The Forward-Forward Algorithm (FFA) replaces backpropagation (BP) with layer-wise local contrastive objectives, eliminating the backward pass and the need to retain intermediate activations, yet suffers a persistent performance gap with BP that worsens with depth. This paper diagnoses two structural failure modes: an optimization floor arising from concurrent local updates; and a geometric collapse of layer representations driven by the local update mechanism. On the optimization side, we prove that the FFA loss satisfies the Polyak--Lojasiewicz inequality at each layer; however, simultaneous layer updates induce inter-layer representation-distribution drift, so each layer optimizes against a moving input distribution and incurs an error floor. On the representational side, the pairwise similarity kernel of layer representations contracts exponentially toward rank one as depth increases, collapsing the diversity of per-layer error signals. This collapse bounds FFA's effective learning capacity, which measures the diversity of gradient information across layers, independently of depth, whereas BP's chain-rule signal preserves per-layer diversity, yielding a capacity that scales with depth.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: Multi-layer FFA convergence in the toy model. The vertical dotted line marks k=103 . Right: Test accuracy curve of ResNet-18 @ CIFAR-10 training.
Figure 2: CIFAR-10 classification accuracy across ResNet depths (ResNet18/24/56), measured by a detached readout. BP remains best at every depth; supervised local-learning methods trail by a moderate margin, while goodness-based FFA methods trail substantially.
Blocks × layers/block
Best acc.
Final loss
Mean \erank(Γ)
12×1
53.02±0.48%
1.1014±0.0034
2.198±0.042
6×2
58.09±1.85%
1.0455±0.0068
5.146±0.592
4×3
67.57±4.35%
1.0064±0.0158
4.856±0.552
3×4
72.22±1.07%
0.9795±0.0018
5.135±2.164
2×6
76.21±0.48%
0.9657±0.0027
7.613±3.828
1×12
78.74±4.06%
0.9550±0.0199
7.975±1.214
Table 1: Controlled locality intervention on CIFAR-10 with CNN12. Entries are mean ± sample standard deviation over three seeds.
Scale
Params
Budget
BP
FFA
LCE
FFA/BP
LCE/BP
tiny ( L=2 )
7M
0.14B
138
516
166
3.73 ×
1.20 ×
small ( L=4 )
16M
0.32B
68
313
84
4.59 ×
1.22 ×
medium ( L=6 )
30M
0.60B
48
275
64
5.74 ×
1.33 ×
large ( L=8 )
51M
1.02B
39
256
54
6.55 ×
1.38 ×
xlarge ( L=12 )
124M
2.48B
28
258
42
9.19 ×
1.51 ×
Table 2: Perplexity of Transformer pre-training on OpenWebText under Chinchilla-style budgets.
Table 3: (Left) Controlled spectral interpolation on CNN3/CIFAR-10. Entries report best test accuracy and terminal mean layerwise participation-ratio \erank(Γ) . (Right) Finite-sample Jacobian-concentration diagnostics of the residual model ( 1 ). Each entry reports mean ± sample standard deviation over three seeds.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Training-time last-block rank diagnostics on CNN@CIFAR-10. Top: representation effective rank \erank(Σ) . Bottom: error-signal effective rank \erank(Γ) . The Σ probe contains one row-normalized representation per image.
Architecture
BP
Vanilla FFA
Gap
CNN (3 conv layers)
76.03%
73.73%
2.30%
ViT (2 transformer layers)
72.71%
64.77%
7.94%
Appendix
Table 4: Test accuracy on modern architectures.
Arch
Conv blocks
Channel growth
Spatial scales
Params (BP)
CNN3
3
3→32→64→128
322→162→82
0.62M
CNN6
6
3→32→32→64→64→128→128
322→162→82
0.81M
CNN9
9
32→64→128→256 (VGG-style)
322→162→82→42
2.81M
Appendix
Table 5: CNN backbone architectures used in the unified benchmark.
Algorithm
Category
CNN3
CNN6
CNN9
Standard BP
Baseline
79.26 ± 0.24
85.30 ± 0.15
86.12 ± 0.28
Vanilla FFA [ 1 ]
FFA
47.98 ± 1.71
52.31 ± 1.29
54.05 ± 1.99
SymBa [ 14 ]
FFA-contrastive
60.96 ± 1.65
61.93 ± 0.90
63.69 ± 0.50
SCFF [ 16 ]
FFA-contrastive
50.04 ± 1.95
50.75 ± 1.99
53.47 ± 1.85
Trifecta [ 47 ]
FFA-extended
57.51 ± 0.57
60.52 ± 0.34
62.42 ± 1.05
Scodellaro CNN-FFA [ 8 ]
FFA-extended
38.41 ± 0.65
43.12 ± 0.97
43.58 ± 2.38
Appendix
Table 6: CIFAR-10 CNN benchmark across local learning algorithms. Entries are best test accuracy (%, mean ± std over seeds 0/1/2).
