Skip to content
Preprint

Looped State-Space Language Models with Adaptive Exit-State Selection

Jul 2026 · 0 citations · 22 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Looped Mamba and Looped Hybrid Mamba-Transformer architectures, which repeatedly apply a shared Mamba block to introduce explicit finite-depth recurrent computation, are investigated and adaptive exit-state selection improves downstream performance at intermediate depths, while actual inference-time savings require additional state-handling mechanisms.

Abstract

Recent work on looped language models suggests that many reasoning problems benefit from greater computational depth rather than from additional independent parameters. Existing studies, however, focus almost exclusively on Transformer backbones, leaving open whether this principle also applies to state-space language models. We investigate Looped Mamba and Looped Hybrid Mamba-Transformer architectures, which repeatedly apply a shared Mamba (or hybrid) block to introduce explicit finite-depth recurrent computation. On two controlled reasoning tasks-Mano (modular-arithmetic manipulation) and p-hop induction-Looped Mamba consistently outperforms parameter-matched non-looped baselines and, in several settings, matches or exceeds non-looped models of equal effective depth. We then extend the study to language model pre-training under matched iso-parameter and iso-FLOPs protocols, which jointly disentangle the effects of parameter sharing and effective depth: looped models remain competitive on downstream benchmarks with substantially fewer distinct parameters, although deeper non-looped models retain an advantage in validation perplexity under strict iso-FLOPs comparisons. Finally, we adapt Ouro's two-stage exit gate to Looped Mamba for threshold-controlled selection among recurrent-step outputs. Since all recurrent steps are still executed, the selected exit step represents prediction depth rather than reduced wall-clock computation. At the scales studied, adaptive exit-state selection improves downstream performance at intermediate depths, while actual inference-time savings require additional state-handling mechanisms.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Looped Language Models Improve Compositional Tool Calling

This work evaluates native and retrofitted looped language models on API-Bank, BFCL, and NESTful, comparing looped and non-looped models trained under matched supervised fine-tuning recipes and varying recurrent depth at inference time to suggest that looped language models are a promising architecture for agentic systems that require reliable planning, coordination, and execution of compositional tool use workflows.

A. C. Popescu, Haitz Sáez de Ocáriz Borde, Pietro Liò · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Allocating Recurrent Compute in Looped Language Models

Results show that the benefits of recurrent depth can be retained without repeatedly executing the dense FFN, and view recurrence as repeated composition of a state update and argue that an application is valuable when it exposes a new cross-position influence direction that remains observable at the task readout.

Ruhai Lin, Yi Guo, Ruiming Zhu et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Depth-adaptive Inference of Looped Language Models via Continuous Depth Batching

A main promise of looped language models (LMs) is depth-adaptive inference. By iterating a block of shared layers a variable number of times, the model can use less compute for"easy"tokens and more for"hard"ones. However, this adaptivity breaks standard batching: tokens in the same batch now require a different number of loops, so there is no unified forward pass, making efficient inference difficult. Standard inference frameworks like vLLM schedule on the token level and cannot handle this because tokens need to be removed from the batch within the forward pass. Loop-level scheduling has been proposed as a solution, but never implemented end to end. The key challenge is that looped architectures also contain non-looped boundary stages (e.g., token embedding and LM head) that must be scheduled at different frequencies than the loop. We introduce continuous depth batching (CDB), which schedules at the granularity of individual loop iterations. CDB handles boundary stages and loop steps in separate priority queues, makes exit decisions one step ahead, and overlaps all scheduling work with GPU computation. On Ouro 1.4B and Huginn 3.5B, CDB can realize up to $99\%$ of the theoretical maximum speed-up from adaptive-depth, translating to $1.5$-$1.9\times$ higher offline throughput and $45$-$90\%$ lower normalized latency under dynamic serving load.

Kristian Schwethelm, D. Rueckert, G. Kaissis · 0 citations

L pCoder ∞ : Scaling Code Intelligence via Looped Language Models

This work presents LoopCoder pre-trained on 12T+ code and general tokens, along with LoopCoder-Thinking and LoopCoder-Instruct variants, the first large-scale looped transformer for code, achieving comparable performance to standard dense architectures with more parameters.

Jian Yang, Wei Zhang, Shawn Guo et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

LoopMTP: A looped transformer guided by latent multi-token prediction

Multi-token prediction (MTP) supplies exactly the dense, forward-looking supervision the loop is missing, by softly aligning the hidden state of loop $t$ with the embedding of the token $t$ steps ahead, while a lightweight gate preserves useful information across iterations.

Behzad Shomali, Markus Frey, D. Berghaus et al. · 0 citations