Looped transformers increase effective depth by repeatedly applying a shared set of transformer layers, offering a parameter-efficient way to scale computation. However, standard residual connections aggregate information across recurrent depth into a single stream, providing limited control over which intermediate representations from preceding layers should be reused. In this paper, we introduce ARLoop, a looped transformer architecture based on attention residuals, where the input of each layer is selectively aggregated through attention over model depth. Distinct from standard transformers, we find that looped transformers do not require access to the full residual history: sliding-window depth attention matches or outperforms full-history attention at larger recurrent depths. Across controlled experiments with multiple parameter scales (140M and 370M) and recurrent depths (R = 1 to 5), ARLoop consistently outperforms prior residual designs for looped transformers. More importantly, we further scale ARLoop to 0.6B and 1.2B parameters under a realistic LLM pretraining recipe, demonstrating that the gains transfer to realistic pretraining, with particularly strong improvements on math and coding tasks. Our 1.2B model, pretrained on only 0.5T tokens with three recurrences, outperforms Huginn-3.5B (the only fully-open looped LLM as of our release date) across all evaluated tasks and is competitive with similar-sized non-looped models such as Qwen3.5-2B despite being trained on substantially less data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance of ARLoop on general reasoning, knowledge, mathematics, and coding benchmarks. ARLoop-1.2B outperforms both Huginn-3.5B and Qwen3.5-2B on all eight benchmarks, while ARLoop-0.6B outperforms its parameter-matched PreNormLoop baseline on seven of eight benchmarks.
Figure 2: An example illustrating attention residuals in looped transformers. (a) Each loop contains one transformer layer (i.e. a self-attention and an FFN), with parameters shared across loops. We group every S=2 sublayers into a residual block, yielding b1=z1+z2 and b2=z3+z4 . (b) Full-history depth attention ( Kimi Team, 2026 ) accesses all available residual sources. (c) Sliding-window depth attention retains the embedding and a window of recent residual sources.
Model
140M
370M
R=1
R=3
R=5
R=1
R=3
Sandwich-Norm ( Geiping et al., 2025 )
18.98
17.19
16.59
13.92
12.97
DeepLoop ( Li et al., 2026 )
18.72
17.05
16.52
13.69
12.78
Parcae w/o input injection ( Prairie et al., 2026 )
18.37
16.60
16.01
13.55
12.31
Parcae w. input injection ( Prairie et al., 2026 )
18.37
16.55
15.96
13.55
12.30
PreNormLoop
18.37
16.91
16.34
13.55
12.48
Table 1: Validation perplexity ( ↓ ) for models at the 140M and 370M scales.
Scale
R
PPL ↓
Downstream ↑
PreNormLoop
ARLoop full
ARLoop sw
PreNormLoop
ARLoop full
ARLoop sw
140M
2
17.48
17.27
17.30
42.22
41.96
42.27
3
16.91
16.46
16.38
42.72
43.69
43.09
4
16.59
16.07
16.03
43.27
44.09
43.73
370M
2
12.83
12.68
12.55
48.98
48.70
49.25
3
12.48
12.27
12.17
49.29
50.23
50.67
Table 2: Validation perplexity and average zero-shot downstream accuracy (%). Bold marks the best result for each metric within each row.
Figure 3: Left : Attention weights over residual sources (i.e. blocks) at each sublayer for the 140M ARLoop full model with R=4 , averaged over the validation set. Green lines indicate the sliding windows used in the corresponding ARLoop sw variant. Right : Pairwise cosine similarity between residual blocks for the same model.
Model
Looped
FLOPs
Data (T)
ARC-C
Hella.
Wino.
OBQA
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
HumanEval
Open-weight LLMs
Qwen3.5-2B
None
432
36
54.3
67.5
66.4
37.8
60.6
35.8
49.5
32.9
Gemma 3-4B
None
96
4.0
58.4
77.7
72.3
43.0
38.1
25.4
60.1
34.2
Ouro-1.4B
4
259
7.7
59.9
74.4
70.5
41.4
78.2
70.5
68.3
52.4
Fully-open LLMs
OLMo 2-7B
None
180
4.1
64.6
82.0
76.8
45.6
68.1
20.9
32.0
12.2
Table 3: Comparison of open-weight and fully-open language models. Training FLOPs are estimated using the 6ND approximation and reported in units of 1021 . Data (T) denotes pretraining tokens in trillions. Looped denotes the default number of recurrences used by each model. Rows in light blue refer to looped language models, including our fully-open models.
