LoopCoder-v2: Only Loop Once for Efficient Test-Time Computation Scaling
About
Looped Transformers scale latent computation by repeatedly applying shared blocks, but sequential looping increases latency and KV-cache memory with the loop count. Parallel loop Transformers (PLT) alleviate this cost through cross-loop position offsets (CLP) and shared-KV gated sliding-window attention, making loop count a practical design choice. We therefore study PLT loop-count selection through a gain--cost view: an extra loop may refine representations, but CLP also introduces a positional mismatch at each loop boundary. We instantiate this study by training LoopCoder-v2, a family of 7B PLT coders with different loop counts, from scratch on 18T tokens, followed by matched instruction tuning and evaluation. Empirically, the two-loop variant delivers broad gains over the non-looped baseline across code generation, code reasoning, agentic software engineering, and tool-use benchmarks, improving SWE-bench Verified from 43.0 to 64.4 points and Multi-SWE from 14.0 to 31.0 points. In contrast, variants with three or more loops regress, revealing a strongly non-monotonic loop-count effect. Our diagnostics show that loop 2 provides the main productive refinement, while later loops yield diminishing, oscillatory updates and reduced representational diversity. Because the CLP-induced mismatch remains roughly fixed as refinement gains shrink, the offset cost increasingly dominates. This gain--cost trade-off explains PLT's saturation at two loops and provides diagnostics for loop-count selection.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code Generation | BigCodeBench Full | Pass@146.1 | 91 | |
| Software Engineering | SWE-bench Verified | Success Rate64.4 | 53 | |
| Code Generation | LiveCodeBench (LCB) | Pass@135.4 | 37 | |
| Terminal-based agent interaction | Terminal-bench 2.0 | Success Rate (SR)21 | 32 | |
| Code Generation | HumanEval+ | Pass@184.1 | 18 | |
| Multilingual Code Generation | MultiPL-E | Pass@1 Score73.9 | 18 | |
| Agentic Terminal Interaction | Terminal-Bench v1 | Success Rate34.2 | 17 | |
| Web agent tasks | Mind2Web | Success Rate41.4 | 17 | |
| Tool Use | Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) v3 | Accuracy40.1 | 16 | |
| Agentic Software Engineering | SWE-bench Multilingual (SWE-M) | Success Rate31 | 14 |