I want to update my paper to arXiv, which includes a separate bibliography. Unfortunately, my local biblatex version is newer than the one used by arXiv. As a result, arXiv does not accept my .bbl file, and it does not accept the original .bib, either (that it never did).

Is there any easy way to generate (or convert?) .bbl in the older version, or do I have to downgrade to update my paper?

  • 2
    I didn't know that arXiv even accepts biblatex-generated bibliographies. When did arXiv make this change? – Mico Mar 1 at 14:24
  • 2
    You can get older biblatex and biber versions from sourceforge sourceforge.net/projects/biblatex and sourceforge.net/projects/biblatex-biber. It is not very difficult to use them with one document as long as you don't use features that doesn't work with the older version. – Ulrike Fischer Mar 1 at 14:34
  • @mico: why shouldn't it work if the texsystem has biblatex? – Ulrike Fischer Mar 1 at 14:35
  • 4
    @UlrikeFischer - I just came across this answer by moewe to the query Which biblatex/biber version produces BBL format 2.8. (In short, I had indeed completely missed the fact that arxiv has started accepting biblatex-generted bbl files.) moewe wrote that "the newest combination that works with .bbl 2.8 is biblatex 3.7/Biber 2.7." (The current versions of biblatex and biber produce 2.9 versions of bbl -- too modern for arXiv...) – Mico Mar 1 at 15:04
  • 1
    Even if they started biber you could run into problems if you have different biblatex versions. Or if you used some other shiny new package and arXiv hasn't it yet. – Ulrike Fischer Mar 1 at 18:13

At present, arXiv compiles with a more-or-less off the shelf version of texlive 2016. As such, only that version of biber/biblatex will work in our automated environment. The standard reply applies here as well: rather than try to downgrade your binaries/bbl file into an acceptable version: you should instead regenerate it in a portable bibliographic format that isn't tied to a specific application's version.

  • 2
    I don't really understand what you mean. My impression is that such a portable bibliographic format is .bib, which arXiv does not accept. There seems to be no alternative to .bbl. Or is there? – tomasz Jun 19 at 15:46
  • while .bib is a "portable" format, arXiv doesn't accept .bib files as they may be excessively large and arXiv does not run bibtex against them as part of the AutoTeX processing as per this arXiv help page: arxiv.org/help/submit_tex#bibtex As such, just the .bbl which would contain the compiled output of the bibtex processing against the bib file. Biblatex processing, however, is different and is tied to a specific version of biblatex which may be less portable than the .bbl file you'd get from other citation management tools. – Jake Jun 20 at 16:36
  • 2
    The arxiv should accept and process .bib files as the truly portable solution, rather than insist that people recreate their documents with portable but inferior output. If .bib file size was an issue, then simply impose a file-size cap---this is far easier for authors to handle than re-installing package versions or file processing outside of the standard tex installations such as miktex. – JDH Jul 10 at 13:19
  • 3
    Actually, I would think that the arxiv should want to collect .bib files, even when they are large. Just imagine what kind of resource that would be, to have all that meta-data collected for thousands of articles over many years. One can imagine that people would write utilities to extract and combine the data---we'd all have amazing bibtex entries, full of links and further information. – JDH Jul 11 at 11:51

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.