Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, China
Looped language models (LoopLMs) perform iterative latent computation to refine internal representations, offering an alternative to explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. However, existing reinforcement learning (RL) paradigms primarily target output tokens, creating a structural mismatch with looped architectures whose reasoning unfolds implicitly. In this work, we propose LoopRPT, a reinforcement pre-training framework tailored for LoopLMs. By reframing next-token prediction as a next-token reasoning task, LoopRPT assigns reinforcement signals directly to latent steps using an EMA teacher reference and noisy latent rollouts. This formulation enables RL to directly shape intermediate representations, compressing effective reasoning into fewer iterations. We instantiate LoopRPT on Ouro across multiple model scales. Results show that LoopRPT improves per-step representation quality and achieves Pareto dominance in accuracy-computation trade-offs. Large gains on hard tokens indicate that LoopRPT enhances early-stage reasoning rather than merely encouraging premature exits. Our findings highlight reinforcement pre-training as a principled paradigm for learning efficient latent reasoning in LoopLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation for LoopRPT. (a) Standard LLMs reason through explicit chain-of-thought tokens, whereas LoopLMs compress multi-step reasoning into latent space. (b) LoopLMs achieve higher next-token-reasoning accuracy than standard LLMs across difficulty levels.
Figure 2: LoopRPT assigns reinforcement signals directly to latent reasoning steps. An entropy-based selector identifies hard tokens, and a student trains against an EMA teacher via step-wise rewards that combine an accuracy gain over the teacher with a dynamic time penalty, shaping intermediate representations and encouraging earlier effective exits.
Figure 3: Distribution of exit steps on MMLU. LoopRPT shifts tokens to earlier iterations while keeping final-step exits dominant.
Model
Method
Easy
Medium
Hard
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg step ( ↓ )
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg step ( ↓ )
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg step ( ↓ )
Qwen3-1.7B
Vanilla
47.49
–
32.18
–
19.19
–
+CoT
10.70 -36.79
–
8.60 -23.58
–
7.44 -11.75
–
Ouro-1.4B
Peak
74.62
4.00
57.28
4.00
33.79
4.00
+LoopRPT
75.38 +0.76
4.00
58.29 +1.01
4.00
34.74 +0.95
4.00
Adap.
74.40
3.34
57.20
3.53
33.91
3.75
Table 1: Performance comparison on next-token reasoning task across three difficulty levels. Peak indicates reasoning up to the maximum latent loops ( K=4 ), while Adap. indicates adaptive early exiting. Subscripts indicate improvement ( {\color[rgb]{0,0.6,0}+} ) or degradation ( {\color[rgb]{0.68,0,0}-} ) compared to baseline.
Benchmark
Gemma3 1B
Llama3.2 1.2B
Qwen2.5 1.5B
Qwen3 1.7B
Qwen2.5 3B
Llama3.2 3B
Qwen3 4B
Gemma3 4B
Ouro 1.4B
LoopRPT 1.4B
General Tasks
MMLU
39.85
45.46
60.99
62.46
65.62
59.69
73.19
58.37
67.35
67.62 +0.27
MMLU-Pro
11.31
11.80
29.11
37.27
37.87
33.34
51.40
34.61
48.64
49.21 +0.57
BBH
30.26
30.72
43.66
53.51
55.37
39.45
70.95
66.32
70.97
71.37 +0.40
ARC-C
39.25
41.98
54.44
55.72
55.46
52.47
63.65
60.92
60.95
61.10 +0.15
HellaSwag
56.12
59.35
67.73
67.09
74.54
73.09
75.66
75.58
74.30
74.93 +0.63
Table 2: Comparison of 1.4B LoopLM model with 1-4B parameter baselines. Results for vanilla LLMs are taken from Zhu et al. (2025) , with Ouro results obtained via our reimplementation. The best score is bolded , and the second-best is underlined . Subscripts indicate LoopRPT’s improvement over Ouro baseline.
