Forward Target Propagation: A Forward-Only Approach to Global Error Credit Assignment via Local Losses
Nazmus Saadat As-Saquib, A N M Nafiz Abeer, Hung-Ta Chien, Byung-Jun Yoon, Suhas Kumar, Su-in Yi

TL;DR
Forward Target Propagation (FTP) offers a biologically plausible, efficient alternative to backpropagation by replacing the backward pass with a second forward pass, enabling local learning and hardware-friendly neural network training.
Contribution
FTP introduces a forward-only learning algorithm that estimates layerwise targets without symmetric weights or inverse functions, improving biological plausibility and hardware efficiency.
Findings
FTP achieves competitive accuracy on MNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100.
FTP outperforms backpropagation under low-precision hardware constraints.
FTP demonstrates efficiency gains over other biologically inspired learning methods.
Abstract
Training neural networks has traditionally relied on backpropagation (BP), a gradient-based algorithm that, despite its widespread success, suffers from key limitations in both biological and hardware perspectives. These include backward error propagation by symmetric weights, non-local credit assignment, and frozen activity during backward passes. We propose Forward Target Propagation (FTP), a biologically plausible and computationally efficient alternative that replaces the backward pass with a second forward pass. FTP estimates layerwise targets using only feedforward computations, eliminating the need for symmetric feedback weights or learnable inverse functions, hence enabling modular and local learning. We evaluate FTP on fully connected networks, CNNs, and RNNs, demonstrating accuracies competitive with BP on MNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100, as well as effective modeling of…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1. The core mechanism is easy to implement and reason about. It avoids the symmetric weight transport, alleviates update locking, and aligns with BP directions. 2. The paper include hardware-motivated discussions and show the robustness under various settings.
1. Core claims are severely overstated or imprecise. 1.1) “Forward-only” is misleading. Although gradients are not propagated backward, FTP does use a top down feedback pathway (the fixed matrix projecting from output space to the first hidden layer, Fig. 1d). It is more similar to DFA-series works compared to “forward-only” methods. 1.2) “Local credit assignment” is imprecise. The method does rely on global signals (top-down feedback from output space) and requires temporal non-locality to wa
- The idea is new (to my knowledge), even though it combines elements from existing target-propagation and forward-only methods. - The algorithm appears satisfactory with respect to several goals: biological plausibility, hardware-efficient implementation, and robustness.
- The core idea lacks analytical justification; the paper offers no convincing theoretical reasoning and relies primarily on empirical evidence. - The experiments are not compelling: network depths and sizes are small (only one or two hidden layers are used).
This paper provides a promising alternative to backpropagation for neural network training. Results show competitive performance compared to other related algorithms and learning stability for mid-sized networks. The appendices provide extensive additional detail about the behaviour of the algorithm as well as a theoretical derivation of the approach.
The authors provide a scaling experiment. However, scaling is up to max 5 layers and only 2 convlayers. This leaves me wondering how the algorithm behaves for much larger networks. It would be relatively easy to test this. E.g. how does it perform wrt architectures like very deep Resnets trained on imagenet? Does it reach SOTA accuracy? How about LLMs and other architectures? The reason I am asking is because many alternatives to BP tend to break down at much larger scales. It is important to an
1. Clear, simple forward-only rule with an easily implementable target construction and a single fixed feedback matrix. 2. The method extends to RNNs with minimal changes, and the study includes multivariate time-series forecasting, which shows the potential of adapting to various domains.
1. All experiments are conducted on small datasets, not large-scale ones. The reviewer is curious about the performance on large-scale datasets such as ImageNet. 2. The experiment lacks some recent baselines. The reviewer is wondering how FTP performs compared to these models.[1-3] 3. No direct runtime measurements or memory traces to substantiate efficiency beyond MAC estimates. The reviewer wants to see the training time, RAM usage, etc., compared with other baselines. [1] Kappel, David, Kh
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
