Think Shallow, Solve Deep: Controlling Recurrent Dynamics for Reliable Test-Time Depth

arXiv:2608.18222v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recurrent-depth reasoners aim to solve harder problems by iterating their update longer at test time, but additional iterations can improve, preserve, or degrade an answer. We show that a measurable property of the trained operator, its finite-time dynamical regime (estimated as settling, marginal, or drifting), indicates which of these occurs. We give a sufficient condition for depth-safety: once an operator's per-step displacement is small relative to the decoder margin, the decoded answer cannot change under further iterations. Empirically, on algorithmic tasks trained from $800$ unaugmented examples per difficulty tier, settling operators do not degrade with added depth, and on some tasks convert it into higher accuracy on harder unseen instances (Sudoku, $0.19$ to $0.34$ past the training horizon). A single terminal fixed-point objective moves the regime and the depth behavior together: removing it induces drift and removes the gains, and adding it to a generic recurrence yields depth-safe extrapolation on carry propagation. We give four operational criteria for useful test-time depth, use them to catalogue failure modes, and, as a consistency check, apply the same measurements to Huginn-3.5B, which falls in the non-settling family.

Abstract:Recurrent-depth reasoners aim to solve harder problems by iterating their update longer at test time, but additional iterations can improve, preserve, or degrade an answer. We show that a measurable property of the trained operator, its finite-time dynamical regime (estimated as settling, marginal, or drifting), indicates which of these occurs. We give a sufficient condition for depth-safety: once an operator's per-step displacement is small relative to the decoder margin, the decoded answer cannot change under further iterations. Empirically, on algorithmic tasks trained from $800$ unaugmented examples per difficulty tier, settling operators do not degrade with added depth, and on some tasks convert it into higher accuracy on harder unseen instances (Sudoku, $0.19$ to $0.34$ past the training horizon). A single terminal fixed-point objective moves the regime and the depth behavior together: removing it induces drift and removes the gains, and adding it to a generic recurrence yields depth-safe extrapolation on carry propagation. We give four operational criteria for useful test-time depth, use them to catalogue failure modes, and, as a consistency check, apply the same measurements to Huginn-3.5B, which falls in the non-settling family.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2608.18222 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.18222v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18222 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Think Shallow, Solve Deep: Controlling Recurrent Dynamics for Reliable Test-Time Depth

Subiecte conexe