The results show that effective looping requires matching the design to the resource constraint and inference setting, and that preserving the current-token embedding and separately normalizing it and the previous-token hidden state before combining them recovers strong performance across model scales and training budgets.
Abstract
Looping in transformer models reuses weights by repeatedly applying the same transformer, or parts of it, making the model deeper without increasing its parameter count. Whether looping is useful depends on which constraint dominates: model size, training compute, or autoregressive inference efficiency. We study these trade-offs jointly in dense decoder-only transformers trained from scratch, varying which parts of the model are looped, how many loops are applied, and how information is passed between loops. Our experiments span models with up to 1B parameters, trained on up to 155B tokens with up to $1.07\times10^{21}$ FLOPs and 32 loops. We find that looping the full transformer generally gives the strongest quality at a fixed parameter budget, whereas looping a middle block of layers gives a better return when training FLOPs are constrained. Adding loops is not uniformly beneficial: gains eventually saturate, reverse, or become unstable. This motivates asking whether forcing every loop to use the same weights limits the benefit of deeper looping. We address this by adding small loop-specific low-rank adapters that improve quality, with larger gains as more loops are added. Looped transformers also suffer a decoding slowdown proportional to the number of loops. Parallel Loop Transformers address this by passing hidden states between loops across adjacent token positions, allowing loop stages to run concurrently. However, in our experiments the original formulation does not consistently retain the quality gains of ordinary looping. We find that preserving the current-token embedding and separately normalizing it and the previous-token hidden state before combining them recovers strong performance across model scales and training budgets. Together, these results show that effective looping requires matching the design to the resource constraint and inference setting.
Looping re-applies a block of layers so that each token passes through the block more than once. Adding a loop to a trained model is attractive because it leaves the parameter count, and hence the disk size, the memory footprint and the training cost unchanged. Unfortunately, every generated token pays for the loop. Re...
We introduce Loop Flow Transformers (LiFT), a family of looped generative models that scales computation by repeatedly applying a shared Diffusion Transformer (DiT) core, with only light changes to the standard architecture. Rather than asking every recurrent step for the final prediction, LiFT trains each step with a...
M. Derakhshani, Pedro M. P. Curvo, G. Burghouts et al.· 1 citation
Looped Transformers repeatedly apply the same set of Transformer layers, giving them a recurrent architecture for latent computation. Their strong performance on iterative reasoning and length-generalization tasks suggests an appealing explanation: recurrence may provide an inductive bias that lets the model reuse a le...
Looped transformers have demonstrated promising parameter efficiency by reusing layers for latent computation. Prior studies compare looped and non-looped models at matched parameters or per-token FLOPs. However, to the best of our knowledge, whether looping improves test-time scaling as outputs grow longer remains und...
Yi-Chen You, Tianyu Fu, Ao-Song Feng et al.· 4 citations
Looped Transformers introduce recurrent depth as a new scaling axis for LLMs: by repeatedly applying shared Transformer blocks, they increase effective depth without increasing parameter count. However, the benefits of looping remain unclear for large MoE LLMs under FLOPs-matched comparisons. The main reason is that th...
Di He, Peng-Xiang Li, Da Chang et al.· 3 citations
This work measures how much of the weight gradient this throws away, exactly and for every k from one backward pass, on nine looped language models, and reports three findings that show a trained model's value overstates what truncation removes later.
Aur Shalev Merin· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 29, 2026
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.