Scale
Method
NTR-Hard
GSM8K
MATH500
ARC-C
HellaSwag
BBH
MBPP+
Ouro-1.4B
Base
33.91
78.17
20.60
60.95
74.30
70.97
60.85
+ Continued-NTP
34.29
77.63
29.40
60.58
74.51
71.10
62.17
+ GRPO / RLVR
33.00
4.17
12.60
49.23
74.36
28.84
20.58
+ LoopRPT
34.82
78.92
37.00
61.10
74.93
71.37
63.76
Ouro-2.6B
Base
34.35
81.76
43.00
66.12
79.28
77.98
64.81
+ Continued-NTP
35.21
82.41
43.20
66.75
79.74
78.19
63.76
Table 3: Compute-matched controls. All arms share the checkpoint, data, step budget, and schedule; only the objective changes. NTR-Hard is hard-split accuracy under adaptive early exit; best per scale in bold .
Figure 4: MATH500 accuracy by difficulty level (Ouro-1.4B vs. LoopRPT-1.4B). Levels use the official Hendrycks problem-level labels, which are independent of the token-level entropy that drives token selection during training. LoopRPT improves every level under both maximum-loop (a) and adaptive early exit (b); the per-level sample sizes are shown at the bottom of each panel.
Table 8
Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis of LoopRPT hyperparameters on the next-token reasoning task. All results are reported on the hard split, showing accuracy and average exit steps under different settings.
Figure 6: Accuracy–computation trade-offs across difficulty buckets. LoopRPT enhances next-token reasoning accuracy with reduced loop cycles.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 11Table 12
Scale
Benchmark
Ouro
LoopRPT
1.4B
MMLU
68.32
68.32
GSM8K
29.87
43.52 +13.65
BBH
38.46
39.26 +0.80
2.6B
MMLU
73.76
73.06 -0.70
GSM8K
41.32
67.32 +26.00
BBH
54.17
56.84 +2.67
Appendix
Table 10: No-CoT zero-shot accuracy (few-shot =0 ; GSM8K answers directly and BBH uses the no-CoT template). Subscripts give the change over Ouro.
Model (training corpus)
MMLU
ARC-C
HellaSwag
WinoGrande
GSM8K
MBPP+
Ouro-1.4B base
67.35
60.95
74.30
71.67
78.17
60.85
+ LoopRPT ( Omni-Math )
67.62
61.10
74.93
71.98
78.92
63.76
+ LoopRPT (OpenThoughts)
67.83
61.19
75.66
72.24
79.03
63.88
Appendix
Table 11: Broader-corpus scaling on OpenThoughts-3 (100k, multi-domain) versus the narrow-domain Omni-Math run, Ouro-1.4B, same LoopRPT recipe. The downstream protocol follows Appendix E .
Figure 15
Figure 9: Performance comparison of different EMA teacher mechanisms on next-token reasoning tasks.
Figure 10: Comparison of actual physical inference time for token exiting.
Figure 11: Training dynamics of LoopRPT on Ouro-1.4B.
Figure 12: Training dynamics of LoopRPT on Ouro-2.6B.
Figure 13: Comparative case study on general tasks (MMLU-Pro). LoopRPT successfully identifies implicit logical equivalences (Case 3) and maintains factual consistency in biological classification (Case 2), whereas the base model exhibits knowledge hallucinations or incomplete reasoning.
Figure 14: Comparison of GSM8K mathematical reasoning . Base model (Ouro-1.4B) frequently makes “set-neglect” errors (Case 2, 3) or hallucinations in variable mapping (Case 1), whereas LoopRPT correctly iterates through multi-step logic constraints.
Figure 15: Code generation comparison. Base model (Ouro-1.4B) fails on boundary conditions and algorithmic interpretation, while LoopRPT demonstrates superior adherence to task constraints.