Figure 4: Layer effects on 50 MATH examples for PreNormLoop-0.6B and ARLoop-0.6B . Shaded regions mark Loop1 (layers 0–17), Loop2 (18–35), and Loop3 (36–53).
Model
140M
370M
0.6B
1.2B
Memory (GiB) ↓
PreNorm
32.8
80.0
66.5
65.4
ARLoop full
33.0
80.1
66.6
65.4
ARLoop sw
32.9
80.1
66.6
65.4
Throughput (tokens/s) ↑
PreNorm
131.1k
45.8k
28.9k
15.0k
Table 4: Training memory and throughput at R=4 on a single NVIDIA H100, with batch sizes of 8, 8, 4, and 2 for the 140M, 370M, 0.6B, and 1.2B models, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
140M
370M
PreNorm
ARLoop
PreNorm
ARLoop
Architecture
Physical Transformer layers L
6
6
12
12
Hidden dimension dmodel
768
768
1,024
1,024
MLP dimension dintermediate
3,072
3,072
4,096
4,096
Attention heads (query / key–value)
6 / 6
6 / 6
8 / 8
8 / 8
Head dimension
128
128
128
128
Appendix
Table 5: Architecture details for the controlled 140M and 370M experiments. Each Transformer layer contains an attention sublayer and an MLP sublayer. The AttnRes block and window settings apply to the corresponding residual variants; Table 2 lists the evaluated configurations. PreNorm uses additive pre-normalized residual updates, while ARLoop learns the input mixture at each effective sublayer.
Benchmark
Settings / reported metric
Framework
Language modeling
FineWeb-Edu (held out)
PPL
Zero-shot downstream evaluation
ARC-Challenge
Log-likelihood, 0-shot; accuracy
lm-eval-harness
ARC-Easy
Log-likelihood, 0-shot; accuracy
lm-eval-harness
HellaSwag
Log-likelihood, 0-shot; normalized accuracy
lm-eval-harness
Appendix
Table 6: Evaluation protocol for the controlled 140M and 370M experiments.
Model
140M, R=3 , w/o value res. (Val PPL ↓ )
PreNorm
18.19
Sandwich-Norm ( Geiping et al., 2025 )
Collapse
DeepLoop ( Li et al., 2026 )
18.44
Parcae + input injection ( Prairie et al., 2026 )
17.83
ARLoop full
17.52
ARLoop sw
18.20
Appendix
Table 7: Validation perplexity without value residuals. Bold marks the best available result.
R
Residual design
ARC-C
ARC-E
HellaSwag
LAMBADA OpenAI
LAMBADA Standard
OBQA
PIQA
RACE
SciQ
WinoGrande
Avg.
140M
1
PreNorm
21.84
56.36
34.49
25.77
19.13
32.20
63.49
28.33
82.40
50.04
41.41
ARLoop full
23.72
55.22
33.90
25.58
18.18
32.20
64.15
28.90
83.90
52.49
41.82
2
PreNorm
23.55
56.40
35.40
26.97
21.56
28.40
63.93
32.34
82.30
51.38
42.22
ARLoop full
23.63
55.51
35.64
27.19
19.85
29.80
63.87
30.72
83.20
50.20
41.96
ARLoop sw
22.61
57.53
35.77
26.99
21.35
31.80
63.11
30.53
81.80
51.22
42.27
Appendix
Table 8: Zero-shot downstream accuracy (%) for the 140M and 370M models in Table 2 . HellaSwag, OpenBookQA (OBQA), and PIQA use normalized accuracy; all other tasks use accuracy. Training and evaluation use the same recurrence R ; R=1 is non-recurrent. ARLoop full and ARLoop sw use residual blocks of 6 sublayers at 140M and 12 at 370M; ARLoop sw retains the input embedding and the three most recent blocks. Bold indicates the highest accuracy within each scale and recurrence group.
Figure 5: Additional full-history diagnostics: (a) 140M, R=3 ; (b) 370M, R=3 ; and (c) 370M, R=4 . Top: residual-source attention weights, with green outlines marking the embedding plus the three most recent blocks. Bottom: pairwise residual-block cosine similarity, with E denoting the embedding.
Architecture
Full history
Sliding window ( W=3 )
Δ PPL
Looped: L=6 , R=4
16.07
16.03
−0.04
Non-recurrent: L=24 , R=1
13.65
16.78
+3.13
Appendix
Table 9: Validation perplexity at matched effective depth. Both models use the same training and architecture setups, except that non-recurrence models use more unique parameters to match the effective depth. The sliding window retains the embedding plus three blocks.
