fish, J. Flower and J. Howse, Euler diagram generation, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 19, (2008) 675-694. [7] J. Flower, P. Rodgers and G. Stapleton, Introducing 3D Venn and Euler Di- agrams, 3rd International Workshop on Euler Diagrams, (2012), Canterbury, UK. [8] J. Flower, P. Rodgers and G. Stapleton, On the Drawability of 3D Venn and Euler Diagrams, Preprint submitted to Visual Languages and Computing, (2013). [9] M. K. Franke and S. Muthiah, Every Neural Code Can Be Realized by Convex Sets, Preprint (2017). [10] M. Fyhn, T. Hafting, S. Molden, E. I. Moser and M.-B. Moser, Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex, Nature 436 (2005), no. 7052, 801806. [11] C. Giusti and V. Itskov, A no-go theorem for one-layer feedforward networks, arXiv:1310.3796, (2013). [12] E. Gross, N. K. Obatake, N. Youngs, Neural ideals and stimulus space visu- alization, arXiv:1607.00697, (2016). [13] R. A. Je s, Convexity of Neural Codes, Undergraduate Thesis, Harvey Mudd College (2016). [14] C. Lienkaemper, A. Shiu and Z. Woodstock, Obstructions to convexity in neural codes, Adv. Appl. Math. 85, 31-59 (2017). [15] J. O'Keefe, Place units in the hippocampus of the freely moving rat, Experi- mental neurology 51 (1976), no. 1, 78109 [16] P. Rodgers, A survey of Euler diagrams, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 25 (2014) 134-155. [17] Z. Rosen and Y. X. Zhang, Convex Neural Codes in Dimension 1, arXiv:1702.06907 (2017). Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany E-mail address : raffaella.mulas@mis.mpg.de Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78751, USA and the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, Bonn Univer- sity, D-53115 Bonn, Germany E-mail address : ntran@math.utexas.edu http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mathematics arXiv (Cornell University)

Minimal Embedding Dimensions of Connected Neural Codes

Mulas, Raffaella; Tran, Ngoc M
Mathematics , Volume 2020 (1706) – Jun 13, 2017
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/minimal-embedding-dimensions-of-connected-neural-codes-cjZDguIlK2
ISSN
2693-3004
eISSN
ARCH-3343
DOI
10.2140/astat.2020.11.99
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN Abstract. Receptive eld code is a recently proposed determinis- tic model of neural ring. The main question is to characterize the set of realizable codes, and their minimal embedding dimensions with respect to a given family of receptive elds. Here we answer both of these questions when the receptive elds are connected. In particular, we show that all connected codes are realizable in dimension at most three. To our knowledge, this is the rst family of receptive eld codes for which both the exact characterization and minimal embedding dimension are known. 1. Introduction The receptive eld code is a deterministic model of neural ring de ned by Curto, Itskov, Veliz-Cuba and Youngs [5]. It consists of n 2 N neurons, each neuron i 2 [n] = f1; 2; : : : ; ng has a receptive eld d d U  R . Given a stimulus x 2 R , the neurons generate a codeword [n] (x)  2 via i 2 (x) , x 2 U : (1) [n] A receptive eld code C(U )  2 is the set of all possible codewords generated from the collection of receptive elds U = (U ; : : : ; U ). For 1 n convenience, we will assume that every receptive eld code includes the empty set, i.e. ; 2 C, which is equivalent to assume that U ( R . i2[n] The results in this paper still hold if one assumes ; 2= C. [n] d Given a code C  2 with ; 2 C and a family F of sets in R , we say that C is realizable in dimension d if C = C(U ) for some U  F . Call the smallest such d the minimal embedding dimension of the code C, denoted d (C;F ). The minimal embedding problem is to nd d (C;F ) [n] d for given a code C  2 and a family F = (F ; d  1) of sets in R . This paper focuses on connected codes. These are codes realizable by connected sets in R , for some d 2 N, which are either all closed or all open. Asking for these sets to be either all closed or all open makes sense in neuroscience, where receptive elds are intrinsically noisy [3], and it also makes the problem non-trivial since all codes can be real- ized with connected sets if there are no other constraints. Furthermore, arXiv:1706.03999v3 [math.CO] 28 Nov 2017 2 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN Figure 1. 