Benchmark
Gemma3 3B
Llama3.2 3B
Qwen2.5 4B
Qwen3 4B
Qwen2.5 7B
Llama3.1 8B
Qwen3 8B
Gemma3 12B
Ouro 2.6B
LoopRPT 2.6B
General Tasks
MMLU
65.62
59.69
73.19
58.37
74.20
73.02
76.63
72.14
73.85
73.91 +0.06
MMLU-Pro
37.87
33.34
51.40
34.61
43.55
43.24
53.72
49.21
54.07
54.19 +0.12
BBH
55.37
39.45
71.14
66.32
53.72
71.56
77.65
78.41
77.98
78.24 +0.26
ARC-C
55.46
52.47
63.65
60.75
63.65
60.75
66.10
72.44
66.12
66.89 +0.77
HellaSwag
74.54
73.09
75.66
75.58
79.98
81.97
79.60
83.68
79.28
80.03 +0.75
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of 2.6B LoopLM with 3-12B parameter baselines. Results for vanilla LLMs are taken from Zhu et al. [2025] , with Ouro results obtained via our reimplementation. Best in bold , second best underlined . Subscripts indicate LoopRPT’s improvement over Ouro baseline.
Looped Language Models (LoopLMs) perform "latent reasoning" by recursively refining internal latent representations with shared weights, offering a more effective alternative to explicit verbal reasoning. Despite their effectiveness, we find that LoopLMs remain prone to loop instability: unstable refinement across iterations can produce localized uncertain "hard" tokens associated with reasoning errors. To address this, we propose LoopCD, loop-wise contrastive decoding that enhances the reasoning performance of LoopLMs by intervening on these tokens at inference time. Specifically, we exploit the internal dynamics of LoopLMs and contrast the logits from earlier iterations with logits from the last refined iteration to form the final sampling distribution. We find that this strategy is highly efficient, introducing only negligible inference overhead and requiring no additional training, while effectively improving reasoning performance by naturally refining reasoning-critical hard tokens. Extensive experiments show that our method improves the performance of recent representative LoopLMs across various reasoning tasks.
Byeongho Yu, Junhyuk So, Eunhyeok Park
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) · Graduate School of Artificial Intelligence Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)
Modern LLMs are trained to "think" primarily via explicit text generation, such as chain-of-thought (CoT), which defers reasoning to post-training and under-leverages pre-training data. We present and open-source Ouro, named after the recursive Ouroboros, a family of pre-trained Looped Language Models (LoopLM) that instead build reasoning into the pre-training phase through (i) iterative computation in latent space, (ii) an entropy-regularized objective for learned depth allocation, and (iii) scaling to 7.7T tokens. Ouro 1.4B and 2.6B models enjoy superior performance that match the results of up to 12B SOTA LLMs across a wide range of benchmarks. Through controlled experiments, we show this advantage stems not from increased knowledge capacity, but from superior knowledge manipulation capabilities. We also show that LoopLM yields reasoning traces more aligned with final outputs than explicit CoT. We hope our results show the potential of LoopLM as a novel scaling direction in the reasoning era. Our model is available here: http://ouro-llm.github.io.
Rui-Jie Zhu, Zixuan Wang, Kai Hua +30
ByteDance Seed · UC Santa Cruz · Princeton University +8
Looped computation shows promise in improving the reasoning-oriented performance of LLMs by scaling test-time compute. However, existing approaches typically require either training recurrent models from scratch or applying disruptive retrofits, which involve substantial computational costs and may compromise pretrained capabilities. To address these limitations, we introduce Looped Depth Up-Scaling (LoopUS), a post-training framework that converts a standard pretrained LLM into a looped architecture. As a key technical contribution, LoopUS recasts the pretrained LLM into an encoder, a looped reasoning block, and a decoder. It operationalizes this latent-refinement architecture through four core components: (1) block decomposition, guided by staged representation dynamics; (2) an input-dependent selective gate to mitigate hidden-state drift; (3) random deep supervision for memory-efficient learning over long recursive horizons; and (4) a confidence head for adaptive early exiting. Collectively, these mechanisms transform a standard non-looped model into a looped form while stabilizing it against both computational bottlenecks and representation collapse. Through stable latent looping, LoopUS improves reasoning-oriented performance without extending the generated traces or requiring recurrent training from scratch. For more details, see https://thrillcrazyer.github.io/LoopUS
Taekhyun Park, Yongjae Lee, Dohee Kim +1
Department of Data Science Pusan National University Busan, Republic of Korea · Department of Industrial Engineering Pusan National University Busan, Republic of Korea · Department of Artificial Intelligence Engineering Changwon National University Changwon, Republic of Korea