Computational Prosopography across a Millennium: Mathematically Oriented Lineages Traced from the Fields Medalists

What made useful knowledge cumulative was not discovery alone but the institutions that transmitted it. We provide the first exhaustive structural measurement of the network through which upper-tail human capital passed from master to student across a millennium. Using 470,000 mentor-student records from Wikidata (which integrates the Mathematics Genealogy Project and MacTutor Archive), and all 64 historical Fields Medalists as a fixed, ex ante tracer set, backward traversal yields a directed acyclic graph of 25.5 million paths reaching 57 generations. We document two institutional transitions. First, a 17th-century watershed concentrates lineage traffic on Leibniz: 47 of 64 lineages pass through him with a 10:1 downstream-to-upstream ratio, and seven independent attributes -- learned-society membership (a 46-fold rise per scholar), field, language, employer, institutional diversification, student production, and diffusion entropy -- re-organize coherently across the same window. This is the network signature of Mokyr's Republic of Letters, and it reframes the Newton-Leibniz priority dispute as a distinction between the possession and the transmission of upper-tail human capital: it is transmission that generates the spillovers on which growth depends. Second, 84% of lineages converge upstream on five 12th-13th-century Islamic and Byzantine scholars before terminating at an 11th-century boundary -- the ``Monastery Wall'' -- at which personal academic mentorship first becomes record-generating in Europe. Our claims are descriptive-structural, not causal. Because exhaustive traversal at this scale defeats standard tools, we also contribute a deterministic, algebraic graph-traversal instrument whose measurement bias we characterize in closed form, and report one emergent property of independent methodological interest.

As authorship attribution systems are increasingly deployed to detect ghostwritten and AI-generated papers, their errors can support accusations against legitimate authors. These systems conflate stylistic similarity with individual identity. Researchers, however, study under advisors, and inherit their stylistic quirks. We build a corpus of arXiv authors with $\geq 2$ solo papers from the Mathematics Genealogy Project graph, giving $5{,}803$ total authors and $2{,}501$ ground-truth advisor-student pairings. Using embeddings from a fine-tuned model, advisors sit $39.9\%$ closer in cosine distance to their students than a random same-field author does. Using two open models, we reproduce the effect at $12.6\%$ and $14.5\%$. Academic siblings, two students of one advisor who may never have met, sit $30.4\%$ closer across $8{,}360$ pairs, even when they studied at different institutions. Pairs who share only institution and field show negligible similarity. Given a closed-set attribution task over the same corpus, the system's errors occur on the true author's advisor, student, academic sibling, or lab mate $11$ times more often than chance.

Mathematical knowledge is organized around statements and their dependencies, but this structure is exposed unevenly: informal papers cite mostly at the document level, while formal libraries record fine-grained dependencies over a much smaller body of mathematics. We introduce TheoremGraph, a unified statement-level dependency graph spanning both informal and formal mathematics. On the informal side, we parse 11.7M theorem-like environments from mathematics arXiv and recover 18.3M candidate directed dependencies, each labeled by the extractor that proposed it so downstream users can trade coverage for precision. On the formal side, we release LeanGraph, a Lean 4 elaborator-level extractor producing 388,105 declaration nodes and 11.3M typed edges across 25 Lean projects. We bridge the two graphs by embedding generated natural-language slogans into a shared semantic space, linking related statements across papers and across the informal/formal divide; an LLM judge affirms 47,952 such matches above a 0.8 cosine floor, with the judge-acceptance rate rising from 48% across the floor to 87% in the >=0.9 tier. On formal concept retrieval, our name-and-signature representation with graph expansion comes within 0.5pp of LeanSearch v2's reranked Recall@10 (0.775 vs. 0.780) without an LM reranker. We release the dataset, extractors, HTTP API, and MCP interface as infrastructure for mathematical search, attribution, and retrieval-augmented reasoning, available at theoremsearch.com and huggingface.co/datasets/uw-math-ai/theorem-matching.