REVIEW 1 cited by
Employing Layerwised Unsupervised Learning to Lessen Data and Loss Requirements in Forward-Forward Algorithms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Recent deep learning models such as ChatGPT utilizing the back-propagation algorithm have exhibited remarkable performance. However, the disparity between the biological brain processes and the back-propagation algorithm has been noted. The Forward-Forward algorithm, which trains deep learning models solely through the forward pass, has emerged to address this. Although the Forward-Forward algorithm cannot replace back-propagation due to limitations such as having to use special input and loss functions, it has the potential to be useful in special situations where back-propagation is difficult to use. To work around this limitation and verify usability, we propose an Unsupervised Forward-Forward algorithm. Using an unsupervised learning model enables training with usual loss functions and inputs without restriction. Through this approach, we lead to stable learning and enable versatile utilization across various datasets and tasks. From a usability perspective, given the characteristics of the Forward-Forward algorithm and the advantages of the proposed method, we anticipate its practical application even in scenarios such as federated learning, where deep learning layers need to be trained separately in physically distributed environments.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
On Advancements of the Forward-Forward Algorithm
Combining convolutional channel grouping, channel-wise loss, chunked local updates, and last-layer inference reduces CIFAR10 test error for Forward-Forward networks, with lightweight models reaching about 19-24% error.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.