4 receptive elds generating the receptive eld code C(U ) = f;; 1; 2; 3; 4; 12; 13; 23; 24; 123g. a code is realizable with closed connected sets if and only if it is re- alizable with open connected sets. In fact, if C = C(U ) where U = (U ; : : : ; U ) is given by closed connected sets, then C = C(U ) where 1 n 0 0 0 0 U := (U ; : : : ; U ) and U is a suciently small open connected set 1 n i containing U . Vice versa, if C = C(U ) where U = (U ; : : : ; U ) is given i 1 n 00 00 00 00 by open connected sets, then C = C(U ) where U := (U ; : : : ; U ) and 1 n U is a suciently big closed connected set contained in U . Our main results completely characterize realizability and minimal embedding dimensions of connected codes. In particular, it is easy to check if a code is connected, and if it is, then the minimal embedding dimension is at most 3. The graph of a family of connected sets U is given in De nition 7. An alternative characterization of connected codes can be found in [13, Theorem 4.1]. Proposition 1 (Realizability of connected codes). A code C is con- nected if and only if for each ;  2 C and for each i 2  \  , there exists a sequence of distinct codewords  ; : : : ;  2 C such that: 1 m either    or    , for every j 2 [m 1] j j+1 j+1 j i 2  for each j 2 [m]. Theorem 2 (Minimal embedding of connected codes). Suppose C is a connected code. Let d (C) denote its minimal embedding dimension with respect to the family of connected sets. d (C) = 1 if and only if the sensor graph of C is bipartite [17]. Else, d (C) = 2 if and only if there exists a realization C(U ) = C by connected sets U in dimension 3 such that the graph of U is planar. Else, d (C) = 3. MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 3 In dimension 1, connected codes equal the convex codes studied by Rosen and Zhang [17]. The characterization for d = 1 via the sensor graph in Theorem 2 belongs to [17], and is included for completeness. We do not de ne the sensor graph of a code here, but note that it is an intrinsic property of the code, independent of any realization U . The minimal embedding dimension d (;F ) and the family F of re- ceptive elds form a trade-o in measuring the complexity of the signal encoded by the neurons, and is thus of particular interest in receptive eld coding. There has been a number of work on criterion for real- izability and bounds for d (;F ) when the set F consists of (open or closed) convex sets [3, 4, 11, 14, 17]. However, complete characterization and the exact minimal embedding dimension of convex codes remain a problem. Giusti and Itskov [11] found necessary conditions for a code to be realizable with open convex sets, and proved lower bounds on the embedding dimensions of such codes. In [3], Cruz, Giusti, It- skov and Kronholm proved that there exists a family of codes, called max-intersection-complete codes, that are both open convex and closed convex, and they gave an upper bound for their embedding dimension. To the best of our knowledge, connected codes form the rst family of receptive eld codes for which an intrinsic characterization and the exact embedding dimension is known. Furthermore, our proof gives explicit constructions for the code realization in each dimension. Receptive eld codes are closely related to Euler diagrams, which found applications in information systems, statistics and logic [6, 16]. Since their main applications are in visualization, the literature on Euler diagrams focus exclusively on 2 and 3 dimensions. Translated to our setup, an Euler diagram in R is a collection U = (U ; : : : ; U ) 1 n of closed, orientable surfaces embedded in R . An Euler diagram in 2 2 R is a similar collection of closed curves embedded in R . A diagram description is a code C such that ; 2 C. The description of an Euler diagram U is the code C(U ), where U := (U ; : : : ; U ) consists of the 1 n relative interior of the sets U 's. The main problem in this literature is realizability: given a code C, is there an Euler diagram U such that C = C(U )? Every code C can be realized by an Euler diagram in dimension 2 [16], and by an Euler diagram in dimension 3 with connected sets U 's [8]. Note the crucial di erence to receptive eld codes: in an Euler diagram, codewords are generated by intersection of the relative interior of the U 's. In particular, all codes C which fail the condition of Proposition 1 satisfy C = C(U ) for some tuple of closed connected sets U in R , but C 6= C(U ) for any tuple of closed connected sets in any dimension. 4 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN In practice, neural ring is stochastic. One could incorporate noise to the receptive eld code by replacing the deterministic equation (1) with some parametrization of the ring probability P(i 2 (x)jx 2 U ). To be well-de ned, this model needs further speci cations, such as the distribution of the signal on R . In this formulation, the minimal em- bedding dimension is a dicult and poorly formed statistical problem. Furthermore, it is clear that the minimal embedding dimension depends heavily on such details. However, underlying such models the assump- tion that there is a set of true receptive elds U . Knowing the minimal embedding dimension for the deterministic model ensures that the neu- roscientist do not have excessively many parameters, which can lead to ill-de ned estimation problems. From this view, Theorem 2 states that if the true receptive elds are only required to be connected, one can assume that they are in dimension 3. Apart from connected and convex sets, there are many biologically relevant models for receptive elds. Finding the minimal embedding dimension of receptive eld codes realizable by any given family is an interesting and challenging problem. To be concrete, we propose another simple family motivated by observations from neuroscience. In experiments, one often encounter a group of neurons which all have the same receptive eld up to translation, such as the retinal ganglion cells, head direction cells [1], place cells and grid cells [10, 15]. This corresponds to the case where F consists of all possible translations of some set S  R . We call this the shift code. Thus, a concrete open problem is: which shift codes can be realized, and what would be their minimal embedding dimensions? 2. Proof of the main results De nition 3. LetC be a code on n neurons. We say thatC is realizable by an atom sequence A = (A  R ;   [n]) if A 6= ; ,  2 C. In this case, write C = C(A). Lemma 4. Let C be a code on n neurons. Then C = C(A) if and only if C = C(U ), where U = A ; (2) i2 or equivalently, \ [ A = U n U ; (3) i j i2 j2= with the convention that A = R n U . ; i i2[n] In other words, A and U determine each other. MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 5 Lemma 5. Let C be a code on n neurons. For any d  1, C = C(U ) for some sequence of sets U in R . Proof. It is sucient to prove this statement for d = 1. For each S S 2 Cnf;g, let A = fig  R, and let A = Rn A . Then i2 2Cnf;g C is realized by the atom sequence A. De ne U via (2). By Lemma 4, C = C(U ). De nition 6. We say that two sets A; B  R are adjacent if A\B = ; and either A\ B 6= ; or A\ B 6= ;, where A denotes the closure of A in the Euclidean topology. De nition 7 (The graph of a realization). Let C = C(U ) be a con- nected code with realization U . Let A be the atoms de ned via U in (3). The graph of U , denoted G(U ), is a graph with one vertex for every connected component of each atom A with  6= ;, and an edge for every pair of connected components of atoms that are adjacent. Lemma 8. Let C = C(U ) be a connected code with realization U in dimension d. If G(U ) can be embedded in R , then C can also be realized by connected sets in dimension d . Proof. Take an embedding of G(U ) in R . Let A be the atoms de ned via U in (3). Let v 2 R be the realization of the vertex of G(U ) indexed by the j-th component of the atom A . For each pair of nodes v and v , let e  R be the realization of the edge between these j k j;k nodes. If they are not connected, de ne e = ;. Now de ne atoms j;k 0 d A in R via [ [ 0 d A := v [ e  R ; j j;k j k: for  2 Cnf;g, and 0 d 0 A := R n A : 2Cnf;g 0 0 It is easy to check that C = C(A ), so C is realizable in dimension d , as needed. 