Conditioned Direct Feedback Alignment via Activity and Error Geometry

Direct feedback alignment (DFA) trains hidden layers with fixed random projections of the output error, avoiding the transposed-weight backward pass of backpropagation (BP). We study a failure mode of DFA training that is distinct from feedback quality: the local weight update is calculated by an outer product, so anisotropy can enter through either its presynaptic-activity factor or its local-error factor. Our analyses with controlled synthetic regimes isolate the first failure mode and show an approximately 40-percentage-point activity-conditioning gain when high-variance directions contain task-irrelevant nuisance. Three clean confirmations isolate a different regime: error conditioning improves raw DFA by 1.77--7.53 percentage points, and combining independently selected activity and error factors adds 0.40--0.90 points over activity conditioning. The signs hold for tanh/one-vs-rest MNIST and preregistered Fashion-MNIST, and replicate on eight fresh seeds in a ReLU/softmax MNIST model. This factorization yields a symmetric block-local family of normalized DFA (nDFA): activity nDFA right-preconditions by an inverse activity second moment, error nDFA left-preconditions by an inverse local-error second moment, and K-nDFA applies both factors with separately tuned damping. A linearized post-alignment calculation gives an exact input-side spectral identity and a Kronecker-factor motivation for the two-sided rule, whereas norm matching rules out a scalar step-size explanation. The error factor is fragile when under-damped, BatchNorm is a strong activity-side alternative, and convnet gains remain partial. We therefore frame conditioned DFA as a factor-level study of when local outer-product rules fail, not as a general replacement for BP or a solution to all-layer convolutional credit assignment.

What Accuracy and Gradient Cosine Miss: Evaluating Feedback Alignment via Scale Stability, Reference Validity, and Depth Utility

Despite the success of deep learning, training deep networks in biologically plausible and hardware-efficient ways remains an open challenge. Feedback alignment (FA) methods address this by replacing backpropagation's symmetric backward weights with fixed random matrices, but their effectiveness depends critically on whether they can be accurately evaluated. The standard evaluation relies on two quantities: task accuracy and cosine similarity between the method's credit signal and the backpropagation gradient. We show that this reporting pair is insufficient by identifying two independent failure modes, both silent under current reporting: (1) measurement degeneracy, where the BP reference gradient collapses to the numerical floor in terminal-LayerNorm residual architectures, rendering cosine uninterpretable; and (2) aggregation collapse, where the aggregate cosine masks layerwise heterogeneity that concentrates credit at one end of the network. To address these limitations, we propose a diagnostic evaluation protocol based on three checks -- scale stability, reference validity, and depth utility -- together with per-layer rather than aggregate cosine reporting. Across multiple architectures and methods, the standard reporting pair gives no signal of failure in any audited case, while our protocol identifies all failures with wide calibration margins. The two failure modes are causally independent: a per-block scale penalty alleviates Mode 1 (residual scale explosion driving reference collapse) without affecting Mode 2 (cosine ranking that contradicts every functional metric we measured). Identifying these silent failures prevents researchers from building on non-functional credit assignment and provides actionable guidance for developing FA methods that genuinely train deep layers.