cs.CLSep 18, 2026

Prediction Dynamics in Depth-Recurrent Language Models

Authors: Xinyue Luo, Fei Yu

Organizations: Ant Group

Abstract

Depth-recurrent language models refine predictions through repeated latent updates. Why can intermediate answers agree with the endpoint while their scores continue to change? We derive a sharp margin characterization that decomposes the conservatism of a magnitude bound into common translation, direction relative to the winner, and the pairing of each competitor's update with its score gap. Across Huginn-3.5B and Ouro-1.4B, accounting for update direction and competitor pairing reduces the mean earliest qualifying depth by a further 22.5-34.4% of the total depth beyond translation removal under full answer-text scoring. This retrospective comparison uses completed trajectories. Substantial contributions also occur under label scoring. For shared predictive distributions, we separate common and contrast motion orthogonally and express the common component through candidate-set mass and within-set concentration. Common and contrast energies can attenuate at different rates, allowing a growing preference-change share to coexist with shrinking absolute updates. These findings explain finite-depth answer preservation through the geometry and composition of observed score changes.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables2 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Jul 31, 2026

Retrofitting Recurrent Depth into a Pretrained Language Model: Installation, Extrapolation, Transfer, and Retention at Two Parameter Budgets

A dense, pretrained language model can be retrofitted with recurrent depth and learn an iterative latent transition that persists after outcome-only annealing. Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct is split into a Prelude, a weight-tied Recurrent Block, and a Coda, with an identity-preserving one-loop path and a re-entry bridge on later loops. At loop 1 the retrofit remains non-inferior to its base on a preregistered ARC battery. Three findings. First, the mechanism is a reusable procedure rather than terminal-answer lookup, and installs at two budgets: 6M trained parameters over frozen base weights and 180M full-block. With intermediate-step supervision, the model computes one task step per loop and persists when only final answers are graded. The adapter matched the full block overall (83.8% versus 84.0%), led through depth 11, and trailed beyond. Verbal fine-tuning reached 79-86% on controlled verbal renderings (zero-shot transfer was minimal), and adapter verbal training begun from the installed mechanism outpaced matched fresh training by 18.6 points, including on a held-out test set. Second, the operation extrapolates to roughly 1.5 times its supervised depth, holding 70% accuracy through depth 18. Third, a same-size scratchpad-trained model matched the recurrent model within its learned horizon but collapsed beyond it. The recurrent model won overall, 84% versus 72%, retained 53% versus 2.5% beyond depth 10, and answered 7.6 times faster. An iterative transformer can therefore perform deeper reasoning in latent space faster than comparable or larger models fine-tuned on the same task, in a system-level comparison. A second task, running the rule in reverse, exposed the limits: the inverse was learnable in isolation, but no continuation acquired it while preserving the installed mechanism and general capability, a catastrophic-interference boundary. Learned depth selection remains open.
May 31, 2026

The Shape of Wisdom: How Language Models Converge on an Answer

When a language model answers a factual question, where does its internal state go? We asked four open models (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Gemma-2-9B and Llama-3.2-1B) 2,256 factual questions whose answers recur, such as the country a person is a citizen of. At every layer, we recorded the state from which the answer is produced. Questions that receive the same answer converge on a shared region of state space, which we summarise by its centre, the answer centroid. The answer becomes readable within a single layer. In every model, the share of questions whose state lies nearest its own answer's centroid jumps at one layer, between 47% and 71% of the way through the network. The centroids follow the answer the model gives rather than the question: the centroid of a country learned from questions about people's citizenship also identifies that country in questions about towns and films. The model also uses the centroids. After the jump, moving the state of a wrongly answered question to the right answer's centroid makes the model give the right answer in 83%-97% of cases late in the network, against 2%-4% for a random move of the same size. Before the jump, moves of the same size almost never work. Near misses, in which the model answers wrongly but picks the right option in multiple choice, can be seen from the onset layer, where the right answer's centroid is already among the nearest to the state. This signal is about as informative as the right answer's rank in the model's final output, and more informative than the model's confidence in its reply.
Oct 20, 2026

PAR: Progress-Aligned Recurrence for Length Generalization in State Tracking

Looped language models can run more iterations at test time, but additional iterations need not help them solve longer problems. For sequential state tracking, final-answer supervision does not specify how far each iteration should advance, and repeated updates can change the scale of the recurrent state. We introduce Progress-Aligned Recurrence (PAR), which trains the prediction at iteration kk to match the state after the first kk operations and rescales recurrent states to their first-iteration norms. On swap-S5S_5, a Qwen2.5-0.5B model trained on at most 32 moves achieves 95.5% mean full-state accuracy at 512 moves, or 16×16\times the training length, compared with 55.7% reported for RLT and 0.8% for explicit chain of thought on the same backbone. Controlled S5S_5 ablations show that removing norm anchoring reduces the extrapolation factor from 16×16\times to below 2.2×2.2\times, and replacing progress-aligned targets with final-answer supervision reduces it to at most 8×8\times. A learned completion readout selects when to answer without a supplied stopping depth. When intermediate labels are unavailable, prefix self-distillation induces the correspondence from shorter problem prefixes using only final answers. The gains apply across sequential state-tracking tasks, establishing the task structure required for depth extrapolation. These findings support training intermediate predictions and state scale together to make additional recurrent depth useful for longer problems.