Looped Transformers under the Jacobian Lens: Does the Global Workspace Survive Recurrence?

Standard Transformers have a fixed computational depth, limiting their ability to generalize to tasks that require variable-depth reasoning. The usual remedy, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), spends tokens to reason, inflating the key--value cache and making latency grow with the step count, so memory becomes the limiting cost when reasoning is served over large query batches. We study a depth-recurrent Transformer that decouples computational depth from parameter count by iterating a shared-weight block, so that each added reasoning step costs flat memory and linear latency, with no token generation. Three ingredients keep the recurrence stable for 20+ thinking steps: a silent thinking objective that supervises only the final output, LayerScale initialization, and an identity-biased gate that opens a gradient highway across steps. We characterize it on three compositional domains with decreasing structural bias: graph reachability (adjacency masking), nested boolean logic (relative positioning), and unstructured relational text (no positional cue). We find a \emph{computational frontier}: accuracy climbs once the thinking-step count meets the task's complexity, reaching near-perfect performance on the two structured tasks and a lower plateau on unstructured text. How it climbs depends on the structural bias---abruptly from chance on the graph task, gradually on the other two. Depth recurrence extrapolates beyond the training range: it succeeds on the graph task where fixed-depth models barely extrapolate, and on the two sequence tasks comes within two points of fixed-depth Transformers that use $4$--$6.4\times$ more parameters. On the graph task, whose adjacency mask makes propagation depth verifiable, intermediate per-step supervision---a standard recipe for deep iterative models---consistently \emph{harms} this extrapolation. We release the code for reproducibility.

A depth-recurrent transformer applies a weight-tied core a variable number of times, and prior work has shown that training with a randomized recursion count yields one checkpoint usable across a range of inference depths. We ask what such a model actually computes per token, and measure it directly. On a 135M-class model trained on FineWeb-Edu, the recurrent state converges to a per-token fixed point: mean successive-output KL divergence falls from 3.9e-1 at the second loop to 8.5e-6 by the sixteenth, and per-token state change decays in step. Crucially, this convergence is not uniform across tokens. The median token converges by loop six, while approximately 10 percent of tokens continue to update at the training-mean depth of eight, and mean convergence depth is ordered by token type (whitespace shallowest, content words deepest). This per-token variation is the central object of the paper. We show it is directly readable and that reading it outperforms learning to predict it: a training-free rule that halts each token once its output stabilizes attains uniform depth-8 quality at 4.94 average loops (a 38 percent reduction in average depth) and matches uniform depth across the average-depth range, whereas a linear router trained on convergence labels harvested from the same model requires nearly full depth and yields no reduction. The elasticity that makes this possible reproduces here as background (validation loss decreases monotonically from 3.80 at one loop to 3.20 at eight and remains stable to 32 loops). We report average depth as a FLOP proxy with a three-point wall-clock bracket rather than a realized speedup, make no FLOP-matched parity claim, and note that the allocation results are established at a single scale and seed. The complete study runs on a single RTX 4090 in approximately 100 GPU-hours.

We measure how much one recurrence is worth to a looped (depth-recurrent) transformer, in equivalent unique parameters. From an iso-depth pretraining sweep across recurrence counts $r \in \{1, 2, 4, 8\}$ spanning ${\sim}50\times$ in training compute, we fit a joint scaling law $L = E + A\,(N_\text{once} + r^{\varphi} N_\text{rec})^{-α} + B\,D^{-β}$ and measure a recurrence-equivalence exponent $\varphi = 0.46$. Intuitively, $\varphi$ tells us whether looping a block $r$ times is equivalent in validation loss to $r$ unique blocks of a non-looped model (full equivalence, $\varphi{=}1$) or to a single block run repeatedly with no capacity gain ($\varphi{=}0$). Our $\varphi = 0.46$ sits in between, so replacing unique blocks with shared recurrences increases validation loss at matched training compute. For example, at $r{=}4$ a 410M looped model performs on par with a 580M non-looped model, but incurs the training cost of a 1B non-looped one. We demonstrate the utility of $\varphi$ as a diagnostic tool on two case studies: commonly used truncated backpropagation lowers $\varphi$ to $0.38$, indicating that the loop mechanism is poorly trained under truncation, even though validation loss decreases. Conversely, hyperconnections raise $\varphi$ to $0.65$, a genuine capacity gain. Our method separates true loop improvements from training-side gains, a distinction raw validation loss cannot make.