Figure 6: Residual-block similarity for the non-recurrent 24-layer, W=3 model, measured on the same validation positions as the looped-model cosine diagnostics. E is the embedding; blocks 1–8 belong to one forward pass, not separate recurrences.
Model
Recurrence
Residual block size (sublayers)
2
4
6
140M 6 layers
Non-recurrent
18.20
18.25
18.26
Loop =2
17.19
17.18
17.27
Loop =3
16.59
16.48
16.46
Loop =4
16.13
16.02
16.07
Appendix
Table 10: Validation PPL for completed 140M full-history block-size experiments. The best result within each model and recurrence is bolded.
Model
Recurrence
Sliding-window blocks W
2
3
4
5
140M ARLoop sw
4
16.17
16.03
16.07
16.14
Appendix
Table 11: Validation PPL versus sliding-window size for 140M ARLoop sw models with residual blocks of six sublayers. W counts retained residual blocks; the input embedding is always retained.
PreNorm 0.6B
ARLoop 0.6B
ARLoop 1.2B
Physical Transformer layers L
18
18
24
Hidden dimension
1,536
1,536
2,048
SwiGLU intermediate dimension
4,608
4,608
5,632
Query / key–value heads
16 / 4
16 / 4
16 / 4
Head dimension
96
96
128
Residual block size (sublayers)
–
18
24
Appendix
Table 12: Architecture and optimization settings for large-scale pretraining. Residual block/window settings apply only to ARLoop . Each physical layer contains one attention and one MLP sublayer.
Figure 7: Three-stage pretraining recipe. The upper panels show the domain sampling shares at each stage. The lower panel shows the learning rate schedules: 1,000 warmup updates followed by cosine decay to 1% of the peak. Source-level allocations are listed in Table 14 .
Benchmark
Settings / reported metric
Framework
General knowledge and reasoning
ARC-Challenge
Log-likelihood, 25-shot; normalized accuracy
lm-eval-harness
HellaSwag
Log-likelihood, 10-shot; normalized accuracy
lm-eval-harness
WinoGrande
Log-likelihood, 5-shot; accuracy
lm-eval-harness
OpenBookQA
Log-likelihood, 0-shot; normalized accuracy
lm-eval-harness
Mathematical reasoning
Appendix
Table 13: Evaluation setup for large-scale pretraining. We evaluate pretrained base checkpoints without chat templates. CoT denotes chain-of-thought demonstrations. MATH uses the full 5,000-example test set. These settings also apply to the external checkpoints re-evaluated for Table 3 .
Domain
Dataset source
0.6B model (180B tokens)
1.2B model (500B tokens)
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Total
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Total
General
FineWeb-Edu ( Penedo et al., 2024 )
89.02
26.36
22.06
137.44
247.29
73.22
61.27
381.78
StackExchange
2.16
0.64
0.04
2.84
6.00
1.78
0.10
7.88
Math
FineMath 3+ ( Allal et al., 2025 )
1.08
0.36
0.07
1.51
3.00
1.00
0.20
4.20
InfiWebMath 3+ ( Allal et al., 2025 )
1.08
0.36
0.07
1.51
3.00
1.00
0.20
4.20
FineMath 4+ ( Allal et al., 2025 )
1.08
1.96
0.90
3.94
3.00
5.44
2.50
10.94
Appendix
Table 14: Source-level allocation (billion tokens for each cell) for large-scale pretraining.
Figure 8: Output influence (left) and layer-contribution influence (right) on 50 shared zero-shot MBPP examples. Curves compare the ARLoop-0.6B and PreNormLoop-0.6B checkpoints at R=3 , using max aggregation and normalization by each curve’s total influence. Dashed lines separate the three recurrences.
Figure 9: Output influence (left) and layer-contribution influence (right) on 50 shared zero-shot MATH examples, with the same aggregation and normalization as Figure 8 . The right panel supplies the data for Figure 4 . Dashed lines separate the three recurrences.
Eval R
Training recurrence
140M
370M
Val PPL ↓
downstream avg. ↑
Val PPL ↓
downstream avg. ↑
4
ARLoop full ( R=4 )
16.07
44.09
12.01
50.93
ARLOOP-Poisson-Seq
16.69
43.24
12.33
49.62
ARLOOP-Poisson-Batch
16.52
43.30
12.36
50.53
Appendix
Table 15: Fixed versus dynamic recurrence training. Dynamic Poisson draws have mean 4 and are clamped to [1,4] . Bold marks the best result at each scale.
