cs.LGSep 14, 2026

Temporal Recurrence Favors Fewer Layers

Authors: Ivan AnokhinJohan Obando-CeronIrina RishSebastian Risi

Abstract

In streaming tasks, recurrent models can carry latent computation across time, allowing each update to build on representations produced earlier. This raises a basic question: once temporal recurrence provides sequential computation across steps, how much depth is still needed within each step? Prior work has shown that recurrence can make shallow models competitive. We instead study this question as a compute-allocation problem, varying within-step depth, expert width, and the number of parallel experts per layer across several compute budgets. For each budget, we compare the best observed recurrent and non-recurrent allocations and the performance they achieve under approximately matched per-step computation. Across Sokoban and autoregressive FineWeb language modeling, we find that temporal recurrence shifts the best observed compute allocation toward substantially fewer layers, with comparable or better performance.

Explore similar work

Apr 22, 2026cs.LG

How Much Is One Recurrence Worth? Iso-Depth Scaling Laws for Looped Language Models

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{1,2,4,8}r \in \{1, 2, 4, 8\} spanning 50×{\sim}50\times in training compute, we fit a joint scaling law L=E+A(Nonce+rφNrec)α+BDβL = E + A\,(N_\text{once} + r^{\varphi} N_\text{rec})^{-α} + B\,D^{-β} and measure a recurrence-equivalence exponent φ=0.46\varphi = 0.46. Intuitively, φ\varphi tells us whether looping a block rr times is equivalent in validation loss to rr unique blocks of a non-looped model (full equivalence, φ=1\varphi{=}1) or to a single block run repeatedly with no capacity gain (φ=0\varphi{=}0). Our φ=0.46\varphi = 0.46 sits in between, so replacing unique blocks with shared recurrences increases validation loss at matched training compute. For example, at r=4r{=}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 φ\varphi as a diagnostic tool on two case studies: commonly used truncated backpropagation lowers φ\varphi to 0.380.38, indicating that the loop mechanism is poorly trained under truncation, even though validation loss decreases. Conversely, hyperconnections raise φ\varphi to 0.650.65, a genuine capacity gain. Our method separates true loop improvements from training-side gains, a distinction raw validation loss cannot make.
Kristian Schwethelm, Daniel Rueckert, Georgios Kaissis
Apr 23, 2026cs.LG

The Recurrent Transformer: Greater Effective Depth and Efficient Decoding

Transformers process tokens in parallel but are temporally shallow: at position tt, each layer attends to key-value pairs computed based on the previous layer, yielding a depth capped by the number of layers. Recurrent models offer unbounded temporal depth but suffer from optimization instability and historically underutilize modern accelerators. We introduce the Recurrent Transformer, a simple architectural change where each layer attends to key-value pairs computed off its own activations, yielding layerwise recurrent memory while preserving standard autoregressive decoding cost. We show that the architecture can emulate both (i) a conventional Transformer and (ii) token-to-token recurrent updates under mild assumptions, while avoiding optimization instability. Naively, prefill/training appears bandwidth-bound with effective arithmetic intensity near 11 because keys and values are revealed sequentially; we give an exact tiling-based algorithm that preserves the mathematical computation while reducing HBM traffic from Θ(N2)Θ(N^2) to Θ(NlogN)Θ(N\log N), increasing effective arithmetic intensity to Θ(N/logN)Θ(N/\log N) for sequence length NN. On 150M and 300M parameter C4 pretraining, Recurrent Transformers improve cross-entropy over a parameter-matched Transformer baseline and achieve the improvement with fewer layers (fixed parameters), suggesting that recurrence can trade depth for width, thus reducing KV cache memory footprint and inference latency.
Costin-Andrei Oncescu, Depen Morwani, Samy Jelassi +3
Sep 3, 2026cs.LG

RecurTrace: Adaptive Latent Reasoning with Loop-Time Memory

Repeating a small block of middle layers increases a language model's effective inference depth without adding parameters or generating extra tokens, and recent work shows that this latent recurrence improves reasoning. However, two design choices limit these gains. Each iteration sees only the previous output and cannot directly access earlier computations. Moreover, a fixed loop count wastes depth on easy inputs while leaving hard ones with too little computation. We introduce RecurTrace, which addresses both limitations using the loop's own trajectory. Specifically, Loop Memory Attention lets each looped layer attend to its own states from previous iterations along the loop-time axis, so the model can revisit earlier computations instead of relying on the latest state alone. A halting head then reads the loop state and predicts whether to continue, with supervision from an oracle that identifies when additional depth still reduces loss. In a controlled MathQA comparison on the same looped backbone, RecurTrace achieves 56.9% accuracy with an average of 2.0 loops, exceeding the best fixed loop depth by 2.2 points at matched compute. By comparison, ACT and PonderNet collapse to one loop, and CALM reaches only 54.1% with 5.6 loops, while the stronger LoopUS-Conf and TaH-Mismatch baselines reach 55.3% at 3.2 loops and 55.7% at 2.1 loops. Finally, RecurTrace improves generation accuracy over same-budget fine-tuned baselines at 0.6B, 1.7B, 4B, and 8B, with the gain growing with model size from 0.6 to 3.4 points.
Yuxiang Wang, Kunyu Feng, Yingda Shen +3