Latex citation undefined for inproceedings

biblatex

I got latex citation undefined for inproceedings only. Article works fine:

\usepackage{amssymb}

\usepackage{biblatex} %Imports biblatex package


\addbibresource{cas-refs.bib} %Import the bibliography file


\clearpage
\printbibliography

Example of inproceedings:

@inproceedings{xyz,
  title={Hwllow world},
  author={bill, john},
  booktitle={2021 IEEE International},
  pages={1--4},
  year={2021},
  organization={IEEE}
}

I tried to keep the example brief, but let me know if more details are required.

EDIT: I notice if I keep only "inproceedings" in the cas-refs.bib. It works fine.

EDIT 2: It seems I have made a mistake. It seems the problem with entery:

@article{Wang2022,
  title={Multiscale transunet +  + : dense hybrid U-Net with transformer for medical image segmentation},
  author={JOUR, Wang, Bo , Wang, ·Fan, Dong, Pengwei, Li, ·Chongyi},
  journal={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-021-02115-w},
  year={2022}
}

if I remove some of the authors, it works fine. It seems it was only able to handle up to three authors at max. I don't know why:

@article{Wang2022,
  title={Multiscale transunet +  + : dense hybrid U-Net with transformer for medical image segmentation},
  author={JOUR},
  journal={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-021-02115-w},
  year={2022}
}

Best Answer

The bibtex file format uses and as the author separator not a comma. So your entry:

@article{Wang2022,
  title={Multiscale transunet +  + : dense hybrid U-Net with transformer for medical image segmentation},
  author={JOUR, Wang, Bo , Wang, ·Fan, Dong, Pengwei, Li, ·Chongyi},
  journal={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-021-02115-w},
  year={2022}
}

is ill-formed and needs to be rewritten as follows:

@article{Wang2022,
    author = {Wang, Bo and Wang, Fan and Dong, Pengwei and Li, Chongyi},
    journal = {Signal, Image and Video Processing},
    month = jan,
    number = {6},
    pages = {1607--614},
    title = {Multiscale transunet + +: dense hybrid U-Net with transformer for medical image segmentation},
    volume = {16},
    year = {2022}}

The item also had some spurious characters and incorrect information. I retrieved the entry using the DOI.

The reason it looked like your inproceedings entries weren't working was likely because they so happened to be after this entry in the .bib file, and the file wasn't being read completely because of the error.

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] biblatex: change inproceedings

Standard bibliography drivers print dates with \printdate and friends. So you'll have to change the date format:

\DeclareFieldFormat[inproceedings]{date}{\ifbibliography{\mkbibparens{#1}}{#1}}

The date format feature was added to biblatex 1.7, but it fails to work in English documents. This is due to a known bug in the English localization module (english.lbx). To fix this (along with some other 1.7 bugs) you can upgrade to biblatex 2.0. This beta version requires biber 1.0 and its default setting for the backend option is biber. To use bibtex instead, add backend=bibtex to the biblatex load-time option settings. Alternatively you can edit the module yourself with the bug fix documentation at the "caretaker" github repo for biblatex.

You can suppress data in the bibliography using \clearfield and friends. A couple questions cover this topic already. Here's an example.

\AtEveryBibitem{%
  \ifentrytype{article}
    {\clearfield{month}%
     \clearfield{day}}
    {}%  
  \ifentrytype{inproceedings}
    {\clearlist{publisher}%
     \clearlist{location}}
    {}}

The address field is an alias for location, so we suppress location instead. We use \clearlist because both location and publisher are literal lists.

[Tex/LaTex] Adapting an existing biblatex style in order to imitate Springer’s author-year reference list rules for authors

There's a lot of questions here. Maybe some that are rather subjective. Rather than produce an essay I'll try to answer your questions.

