Paper:
Direct Feedback Alignment Provides Learning in Deep Neural Networks
Artificial neural networks are most commonly trained with the back-propagation algorithm, where the gradient for learning is provided by back-propagating the error, layer by layer, from the output layer to the hidden layers. A recently discovered method called feedback-alignment shows that the weights used for propagating the error backward don't have to be symmetric with the weights used for propagation the activation forward. In fact, random feedback weights work evenly well, because the network learns how to make the feedback useful. In this work, the feedback alignment principle is used for training hidden layers more independently from the rest of the network, and from a zero initial condition. The error is propagated through fixed random feedback connections directly from the output layer to each hidden layer. This simple method is able to achieve zero training error even in convolutional networks and very deep networks, completely without error backpropagation. The method is a step towards biologically plausible machine learning because the error signal is almost local, and no symmetric or reciprocal weights are required. Experiments show that the test performance on MNIST and CIFAR is almost as good as those obtained with back-propagation for fully connected networks. If combined with dropout, the method achieves 1.45% error on the permutation invariant MNIST task.

Review:
Feedback alignment (FA) is a recently developed method for training neural networks which is more biologically plausible than backpropagation (BP. Unlike BP, where the error signal is propagated on the backward pass through the transpose of the forward weights (which is difficult to square with our understanding of neural constraints), in feedback alignment a random weight matrix is used to propagate the error. Surprisingly, propagating the error though random weights works well, learns quickly (although sometimes slightly slower than BP) and may even act as a regularizer and outperform backpropagation in some situations.  This paper proposes, analyses and experimentally tests a variant of this approach they term "direct feedback alignment." In this scheme, rather than propagating the error through random weights at each layer, the error signal for each layer is derived through random ways directly from the output layer. The find that this scheme is able to perform similar to FA, and unlike both BP and FA is  capable of training very deep networks.
This paper is relatively well-written and supports its claims. It develops a reasonable analysis of the direct feedback alignment, although it follows closely from the original feedback alignment work. For this reason, it would probably be possible to abbreviate parts of the analysis without much loss to the reader.  The primary weakness of this work is impact. The idea of "direct feedback alignment" follows fairly straightforwardly from the original FA alignment work. Its notable that it is useful in training very deep networks (e.g. 100 layers) but its not clear that this results in an advantage for function approximation (the error rate is higher for these deep networks). If the authors could demonstrate that DFA allows one to train and make use of such deep networks where BP and FA struggle on a larger dataset this would significantly enhance the impact of the paper.  In terms of biological understanding, FA seems more supported by biological observations (which typically show reciprocal forward and backward connections between hierarchical brain areas, not direct connections back from one region to all others as might be expected in DFA). The paper doesn't provide support for their claim, in the final paragraph, that DFA is more biologically plausible than FA.  Minor issues: - A few typos, there is no line numbers in the draft so I haven't itemized them. - Table 1, 2, 3 the legends should be longer and clarify whether the numbers are % errors, or % correct (MNIST and CIFAR respectively presumably). - Figure 2 right. I found it difficult to distinguish between the different curves. Maybe make use of styles (e.g. dashed lines) or add color. - Figure 3 is very hard to read anything on the figure. - I think this manuscript is not following the NIPS style. The citations are not by number and there are no line numbers or an "Anonymous Author" placeholder. - I might be helpful to quantify and clarify the claim "ReLU does not work very well in very deep or in convolutional networks." ReLUs were used in the AlexNet paper which, at the time, was considered deep and makes use of convolution (with pooling rather than ReLUs for the convolutional layers).