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.

翻译：暂无翻译