2.1. Proof of Proposition 1. Let C be a code on n neurons. By Lemma 5, C = C(U ) = C(A) for some U ; A  R ; i 2 [n];   [n]. For each i 2 [n], U is connected if and only if for every ;   [n] such that i 2 \  , from each connected component C of A to each connected component C of A there is a path C = C ! C : : : ! C ! 1 2 m1 C = C in G(C(U )), where C  A is a connected component m j j of A , such that A  U for each j 2 [m]. Note that, in order to j j 6 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN have the receptive elds either all open or all closed, two connected components C  A , C  A are allowed to be adjacent if and only if either    or   . Hence U is allowed to be connected if and only if for every ;  such that i 2  \  , there exists a sequence of distinct codewords  ; : : : ;  2 C such that: 1 m either    or    , for every j 2 [m 1] j j+1 j+1 j i 2  for each j 2 [m]. This proves the proposition. 2.2. Proof of Theorem 2. We split the statement of Theorem 2 into two parts, and prove them separately. The rst part, Proposition 9 states that the minimal embedding dimension for a connected code is at most 3. The second part, Proposition 10 gives a characterization for connected codes with d = 2. For the case d = 1, see [17, Proposition 1.9 and Theorem 3.4]. Proposition 9. Let C be a connected code on n neurons. Then C is realizable by connected sets in dimension 3. Proof. For all  2 Cnf;g, choose disjoint balls B  R and for all ;  2 C such that    , let T  R be a tube that connects B and B . Since we are in R , the tubes can always be arranged so that they do not intersect with each other and this can be proved by induction the number of tubes. Given m disjoint tubes between jCnf;gj balls, suppose we need to construct a tube T joining the balls B and B . Since the number m of existing tubes is nite, we can pick a point s 2 B and a point t 2 B such that their projections in the (0; 0; 1) direction is larger than that of any other point on the m existing tubes. Now join s and t by a tube T such that its projection onto the (0; 0; 1) direction is larger than that of all other tubes. Thus, T is disjoint from the rst m tubes, completing the induction argument. Now, let A := B [ T for  2 Cnf;g and let A := R n A : 2Cnf;g Then C = C(A). De ne U from A via (2). By Lemma 4, C = C(U ). By construction ofA and since we are assuming thatC satis es Proposition 1, the U 's are connected. This completes the proof. i MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 7 Figure 2. Illustrative gure for the construction in Proposition 9. Given m disjoint tubes between jCnf;gj balls (picture on the left hand side), construct T such that its projection onto the (0; 0; 1) direction is larger than that of all other tubes (right hand side). Proposition 10. Let C be a connected code on n neurons. Then d (C) = 2 if and only if there exists a realization C = C(U ) by con- nected sets in R such that G(U ) is planar. Proof. Suppose d (C) = 2. Then there exists a realization C = C(U ) with U a collection of connected sets U in R . The graph of U , G(U ), is by construction also embedded in R . One can trivially embed a 2 3 realization in R into R without changing the graph G(U ), so we are done. Conversely, suppose that C = C(U ) for some U in R such that G(U ) is planar. By Lemma 8, C is realizable in dimension 2. We conclude our paper with two examples. Example 11 (Connected code with d = 3). Consider the following code C = f;; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 12; 13; 14; 15; 23; 24; 25; 34; 35; 45g: (4) This satis es Proposition 1, so