Don't Drop Dropout: Optimizing Layer Sparsity for Efficient LLM Training and Inference
Organizations: Cerebras Systems · MBZUAI
Abstract
Layer dropout (a.k.a. stochastic depth) has been shown to enable faster training, higher accuracy, and robustness to zero-shot layer pruning in both language and vision transformers. However, as models and datasets have scaled, dropout - particularly layer dropout - has largely disappeared from large language models (LLMs) pre-training recipes. While some prior work has reported that dropout can degrade accuracy, no comprehensive study has quantified, let alone mitigated, this effect. In this study, we show that layer dropout should be used in state-of-the-art LLM training, establishing best practices and scaling analysis for both training and post-training benefits. Concretely, with optimal layer distribution, time schedule, and optimizer hyperparameters, we observe that at the same training FLOPs layer dropout leads to lower loss. For a given number of training steps, LLMs can achieve lower or similar validation loss while saving upto 25% of training FLOPs. Moreover, layer dropout enables significant post-training optimizations, such as early exit, intermediate-layer skipping, and self-speculative decoding, yielding up to 1.5x inference speedup with negligible accuracy loss. Across more than 2400 training experiments, spanning models from 271M to 8.2B parameters and datasets up to 160B tokens, we demonstrate that these findings extend reliably to large-scale training regimes. All pre-training experiments were run on Cerebras CS-3 systems.
Figures & tables
| Model Size | TPP | Dropout Config. | Self-Speculative Decoding | ||
| Speedup | |||||
| 270M | 20 | 0 | 1.01 | 92% | 0.65 |
| 0.2 (ILD) | 1.20 | 86% | 0.55 | ||
| 0.4 (ILD) | 1.35 | 89% | 0.48 | ||
| 0.4 (ILD, DTS) | 1.22 | 73% | 0.57 | ||
| 504M | 20 | 0 | 1.03 | 90% | 0.66 |
| Model Size | 1.8B | 3.9B | 8.2B | ||
| TPP | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Max Dropout | 0 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.8 | 0.99 |
| Layer Dist. | – | Inc. | – | Inc. | Inc. |
| Time Sched. | – | Dec. | – | Dec. | Dec. |
| FLOPs Savings | 0% | 15% | 0% | 20% | 25% |
| Val. Loss | 1.849 | 1.836 | 1.732 | 1.745 | 1.663 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Hidden Dim. | Layers | Heads | Head Size | FFN Mult. |
| 271M | 640 | 13 | 10 | 64 | 8 |
| 504M | 896 | 17 | 14 | 64 | 8 |
| 906M | 1152 | 23 | 9 | 128 | 8 |
| 1.8B | 1536 | 30 | 12 | 128 | 8 |
| 3.9B | 2048 | 40 | 16 | 128 | 8 |
| 8.2B | 2688 | 52 | 21 | 128 | 8 |
| Parameterization | Base Training | Scaled Training |
| Width | d_{\text{base}}\cdot\color[rgb]{1,0.5,0}m_{d} | |
| Depth | L_{\text{base}}\cdot\color[rgb]{0.132,0.545,0.132}{m_{L}} | |
| Dataset Size | D_{\text{base}}\cdot\color[rgb]{0.75,0.5,0.25}{m_{D}} | |
| Layer Density | \color[rgb]{0.75,0,0.25}{\rho} | |
| Model Size | N=g(d_{\text{base}}\cdot\color[rgb]{1,0.5,0}m_{d},L_{\text{base}}\cdot\color[rgb]{0.132,0.545,0.132}{m_{L}}) | |
| Tokens per Parameter | \text{TPP}=D_{\text{base}}\cdot\color[rgb]{0.75,0.5,0.25}{m_{D}}/N |
| Training Config. | Downstream Tasks | |||||||||||||
| Size | TPP | Layer Dropout | FLOPs Sav. | BBH | PIQA | SIQA | Hella. | Wino. | ARC-c | ARC-e | OBQA | Lamb. | COPA | RACE |
| 271M | 20 | 0 | 0% | 0.083 | 0.593 | 0.358 | 0.293 | 0.500 | 0.224 | 0.415 | 0.274 | 0.226 | 0.580 | 0.265 |
| 271M | 20 | 0.2 (ILD) | 10% | 0.095 | 0.579 | 0.349 | 0.285 | 0.505 | 0.224 | 0.399 | 0.262 | 0.218 | 0.580 | 0.273 |
| 271M | 20 | 0.4 (ILD, DTS) | 10% | 0.106 | 0.584 | 0.358 | 0.290 | 0.523 | 0.241 | 0.409 | 0.274 | 0.229 | 0.600 | 0.269 |
| 271M | 20 | 0.4 (ILD) | 20% | 0.128 | 0.584 | 0.345 | 0.283 | 0.499 | 0.234 | 0.400 | 0.266 | 0.223 | 0.610 | 0.253 |
| 503M | 20 | 0 | 0% | 0.178 | 0.594 | 0.360 | 0.316 | 0.515 | 0.246 | 0.441 | 0.282 | 0.280 | 0.560 | 0.279 |
LLM Training
Large language model training studies the data, objectives, optimizers, and systems used to build and adapt language models.
See all 331 papers