Stochastic gradient descent with backpropagation is the workhorse of artificial neural networks. It has long been recognized that backpropagation fails to be a biologically plausible algorithm. Fundamentally, it is a non-local procedure---updating one neuron's synaptic weights requires knowledge of synaptic weights or receptive fields of downstream neurons. This limits the use of artificial neural networks as a tool for understanding the biological principles of information processing in the brain. Lillicrap et al. (2016) propose a more biologically plausible feedback alignment algorithm that uses random and fixed backpropagation weights, and show promising simulations. In this paper we study the mathematical properties of the feedback alignment procedure by analyzing convergence and alignment for two-layer networks under squared error loss. In the overparameterized setting, we prove that the error converges to zero exponentially fast, and also that regularization is necessary in order for the parameters to become aligned with the random backpropagation weights. Simulations are given that are consistent with this analysis and suggest further generalizations. These results contribute to our understanding of how biologically plausible algorithms might carry out weight learning in a manner different from Hebbian learning, with performance that is comparable with the full non-local backpropagation algorithm.

The above theories, with finite width networks, usually require the weights to stay close to initialization in certain norms. By contrast, practitioners run their optimization methods as long as their computational budget allows [Shallue et al., 2018], and if the data can be perfectly classified, the

Stochastic gradient descent with backpropagation is the workhorse of artificial neural networks. It has long been recognized that backpropagation fails to be a biologically plausible algorithm. Fundamentally, it is a non-local procedure---updating one neuron's synaptic weights requires knowledge of synaptic weights or receptive fields of downstream neurons. This limits the use of artificial neural networks as a tool for understanding the biological principles of information processing in the brain. Lillicrap et al. (2016) propose a more biologically plausible "feedback alignment" algorithm that uses random and fixed backpropagation weights, and show promising simulations.

Weaknesses: I have two main critiques on this work. The first relates to the significance of its results. In the setting studied, directional convergence, alignment and margin maximization have all been treated in several recent works (which the paper refers to). I know that at least in some of these works directional convergence and/or alignments were assumed (not proven), but nonetheless, my feeling is that the paper does not draw a sufficiently clear line separating itself from existing literature. For example, a very relevant existing work --- Lyu and Li 2019 --- is said to have left open the issues of directional convergence and alignment, but to my knowledge, that work does establish directional convergence, at least in some settings.

Stochastic gradient descent with backpropagation is the workhorse of artificial neural networks. It has long been recognized that backpropagation fails to be a biologically plausible algorithm. Fundamentally, it is a non-local procedure---updating one neuron's synaptic weights requires knowledge of synaptic weights or receptive fields of downstream neurons. This limits the use of artificial neural networks as a tool for understanding the biological principles of information processing in the brain. Lillicrap et al. (2016) propose a more biologically plausible "feedback alignment" algorithm that uses random and fixed backpropagation weights, and show promising simulations.