Shared Weights, Selected Computations: How Looped Transformers Route What Each Loop Does
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Looped Transformers repeatedly apply the same set of Transformer layers, giving them a recurrent architecture for latent computation. Their strong performance on iterative reasoning and length-generalization tasks suggests an appealing explanation: recurrence may provide an inductive bias that lets the model reuse a learned algorithm across loops. However, weight sharing alone does not imply that every loop performs the same operation. This raises a basic question: is each loop actually repeating the same computation, and if not, what routes the shared parameters to different operations? We study this question using graph walks as a test case. In the model's native trajectories, decoded predictions can advance by different numbers of graph steps or remain at a reached target, showing that recurrent progress need not follow a fixed one-loop-one-step pattern. We then show that a frozen loop can be steered toward different transitions by modifying its entering hidden state: a learned linear layer J selects the desired transition without changing the shared Transformer layers. To test how this steering works, we use activation patching and find that attention patterns can recover its effects and switch the selected transition. Across five matched pairs of graph models, changing intermediate supervision during backbone training changes which transitions J can induce. This suggests that J selects computations learned by the backbone rather than creating new algorithms. Together, these results show that the hidden state can control shared computation, with attention routing as a causal pathway.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.
Builds on
17 of 17 references.
References · 17
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
- 2018Universal Transformerscited by 647
- 2025Scaling up Test-Time Compute with Latent Reasoning: A Recurrent Depth Approachcited by 415
- 2025Reasoning with Latent Thoughts: On the Power of Looped Transformerscited by 240
- 2023Looped Transformers as Programmable Computerscited by 237
- 2025Scaling Latent Reasoning via Looped Language Modelscited by 165
- 2023Looped Transformers are Better at Learning Learning Algorithmscited by 149
- 2024Can Looped Transformers Learn to Implement Multi-step Gradient Descent for In-context Learning?cited by 65
- 2024Representation Surgery: Theory and Practice of Affine Steeringcited by 50
- 2026A Mechanistic Analysis of Looped Reasoning Language Modelscited by 33
5 more
- 2025Latent Chain-of-Thought? Decoding the Depth-Recurrent Transformercited by 27
- 2026Bridging the Gap Between Latent and Explicit Reasoning with Looped Transformerscited by 13
- 2026Adaptive Depth in Looped Transformers: Diagnosing Learned Halting Gates and Trajectory Readoutscited by 12
- 2026When Does Recurrence Become an Algorithm? Convergence Selection in Weight-Tied Looped Transformerscited by 6
- 2026Dense Supervision Is Not Enough: The Readout Blind Spot in Looped Language Modelscited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Step-resolved data attribution for looped transformers
- 2026The Surprising Effectiveness of Shared Memory in Looped Transformers
- 2026Looped Transformers as Optimizers
- 2026Beyond the Training Horizon: Mechanisms and Limits of Length Generalization in Looped Transformers
- 2026Stability and Generalization in Looped Transformers
- 2026Looped Transformers with Source-Centered State Evolution
- 2026Training-Free Looped Transformers
- 2026Adaptive Loops and Memory in Transformers: Think Harder or Know More?