arXiv preprint ·
When Does Adaptive Halting Win? Selection Rules Matter in Looped Language Models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Looped language models can stop iterating early, and recent work shows that post-hoc readouts of the loop trajectory often rival the learned exit gate of the looped model Ouro. Such comparisons reduce each method to one operating point chosen by a selection rule. We ask whether that rule decides the outcome. On a frozen Ouro-1.4B with four loops, we compared a trained stability probe ($π_1$-x) with Ouro's native gate, adapted to a per-question stopping decision, in pre-registered studies; the confirmatory study was designed after an exploratory finding on development data and evaluated once on a sealed test set of 8,517 questions. In the pre-registered confirmatory comparison, which selected operating points with a bootstrap-screened 1 pp accuracy-loss rule, the probe saved more of the four-loop budget than the native gate (+0.053 gross macro saving over three benchmarks, 95% CI [+0.049, +0.057]), mostly from CommonsenseQA, where the probe's test upper bound on accuracy loss exceeded 1 pp. Under a point-only rule, a pre-specified secondary analysis on the same test set reversed the preference (-0.022 [-0.026, -0.018]), with operating points that exceeded the budget. In pre-specified secondary comparisons, the probe showed no demonstrated advantage over an untrained KL divergence between successive loops (+0.00125 [-0.0041, +0.0065]); we emphasise this result post hoc and claim no equivalence. The probe also broke its budget on one of two out-of-distribution benchmarks (3.26 pp loss on Social IQa). Savings are estimated from stored full-depth traces, not measured inference time, and our screen carries no formal risk-control guarantee. We conclude that halting methods should be compared as signals together with selection procedures, with strong untrained baselines and out-of-distribution checks.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
GRIPS: An Empirical Study of Pre-SQL Grounding Information for SQL Generation
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
A Capitulation Direction Emerges With Scale and Is Causally Load-Bearing Where Validation Is Strong: Eight Models, Two Families, and Five Measurement Hazards
Same Rule, Different Verdicts: Rubric Language and Clause Structure in LLM Judges for Korean Support Dialogues
Accessed, never disclosed: Silent access to protected health information by medical artificial intelligence agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.