Dataset
Depth
BP
LCE
SFF
DF
ΔBP−best
MNIST
R18
99.66
99.62
99.60
99.64
+0.02
R24
99.71
99.65
99.69
99.68
+0.02
R56
99.67
99.70
99.70
99.67
−0.03
R108
99.68
99.66
99.70
99.64
−0.02
CIFAR-10
R18
95.15
89.06
87.20
87.16
+6.09
R24
95.42
89.03
87.09
87.19
+6.39
Appendix
Table 7: Detached-readout accuracy (%) of BP-competitive methods on ResNet-{18,24,56,108} across four task-difficulty regimes. “base.”/“hard.” denote the baseline / hardened training recipe. Δ is the gap from BP to the best local method on the row. Single seed throughout.
Figure 4: Detached-readout best test accuracy versus ResNet depth across four task-difficulty regimes (MNIST and CIFAR-10 use the baseline recipe; CIFAR-100 and Tiny-ImageNet use the hardened recipe). The BP–local-learning gap is essentially zero on MNIST (all four BP-competitive methods saturate), 5 – 6 pp on CIFAR-10 for BP-competitive locals (and >50 pp for the label-injection FFA family; see Table 9 ), and grows to 8 – 13 pp on CIFAR-100/Tiny-ImageNet—where added depth and the hardened recipe partially reshape, but do not close, the gap.
Figure 5: Headline view of the data in Table 7 : BP minus best BP-competitive-local detached-readout accuracy (pp) plotted across the six (dataset, recipe) regimes ordered by approximate difficulty. One line per ResNet depth. The gap is essentially zero on MNIST (BP saturates), 5 – 6 pp on CIFAR-10, and rises into the 7 – 15 pp band on CIFAR-100 / Tiny-ImageNet across both recipes. At every regime, the within-depth spread is ≤3 pp—small relative to the difficulty-driven trend. Single-seed estimates throughout.
BP
LCE
SFF
DF
Dataset
Depth
native
read.
Δr−n
native
read.
Δr−n
native
read.
Δr−n
native
read.
Δr−n
C-100 (hard.)
R18
79.85
79.79
−0.06
67.98
68.48
+0.50
69.61
68.00
−1.61
67.31
67.84
+0.53
R24
80.38
80.40
+0.02
68.80
68.92
+0.12
70.07
68.19
−1.88
69.03
69.47
+0.44
R56
79.77
79.74
−0.03
70.16
70.89
+0.73
71.88
69.84
−2.04
71.25
72.00
+0.75
R108
79.91
80.19
+0.28
71.02
71.48
+0.46
72.81
70.59
−2.22
72.56
72.43
−0.13
T-IN (hard.)
R18
65.06
64.69
−0.37
50.55
51.26
+0.71
52.67
51.77
−0.90
51.08
51.52
+0.44
Appendix
Table 8: Native test accuracy versus detached-readout accuracy (%) on CIFAR-100 and Tiny-ImageNet under the hardened recipe. “ Δr−n ” is readout minus native; positive means the detached readout extracts more class information from the same trunk than the algorithm’s native head does. The pattern is algorithm-specific: BP and DF show ∣Δr−n∣<1 pp; LCE’s readout exceeds its native head by up to +1.0 pp; SFF’s native head consistently exceeds its readout by up to −3.20 pp because SFF’s native logits aggregate all per-block heads.
Dataset
Depth
SCFF
Vanilla FFA
SymBa
LayerCollab
Trifecta
MNIST
R18
79.44
75.32
91.43
84.76
90.87
R24
82.87
84.16
91.23
82.40
89.88
R56
84.83
81.45
87.73
72.47
90.12
R108
67.60
81.47
87.25
89.94
90.98
CIFAR-10
R18
32.09
31.69
41.46
32.45
41.41
R24
33.66
31.14
40.80
32.45
39.52
Appendix
Table 9: Label-injection FFA family detached-readout accuracy (%) on the same ResNet ladder. These methods are excluded from CIFAR-100 / Tiny-ImageNet, where they failed to train stably across depths under their published recipes.
Dataset
Depth
BP
LCE
SFF
DF
avg
CIFAR-100
R18
+2.05
+3.84
+5.02
+5.28
+4.05
R24
+2.38
+4.54
+5.07
+6.77
+4.69
R56
+1.83
+5.62
+6.29
+8.04
+5.45
R108
+2.00
+4.37
+6.65
+7.16
+5.05
Tiny-ImageNet
R18
+8.64
+6.77
+7.21
+6.15
+7.19
R24
+8.46
+6.40
+7.86
+6.67
+7.35
Appendix
Table 10: Detached-readout accuracy gain (pp) from baseline to hardened recipe, per (depth, algorithm). Last column averages across the four BP-competitive algorithms.
