If you are looking for help with
biblatex and Biber for arXiv uploads, have a look at https://github.com/plk/biblatex/wiki/biblatex-and-the-arXiv and Biblatex and arxiv, error as well.
Overleaf users may be interested in https://www.overleaf.com/learn/how-to/LaTeX_checklist_for_arXiv_submissions.
There are several things going on here, so I think it is important to understand the big picture first.
biblatex vs BibTeX -
There is a difference between
bibtex (the program/"backend") and "the BibTeX way of producing a bibliography". That distinction becomes relevant if
biblatex is introduced into the equation. The "BibTeX way of producing a bibliography" is just one way to get a bibliography in LaTeX, other options include
biblatex and the manual way with
thebibliography (the LaTeX Wikibook lists several ways to produce a bibliography in detail, and also in a short overview). The BibTeX way of producing a bibliography is of course tied to using
bibtex (the program), a manual
thebibliography needs no additional helper program, and
biblatex can run with either its dedicated Biber backend (preferred) or with
bibtex. Please read bibtex vs. biber and biblatex vs. natbib for more explanations on this. For a great explanation of the roles of the backend (
bibtex or Biber), see Question mark or bold citation key instead of citation number.
.bbl files and their differences between
biblatex and BibTeX
The role that the
.bbl file plays with
biblatex and the BibTeX-way are similar, but
.bbl files produced for the two possible ways differ significantly. If you use the BibTeX-way, the BibTeX run will produce a
.bbl file that contains the bibliography exactly as it should appear in the document, it is formatted and sorted. With
.bbl file does not contain the finished bibliography, instead it contains the data of the entries in a format digestible by LaTeX along with a few bits and pieces of extra information that is not present in the
.bib file (disambiguation, automatically calculated labels, ...); the entries are also sorted.
.bbl file created for the BibTeX way of making bibliographies is completely incompatible with the
.bbl file produced for
biblatex (either by
bibtex or Biber).
You are using
biblatex with Biber as backend (a good choice), your document (drawing from the comments) looks roughly like
A document like this will always expect a
.bbl file as produced by Biber. Even if you change
.bbl file must have been created by BibTeX for use with
biblatex, it can't come from a document that does not use
.bbl file produced for
can not be used for
What the error message is about
Whatever you do, you can't mix and match between those two approaches on your local machine and the arXiv version. This is why you are seeing the error message
! Package biblatex Error: File 'xxxxxxx.bbl' not created by biblatex.
The paper you submitted to the arXiv uses
biblatex (with Biber!), while the
.bbl you submitted with it was produced by
bibtex for the BibTeX way of creating bibliographies.
Submitting the correct
.bbl to the arXiv
If you go with the BibTeX-way you can simply upload the
.bbl to the arXiv and you are good - of course the paper you upload must then also use the BibTeX-way, so it should look like the second code example and not like the first.
If you use
biblatex you will have to make sure that the
.bbl you upload is compatible with the version of
biblatex and Biber on the arXiv (at present that is
biblatex 3.7 and Biber 2.7, see Biblatex and arxiv, error and Which biblatex/biber version produces BBL format 2.8?) - again, naturally the
.tex file you upload must use
biblatex as well. In practice that means that you have to run the same versions of
biblatex and Biber on your local machine that the arXiv are running. See Matching biblatex in two machines for an explanation why that is necessary.
If you use
biblatex it is not that relevant for the arXiv whether you use
bibtex or Biber as backend. While the general rule is that using the
bibtex backend offers fewer features and is more stable (in terms of new features) than Biber, the relevant changes to the
.bbl file version normally affect both
bibtex and Biber. The fact that
biblatex.bst in general is quite stable (many new features require Biber) could be reason to hope that using
bibtex as backend may be a way to avoid
.bbl version incompatibilities. Normally, however, if changes are required to the
biblatex.bst must change as well (sometimes this is forgotten and can cause other issue, but you should not rely on the forgetfulness of the developers). So you should not have a significant advantage in using
backend=bibtex here, we will therefore stick to
Get the correct system
So you need to install the correct version of
biblatex and Biber (along with all the dependencies) on your system. The arXiv is running a TeX live 2016 system with updated packages, if you did not save a snapshot of a TeX live 2016 system at the time the arXiv updated their system, there is little chance you are going to be able to recreate the exact system they are running. As far as
biblatex and Biber are concerned, you should be good with an un-updated TeX live 2017. You can get historic TeX live releases from ftp://tug.org/texlive/historic/ and How to install "vanilla" TeXLive on Debian or Ubuntu? explains how to install such a system (see also TeX Archaeology - Installing historic/old TeX Live Releases). Do not install this system over you current system, it is possible to install several TeX live versions alongside each other without interference, see Using two installs of texlive in parallel.