Figure 10: Validation perplexity versus evaluation recurrence for the per-sequence Poisson dynamic full-history ARLoop models in Table 15 . Each curve evaluates the same completed checkpoint at R=1,…,8 . The vertical dashed line at R=4 marks the maximum training recurrence; the gray shaded region denotes evaluation beyond this depth. Horizontal dashed lines retain the fixed- R=4 baseline reference levels (16.07 at 140M and 12.01 at 370M), not recurrence sweeps of the fixed models. Panels use separate vertical scales.
Looping in transformer models reuses weights by repeatedly applying the same transformer, or parts of it, making the model deeper without increasing its parameter count. Whether looping is useful depends on which constraint dominates: model size, training compute, or autoregressive inference efficiency. We study these trade-offs jointly in dense decoder-only transformers trained from scratch, varying which parts of the model are looped, how many loops are applied, and how information is passed between loops. Our experiments span models with up to 1B parameters, trained on up to 155B tokens with up to 1.07×1021 FLOPs and 32 loops. We find that looping the full transformer generally gives the strongest quality at a fixed parameter budget, whereas looping a middle block of layers gives a better return when training FLOPs are constrained. Adding loops is not uniformly beneficial: gains eventually saturate, reverse, or become unstable. This motivates asking whether forcing every loop to use the same weights limits the benefit of deeper looping. We address this by adding small loop-specific low-rank adapters that improve quality, with larger gains as more loops are added. Looped transformers also suffer a decoding slowdown proportional to the number of loops. Parallel Loop Transformers address this by passing hidden states between loops across adjacent token positions, allowing loop stages to run concurrently. However, in our experiments the original formulation does not consistently retain the quality gains of ordinary looping. We find that preserving the current-token embedding and separately normalizing it and the previous-token hidden state before combining them recovers strong performance across model scales and training budgets. Together, these results show that effective looping requires matching the design to the resource constraint and inference setting.
Looped Transformers scale sequential computation by applying a compact stack of physical blocks for multiple rounds, increasing unrolled depth without increasing stored parameters. This reuse changes the residual-scaling problem: in an untied Transformer, each residual branch receives and applies its own parameter update, whereas in a looped Transformer one shared update aggregates gradients from repeated visits and is read back by those same visits in the next linearized forward pass. We formalize this tied-depth effect through a first-order perturbation bound controlled by a visit-alignment coefficient κR. The bound recovers the DeepNorm exponent when visits decorrelate, but in the conservative aligned regime it requires the exponent to increase from 1/4 to 1/2 as loop count grows at fixed physical depth. The resulting method, DeepLoop, keeps the Post-LN DeepNorm architecture and sets α=(2N)1/2 and β=(8N)−1/2 for unrolled depth N. On GPT-style looped language models at GPT-2 small and GPT-2 medium scale, DeepLoop is neutral when no physical block is revisited and improves validation loss and downstream accuracy once recurrent depth is activated. These results show that stable recurrent depth requires residual scaling rules that account for parameter visits, not only nominal layer count.
Shuzhen Li, Yifan Zhang, Jiacheng Guo +2
Princeton University · University of California, Los Angeles
Looped Transformers increase computation per token by repeatedly applying a shared backbone, offering a way to improve language modeling and downstream task performance at a fixed backbone parameter count. However, each loop depends on the preceding loop, so increasing recurrent depth also increases decoding latency. Existing approaches include Parallel Loop Transformers, which reduce latency by overlapping loop computation across token positions, but yield rapidly diminishing marginal accuracy gains at larger depths. To address this challenge, we introduce LoopFold, which folds computation at multiple recurrent depths into parallel batches for the same token prefix. A lightweight predictor estimates inputs to later loops so they can start before earlier loops finish. A corrector then refines the outputs of these later loops using newly available results from earlier loops. All components are trained jointly using only the final next-token prediction loss. In experiments with 1.4B models, deeper LoopFold configurations achieve progressively higher average zero-shot accuracy across eight tasks, rising from 53.41% to 56.38%. Vanilla looped models and PLT show limited gains over the same depth range. Compared with a nine-loop vanilla model, LoopFold uses five sequential stages and additional parallel computation to reduce decoding latency by 46%.
Feichen Song, Boyi Zeng, Yiqin Hao +7
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Sun Yat-sen University · Shanghai Innovation Institute