Yes, the process is handcrafted, if you won't accept or live with one of the standard or common styles, or at least if you need to make more than a few changes to them. With respect, the reason is clear once you look at your own question. You have found a style you like, but you would like a few little things changed: a full stop after some parentheses, and the book name. Fortunately or unfortunately, everyone has these little quirks: corner cases, inconsistencies, favourite little points. This is life. And in the end that means handcrafting. A lot can be done by changing macros, so that the rough work is done quickly. But it's these "little things" that take time.

Sometimes this becomes a bit frustrating, as one wonders whether this or that feature of a citation style is really required. All of them more-or-less convey the same information, which is really part of the problem: because then we have room for endless debate on matters of taste, about which people, being people, can sometimes feel strongly. To some extent the degree to which your style has to be handcrafted depends on your own ability to live with something that isn't quite exactly what you want. If you could resign yourself to using, say APA or Chicago style, we have exactly what you need. You are driven to bespoke by an exquisite refusal to be seen wearing something off-the-peg: as is your prerogative.

Bibtex of course managed the semi-homemade approach via makebst. But it's a much simpler system: because of the complexity of biblatex, I doubt such a system is viable. At any rate it would be a huge amount of work, and doesn't exist. The nearest biblatex comes to that is actually the highly configurable styles like the DW styles; but they are not really focussed on your author/year system.
In terms of styles to look at, there are two fairly mature styles that are focussed on author-year citations: biblatex-chicago (which you load as a package of its own) in its authordate version, and biblatex-apa. The former is quite a way from what you want. The latter is pretty close, actually, to your format (though with more periods and punctuation than you like), but might be a good starting point for customization. This does not "meet your needs" if you mean "look exactly as you want your style to look", but it is a totally competent modern citation style which conforms very closely to an established style-guide.
For modification, I'd always start with a standard style (unless it's really a question of tiny tweaks). In your case, I'd probably work from authoryear (or one of its close variants -- though before that I'd look at the code for APA to see if it might be a closer fit.
There is no perfect single source. My own experience, beyond the questions you have identified, is that one got most help from the biblatex documentation, but sometimes even more from the source code, especially biblatex.def and standard.bbx, which you need to keep at hand. They provide the copious examples that the technical documentation rather lacks.

A few suggestions:

Please, please, see if you can't bring yourself to use a style like APA or Chicago, with minimal modification (e.g. to remove unnecessary periods after initials and the like). This would be very much simpler. If you can't, and you are determined to roll your own ...
Ask yourself why you are using biblatex. I'm a huge fan of it, because in my field it is essential: you simply cannot have adequate legal bibliographies with bibtex. You may need it for all sorts of reasons. But if you are not going to need its advanced features, but aim for nothing that bibtex could not do, but are determined on a bespoke approach, then going the makebst route might be better for you. (Or modifying the Springer .bst files which are, I think, available.)
If the answer to those questions is that you are going to use biblatex but produce your own style then
- start with the book, article, inbook and incollection drivers, in that order. Once you've got them, you are more than half way there usually.
- when tackling the drivers, use a variety of test data that you are confident about (i.e. you are sure how it should end up being printed). Change only a bit at a time. Make sure to test with unexpected data too.
- test very frequently. It's horribly easy to introduce some annoying little error like an extra space somewhere, which can be hell to track down later.
- sort out the punctuation (\newunitpunct and friends) as the first thing you do. Spend some time studying the documentation's quite lengthy description of the punctuation system, which is cunning and useful, but not immediately intuitive.
- encapsulate as much as you can so that you get repeatable units: aim for drivers which are simply a succession of \printfield, \newunit, \newblock and \usebibmacro, without any heavy logic or formatting built in. Use \bibmacros to control logic, and the various \format...ing directives to deal with formatting and typography.
- you are going to need to revise (not, of course, edit: make a new alternative) at least one .lbx file because they are stuffed full of full stops after abbreviations.
- try to build a style which will precisely follow the Springer one, and then add your tweaks (perhaps with an option), so that you can make the style available to others.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] biblatex: change inproceedings

[Tex/LaTex] Adapting an existing biblatex style in order to imitate Springer’s author-year reference list rules for authors

Related Question