analiza aiqbench
This study clarifies the trade-offs of recurrence in Looped Language Models, revealing that while it enhances reasoning beyond training horizons, it can degrade knowledge retention and requires specific architectural placements like non-recurrent output layers. The authors propose history-state injection with timestep conditioning as a more robust alternative to conventional initial-state methods for extended inference. These findings provide essential guidance for optimizing model depth without increasing parameter counts.
What Makes Recurrence Effective in Looped Language Models?
arXiv:2609.36636v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Looped language models (LoopLMs) increase computational depth through parameter sharing, offering a path to scale inference computation without adding parameters. However, it remains unclear when additional recurrence is beneficial and how architectural choices affect its effectiveness. Through controlled experiments, we systematically examine (1) when recurrence helps, (2) where it should be applied, and (3) how its conditioning affects performance. Our evaluation covers inference budgets below, within, and beyond the training horizon under knowledge and reasoning tasks. (1) We find that recurrence can improve reasoning beyond the training horizon while degrading knowledge performance, but harder reasoning instances do not consistently benefit more. (2) Performance also depends on how distinct layers and recurrent iterations are allocated, showing that effective depth alone is insufficient to predict behavior. Non-recurrent output layers improve robustness to under-unrolling, while the preferred placement of input and output layers varies with inference budget. (3) Finally, we find that conventional initial-state injection offers limited robustness to varying recurrence depth. We therefore propose history-state injection as an alternative, and show that channel-wise history-state injection combined with timestep conditioning offers a low-cost and more effective design, better preserving knowledge under extended unrolling while improving robustness across inference budgets. Overall, our results clarify when recurrent computation helps, where it fails, and offer practical guidelines for designing LoopLMs across variable inference budgets.
Title:What Makes Recurrence Effective in Looped Language Models?
Abstract:Looped language models (LoopLMs) increase computational depth through parameter sharing, offering a path to scale inference computation without adding parameters. However, it remains unclear when additional recurrence is beneficial and how architectural choices affect its effectiveness. Through controlled experiments, we systematically examine (1) when recurrence helps, (2) where it should be applied, and (3) how its conditioning affects performance. Our evaluation covers inference budgets below, within, and beyond the training horizon under knowledge and reasoning tasks. (1) We find that recurrence can improve reasoning beyond the training horizon while degrading knowledge performance, but harder reasoning instances do not consistently benefit more. (2) Performance also depends on how distinct layers and recurrent iterations are allocated, showing that effective depth alone is insufficient to predict behavior. Non-recurrent output layers improve robustness to under-unrolling, while the preferred placement of input and output layers varies with inference budget. (3) Finally, we find that conventional initial-state injection offers limited robustness to varying recurrence depth. We therefore propose history-state injection as an alternative, and show that channel-wise history-state injection combined with timestep conditioning offers a low-cost and more effective design, better preserving knowledge under extended unrolling while improving robustness across inference budgets. Overall, our results clarify when recurrent computation helps, where it fails, and offer practical guidelines for designing LoopLMs across variable inference budgets.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.36636 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.36636v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36636 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 324 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · 23 sept. 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] Muse Spark 1.3 matches GPT-5.6-Sol, confirming Meta Superintelligence as the newest Frontier Lab, >90% discount for training
Latent Space · 3 sept. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026