When Do Repetition Loops Lock? Truncation Sampling, Bounded Penalties, and a Blind Spot in DRY

Large Language Models generate text autoregressively, but open-ended generation is prone to verbatim looping, in which models repeat spans already present in context. Standard defenses such as repetition, presence, and frequency penalties and n-gram blocking act on token recurrence rather than the sequential structure of a loop, and often suppress looping only at strengths that also degrade formatting or fluency. We propose Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY), a sampling-time logit adjustment that penalizes a candidate token only when generating it would extend the current suffix into an exact continuation of a span seen earlier in the context. Sequence breakers protect chat templates and formatting tokens. Across models from 1.5B to 120B parameters, nine prompt families, and a 600-pair human study, DRY reduces suffix-extension rate by 47% while improving lexical diversity. An intervention-matched placebo produces no comparable reduction, identifying suffix matching as the operative mechanism. On AWQ-quantized 70B and 120B models, DRY reduces loop rate by roughly half while preserving MT-Bench, MMLU, and GSM8K performance, whereas standard alternatives lose measurable ground. DRY has been adopted by popular open-source LLM inference frameworks including llama.cpp, ExLlamaV2, and text-generation-webui, highlighting its practical impact on text generation.

Reasoning models (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) generate long chains of thought to solve harder problems, but they often loop, repeating the same text at low temperatures or with greedy decoding. We study why this happens and what role temperature plays. With open reasoning models, we find that looping is common at low temperature. Larger models tend to loop less, and distilled students loop significantly even when their teachers rarely do. This points to mismatches between the training distribution and the learned model, which we refer to as errors in learning, as a key cause. To understand how such errors cause loops, we introduce a synthetic graph reasoning task and demonstrate two mechanisms. First, risk aversion caused by hardness of learning: when the correct progress-making action is hard to learn but an easy cyclic action is available, the model puts relatively more probability on the cyclic action and gets stuck. Second, even when there is no hardness, Transformers show an inductive bias toward temporally correlated errors, so the same few actions keep being chosen and loops appear. Higher temperature reduces looping by promoting exploration, but it does not fix the errors in learning, so generations remain much longer than necessary at high temperature; in this sense, temperature is a stopgap rather than a holistic solution. We end with a discussion of training-time interventions aimed at directly reducing errors in learning.

Looped language models (LMs) reuse one block of layers several times per token generation, promising more latent computation at no additional storage cost. Despite their rising popularity, the analysis of looped LMs is still in its infancy: little is known about whether the iterative transformations actually improve their capabilities, or whether these models remain stable under prompt perturbation. We construct an inspection protocol rooted in Mechanistic Interpretability comprising five diverse lenses. We apply it to examine eight looped LMs from four families. Models differ in many aspects but the key one is whether the prompt is transmitted only within the looped state (carry loops: Ouro, LoopUS) or re-supplied at every iteration (re-read loops: Parcae, and Rec-OLMo & Huginn from the Raven family). The results of our study provide valuable insights concerning safety and efficient use of looped language models.