C is a connected code. It's easy to see that every graph G(U ) associated to this code must be a subdivision of the graph in Figure 3, i.e. if C = C(U ), then G(U ) must be either the graph in in Figure 3 or it can be obtained from it by subdividing some of its edges into two new edges, which must be connected to a new vertex. This is due to the fact that C is the code that contains 8 RAFFAELLA MULAS AND NGOC M TRAN exactly every i 2 [5] and every pair ij of distinct i; j 2 [5]. This implies, by Kuratowski's Theorem [2], that every graph associated to C is not planar. By Theorem 2, C has minimal embedding dimension 3. Figure 3. The graph of a connected realization of a code C with d (C) = 3 in Example 11. Example 12 (Connected code with d = 2). LetC = f;; 1; 2; 3; 12; 123g be a code on 3 neurons. By Proposition 1, this code is connected. Figure 4 shows its realization by connected sets in R , and the corre- sponding graph. We claim that the minimal embedding dimension of this code is 2. One could verify by computing the sensor graph of C. Alternatively, note that for the code to be realizable by connected sets, we must have U \ U \ U 6= ; and U can not be contained in U for 1 2 3 i j every i; j 2 [3], i 6= j. This is clearly not possible in dimension 1. Figure 4. The realization of a connected code C with d (C) = 2 in Example 12 and its graph. References [1] L. F. Abbott and P. Dayan, Theoretical neuroscience 806, MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA (2001). MINIMAL EMBEDDING DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTED NEURAL CODES 9 [2] J. A. Bondy and U.S.R. Murty, Graph Theory, Grad. Texts in Math., 244, Springer (2008). [3] J. Cruz, C. Giusti, V. Itskov and B. Kronholm, On open and closed convex codes, arXiv:1609.03502, (2016). [4] C. Curto, E. Gross, J. Je ries, K. Morrison, M. Omar, Z. Rosen, A. Shiu and N. Youngs, What makes a neural code convex?, SIAM J. Appl. Algebra Geom., 1(1), 222-238, (2016). [5] C. Curto, V. Itskov, A. Veliz-Cuba, N. Youngs, The neural ring: an algebraic tool for analyzing the intrinsic structure of neural codes, Bull. Math. Biol., 75(9):1571-1611, (2013). [6] A. Fish, J. Flower and J. Howse, Euler diagram generation, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 19, (2008) 675-694. [7] J. Flower, P. Rodgers and G. Stapleton, Introducing 3D Venn and Euler Di- agrams, 3rd International Workshop on Euler Diagrams, (2012), Canterbury, UK. [8] J. Flower, P. Rodgers and G. Stapleton, On the Drawability of 3D Venn and Euler Diagrams, Preprint submitted to Visual Languages and Computing, (2013). [9] M. K. Franke and S. Muthiah, Every Neural Code Can Be Realized by Convex Sets, Preprint (2017). [10] M. Fyhn, T. Hafting, S. Molden, E. I. Moser and M.-B. Moser, Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex, Nature 436 (2005), no. 7052, 801806. [11] C. Giusti and V. Itskov, A no-go theorem for one-layer feedforward networks, arXiv:1310.3796, (2013). [12] E. Gross, N. K. Obatake, N. Youngs, Neural ideals and stimulus space visu- alization, arXiv:1607.00697, (2016). [13] R. A. Je s, Convexity of Neural Codes, Undergraduate Thesis, Harvey Mudd College (2016). [14] C. Lienkaemper, A. Shiu and Z. Woodstock, Obstructions to convexity in neural codes, Adv. Appl. Math. 85, 31-59 (2017). [15] J. O'Keefe, Place units in the hippocampus of the freely moving rat, Experi- mental neurology 51 (1976), no. 1, 78109 [16] P. Rodgers, A survey of Euler diagrams, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 25 (2014) 134-155. [17] Z. Rosen and Y. X. Zhang, Convex Neural Codes in Dimension 1, arXiv:1702.06907 (2017). Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany E-mail address : raffaella.mulas@mis.mpg.de Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78751, USA and the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, Bonn Univer- sity, D-53115 Bonn, Germany E-mail address : ntran@math.utexas.edu

Journal

Mathematics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jun 13, 2017

There are no references for this article.