Should You Mask 15% in Masked Language Modeling?

Masked language models conventionally use a masking rate of 15% due to the belief that more masking would provide insufficient context to learn good representations, and less masking would make training too expensive. Surprisingly, we find that masking up to 40% of input tokens can outperform the 15% baseline, and even masking 80% can preserve most of the performance, as measured by fine-tuning on downstream tasks. Increasing the masking rates has two distinct effects, which we investigate through careful ablations: (1) A larger proportion of input tokens are corrupted, reducing the context size and creating a harder task, and (2) models perform more predictions, which benefits training. We observe that larger models in particular favor higher masking rates, as they have more capacity to perform the harder task. We also connect our findings to sophisticated masking schemes such as span masking and PMI masking, as well as BERT's curious 80-10-10 corruption strategy, and find that simple uniform masking with [MASK] replacements can be competitive at higher masking rates. Our results contribute to a better understanding of masked language modeling and point to new avenues for efficient pre-training.