Straight to Zero: Why Linearly Decaying the Learning Rate to Zero Works Best for LLMs
Shane Bergsma, Nolan Simran Dey, Gurpreet Gosal, Gavia Gray, Daria Soboleva, Joel Hestness
Abstract
LLMs are commonly trained with a learning rate (LR) warmup, followed by cosine decay to 10% of the maximum (10× decay). In a large-scale empirical study, we show that under an optimal peak LR, a simple linear decay-to-zero (D2Z) schedule consistently outperforms other schedules when training at compute-optimal dataset sizes. D2Z is superior across a range of model sizes, batch sizes, datasets, and vocabularies. Benefits increase as dataset size increases. Leveraging a novel interpretation of AdamW as an exponential moving average of weight updates, we show how linear D2Z optimally balances the demands of early training (moving away from initial conditions) and late training (averaging over more updates in order to mitigate gradient noise). In experiments, a 610M-parameter model trained for 80 tokens-per-parameter (TPP) using D2Z achieves lower loss than when trained for 200 TPP using 10× decay, corresponding to an astonishing 60% compute savings. Models such as Llama2-7B, trained for 286 TPP with 10× decay, could likely have saved a majority of compute by training with D2Z. All the main experiments were run on Cerebras CS-3 systems. We present a large-scale empirical study to determine which schedules work best in which situations, and why. We focus on both compute-efficient and over-trained models. According to Chinchilla scaling laws (Hoffmann et al., 2022) , the fewest FLOPs to achieve a given loss is obtained when models are trained for around 20 tokens-per-parameter (TPP). It is also common to train for more than 20 TPP because smaller, over-trained models are cheaper to serve (Touvron et al., 2023a). Our experiments (across various model scales, vocabulary sizes, and dataset sources) reveal a consistent outcome: when all schedules use their optimal peak LR, linear decay-to-zero
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 953228bc-3ac9-457e-8a0c-4f2ff23f6bd9Cited by top-tier papers14
- Don't be lazy: CompleteP enables compute-efficient deep transformersNolan Dey, Bin Claire Zhang, Lorenzo Noci, Mufan Bill Li et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 77 citations
- Power Lines: Scaling laws for weight decay and batch size in LLM pre-trainingShane Bergsma, Nolan Dey, Gurpreet Gosal, Gavia Gray et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 44 citations
- Cautious Optimizers: Improving Training with One Line of CodeKaizhao Liang, Lizhang Chen, Bo Liu, qiang liuICLR 2026 · 38 citations
- ParaRNN: Unlocking Parallel Training of Nonlinear RNNs for Large Language ModelsFederico Danieli, Pau Rodríguez, Miguel Sarabia, Xavier Suau et al.ICLR 2026 · 18 citations
- A Token is Worth over 1, 000 Tokens: Efficient Knowledge Distillation through Low-Rank CloneJitai Hao, Qiang Huang, Hao Liu, Xinyan Xiao et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 17 citations
Builds on26
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- On the Variance of the Adaptive Learning Rate and BeyondLiyuan Liu, Haoming Jiang, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen et al.ICLR 2020 · 2,210 citations
- Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and ScalingStella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley et al.ICML 2023 · 1,822 citations
- Fast Inference from Transformers via Speculative DecodingYaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, Yossi MatiasICML 2023 · 1,472 citations
- On Layer Normalization in the Transformer ArchitectureRuibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng et al.ICML 2020 · 1,388 citations
Related papers
- A Multi-Power Law for Loss Curve Prediction Across Learning Rate SchedulesKairong Luo, Haodong Wen, Shengding Hu, Zhenbo Sun et al.ICLR 2025
- The Surprising Agreement Between Convex Optimization Theory and Learning-Rate Scheduling for Large Model TrainingFabian Schaipp, Alexander Hägele, Adrien B. Taylor, Umut Simsekli et al.ICML 2025
- Functional Scaling Laws in Kernel Regression: Loss Dynamics and Learning Rate SchedulesBinghui Li, Fengling Chen, Zixun Huang, Lean Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 15 citations
- Scaling with Collapse: Efficient and Predictable Training of LLM FamiliesShane Bergsma, Bin Claire Zhang, Nolan Simran Dey, Shaheer Muhammad et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- To Repeat or Not To Repeat: Insights from Scaling LLM under Token-CrisisFuzhao Xue, Yao Fu, Wangchunshu Zhou, Zangwei Zheng et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 149 citations
