I'm trying to work out the correct biblatex field and entries for unpublished arXiv entries (it's more straightforward for published ones).

I have looked at this post, this post, this post and this post, but none answer my question.

In these posts, and also in the examples provided with biblatex, it's suggested to use the entry type 'online' and include fields

  • eprint
  • eprintclass
  • eprinttype

However, in the biblatex docs (page 10) it doesn't mention these as valid fields for 'online' entries. Moreover, when I use biber with the --validate-datamodel flag, it returns warnings for these fields.

How then do I add unpublished arXiv entries to biblatex bibliographies?

My attempt that's throwing warnings look sth like

  author       = {Corina S. Pasareanu and Divya Gopinath and Huafeng Yu},
  title        = {Compositional Verification for Autonomous Systems with Deep Learning Components},
  date         = {2018-10-18},
  eprint       = {1810.08303},
  eprintclass  = {cs.AI},
  eprinttype   = {arxiv}

and the errors like

Package biblatex Warning: Biber reported the following issues
(biblatex) with 'Pasareanu-2018':
(biblatex) - Datamodel: Entry 'Pasareanu-2018' (verification.bib): Invalid field 'eprint' for entrytype 'online'.


I believe this is exactly the right way to enter unpublished arXiv papers. As you note yourself even biblatex-examples.bib does it that way. For example (shortened)

  author       = {Wassenberg, Jan and Sanders, Peter},
  title        = {Faster Radix Sort via Virtual Memory and Write-Combining},
  date         = {2010-08-17},
  version      = 1,
  eprinttype   = {arxiv},
  eprintclass  = {cs.DS},
  eprint       = {1008.2849v1},

The output is definitely sensible.

[1] Corina S. Pasareanu, Divya Gopinath and Huafeng Yu. Compositional Verification for Autonomous Systems with Deep Learning Components. 18th Oct. 2018. arXiv: 1810.08303 [cs.AI].//[2] Jan Wassenberg and Peter Sanders. Faster Radix Sort via Virtual Memory and Write-Combining. Version 1. 17th Aug. 2010. arXiv: 1008.2849v1 [cs.DS].

As luck would have it I noticed this apparent inconsistency between the documentation (and the datamodel validation) on one hand and useful practice on the other hand a while ago. The next version of biblatex explicitly allows eprint and doi for @online entries and will not throw a warning when run with --validate-datamodel, see https://github.com/plk/biblatex/commit/b66a1d53a825c6631bcbb17475a252b071b84b99.

Note that especially when it comes to required fields the warnings from --validate-datamodel are mostly theoretical, the exact constraints set up in the data model usually do not influence the output. That is to say you can expect sensible output if you get no warning, but even if you get a warning the output might be fine. See also the comments in §2.3.2 Missing and Omissible Data of the biblatex documentation and comments in https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/833.

  • you link to the fix on github is particularly helpful – Joel Berkeley Oct 23 '18 at 9:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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