Reason in Style: Discovering and Controlling Style in Language Models

Language models are increasingly taught from synthetic question--answer (QA) supervision: a model generates questions about a document, answers them from the same text, and the resulting pairs are used to fine-tune, distill, or compress knowledge into another model. We show that this generation step is not neutral preprocessing. It is an implicit policy that both selects which evidence becomes training signal and decides how that evidence is answered, and it is fragile at both stages. When choosing what to ask, generators do not scan a document uniformly. Coverage saturates early and concentrates on salient spans, diverse prompts converge on the same regions, and what looks question-worthy is driven by local presentation. As a result, salient artifacts such as poorly cleaned markup can hijack question generation across model families and scales. When answering, the model that produces the supervision tends to obey instruction-like passages embedded in the text. This compliance depends on the intent and surface form of the passage rather than its strictness, and is worst under task conflict, where larger models comply more often. These failure modes arise from choices made during QA generation, so they can be reduced without changing the training loop. Tying each question to a fixed target reduces biased selection, and filtering instruction-like spans before answering lowers mean injection compliance from $88\%$ to $13\%$ in our evaluation while retaining nearly all clean text.

Aligned language models often exhibit a recognizable AI-like style, yet its connection to post-training and internal representations remains poorly understood. In this work, we study whether post-training introduces or amplifies AI-like stylistic regularities and whether these regularities have a localized internal signature. To this end, we compare human text, base-model generations, and aligned-model generations under matched human-source prefixes. Aligned generations show lower human-corpus affinity and higher AI-detection rates than base generations, suggesting that post-training shifts generated text away from human-corpus style and toward detector-visible AI-like text. We then introduce PASTA (Post-training Alignment Signature Targeted Ablation), a training-free method that estimates a post-training alignment signature from aligned-base residual contrasts and ablates the corresponding direction during decoding. Across 11 aligned models and 6 AI detectors, PASTA lowers the detection rate for most aligned models; this effect transfers well across detectors and is not reproduced by random directions. Qualitative analysis suggests that PASTA generations remain relevant and coherent while exhibiting greater stylistic variation. Together, these results show that AI-like stylistic effects of post-training can be measured, localized, and causally tested through activation ablation.

Mathematical reasoning remains challenging in low-resource languages such as Bangla. We study whether teacher-generated Bangla Chain-of-Thought (CoT) supervision provides benefits beyond ordinary supervised fine-tuning. We construct \textsc{MathShikkha}, a Bangla mathematical reasoning dataset with GPT-5.4-generated rationales, and fine-tune four 4B--7B student models under a matched protocol in which answer-only and CoT conditions share data splits, response-only loss masking, decoding, and scoring, differing only in the training target. In-domain, CoT provides no significant improvement over answer-only fine-tuning for three stronger backbones (paired bootstrap 95% CIs include zero; exact McNemar $p \geq 0.17$), despite generating 15--52$\times$ more tokens, but significantly improves the weaker 4B model by 18.56 points ($p < 0.0001$). On the larger, contamination-audited BanglaMATH benchmark, this pattern reverses: CoT significantly outperforms answer-only supervision for all four models by 20.1--28.1 points (all $p < 0.0001$). Answer-only fine-tuning also reduces out-of-domain accuracy below the base model for three models, whereas CoT preserves or improves it for all four. A human study with two co-author annotators, external-expert adjudication, and Cohen's $κ= 0.76$--$1.00$ finds no significant CoT improvement over the base model on reasoning-content criteria; instead, its measurable effect is target-language adherence and producing inspectable reasoning. Overall, rationale supervision's value depends on backbone capability and distribution shift: in this setting, its main benefits are Bangla adherence, auditable reasoning, and out-of-domain robustness rather than improved in-domain reasoning validity.