Deep neural networks trained with backpropagation have achieved outstanding performance in vision tasks but remain biologically implausible, computationally demanding, and difficult to interpret. The Forward-Forward (FF) algorithm offers a promising alternative by training each layer independently through local goodness objectives. However, its purely local optimization lacks hierarchical coordination across layers, and the decoupling of goodness from features leaves the representations unconstrained and semantically ambiguous. We propose a Hierarchical and Contrastive Learning FF framework (HCL-FF) to address these limitations. HCL-FF introduces (1) a coarse-to-fine hierarchical learning strategy that guides representations from low-level cues to high-level semantics, and (2) a supervised contrastive objective that enforces class-discriminative alignment after goodness decoupling. Experiments on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet demonstrate that HCL-FF achieves new state-of-the-art performance among FF-based methods, with notable accuracy gains of +5.46%, +17.00%, and +12.51%, respectively.
Forward-Forward (FF) learning [Hinton, 2022] replaces backpropagation with strictly layer-local goodness updates. Recent FF-CNN work has narrowed the gap to BP on 32x32 benchmarks, raising the question of whether layer-local training is becoming a viable alternative at realistic scale. To probe this rigorously, we develop DTG-FF -- dynamic temperature goodness, decoupled normalization, and multi-layer fusion -- as an instrument that sets FF-family state of the art across nine real-data benchmarks at the time of our submission (91.8% CIFAR-10 and an FF baseline at ImageNet-100 224x224), and use it to audit how far layer-local training actually scales. (1) Real-data scaling. Under identical recipe and backbone, an architecture-matched BP-DeepSup baseline beats DTG-FF by 2.40/5.93 pp on CIFAR-10/CIFAR-100, and the gap widens with class count. At 224x224 the same instrument reaches only 49.4% on ImageNet-100, versus 75.6% even for a self-supervised BP-trained ResNet-50 with linear evaluation [Tian et al., 2020] -- exposing a real-data ceiling invisible at 32x32. (2) Synthetic vs. real K-conflict. DTG-FF increasingly outperforms BP as class count K grows on synthetic teacher-student tasks, yet on real images the FF-BP gap reverses sign and widens with K. A within-dataset CIFAR-100 coarse vs. fine probe isolates label-hierarchy from image distribution: synthetic K-sweeps confound output dimensionality with fine-grained discrimination difficulty and thereby overstate FF transferability. (3) Systems audit. FF can be implemented without storing depth-wide activations, but on commodity 8 GB hardware standard BP+gradient-accumulation reaches 4.18 GB / 157 imgs/s versus DTG-FF's 7.90 GB / 138 imgs/s, so a memory-based justification for FF at this scale is not supported under fair baselines.
The Forward-Forward algorithm eliminates global gradient flow and full network activations storage. However, in convolutional settings, existing BP-free FF methods significantly under-perform backpropagation on complex benchmarks such as ImageNet-100 and Tiny-ImageNet. We identify this gap as a structural bottleneck in goodness extraction: standard sum-of-squares formulation collapses feature volumes into channel-wise activation energies which omits critical second-order dependencies. To address this, we propose a framework centered on three key components. First, Bi-axis Covariance Goodness(BiCovG) explicitly augments the standard goodness function with structured second-order information along two axes: cross-channel projections that model inter-feature covariance, and nested multi-scale aggregation that encodes spatial correlation statistics. This provides a tractable approximation to covariance-aware goodness without the prohibitive O(C^2) complexity of explicit matrix estimation. Second, a lightweight Logistic Fusion module aggregates layer-wise predictions, amplifying the contribution of deeper representations. Third, the Feature Alignment Layer(FAL) introduces a zero-initialized correction at block boundaries to mitigate representation misalignment in deep locally trained networks. By introducing these three components, we effectively double the depth of viable Forward-Forward learning, extending robust layer utilization from shallow baselines to 16 layer architectures like VGG-16. The resulting BP-free model achieves 73.01% on ImageNet-100 and 50.30% on Tiny-ImageNet. As a practical extension, Hybrid Goodness Blocks control the scope of gradient propagation via configurable block sizes, further narrowing the ImageNet-100 gap to 3.6% and matching BP on Tiny-ImageNet, while still reducing peak memory by approximately 50% relative to BP.
Xiaoyi Jiang, Bashir M. Al-Hashimi, Kai Xu
King’s College London, United Kingdom · University of Nottingham