The Last Fingerprint: How Markdown Training Shapes LLM Prose
arXiv:2603.27006v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce em dashes at varying rates, and the observation that some models "overuse" them has become one of the most widely discussed markers of AI-generated text. Yet no mechanistic account of this pattern exists, and the parallel observation that LLMs default to markdown-formatted output has never been connected to it. We propose that the em dash is markdown leaking into prose -- the smallest surviving unit of the structural orientation that LLMs acquire from markdown-saturated training corpora. We present a five-step geneal — E. M. Freeburg
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Large language models produce em dashes at varying rates, and the observation that some models "overuse" them has become one of the most widely discussed markers of AI-generated text. Yet no mechanistic account of this pattern exists, and the parallel observation that LLMs default to markdown-formatted output has never been connected to it. We propose that the em dash is markdown leaking into prose -- the smallest surviving unit of the structural orientation that LLMs acquire from markdown-saturated training corpora. We present a five-step genealogy connecting training data composition, structural internalization, the dual-register status of the em dash, and post-training amplification. We test this with a two-condition suppression experiment across twelve models from five providers (Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, Google, DeepSeek): when models are instructed to avoid markdown formatting, overt features (headers, bullets, bold) are eliminated or nearly eliminated, but em dashes persist -- except in Meta's Llama models, which produce none at all. Em dash frequency and suppression resistance vary from 0.0 per 1,000 words (Llama) to 9.1 (GPT-4.1 under suppression), functioning as a signature of the specific fine-tuning procedure applied. A three-condition suppression gradient shows that even explicit em dash prohibition fails to eliminate the artifact in some models, and a base-vs-instruct comparison confirms that the latent tendency exists pre-RLHF. These findings connect two previously isolated online discourses and reframe em dash frequency as a diagnostic of fine-tuning methodology rather than a stylistic defect.
Comments: 14 pages, 3 tables. Code and data: this https URL
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.27006 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2603.27006v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27006
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: E. M. Freeburg [view email] [v1] Fri, 27 Mar 2026 21:42:06 UTC (19 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]
Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]
Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!