There is no eprint entry type. arXiv articles can be entered as article or online types. Article identifiers are represented by the eprinttype and eprint fields. Any arXiv subject classification should be entered in eprintclass or its alias primaryclass. The url field is unnecessary as standard styles generate a link to the article from its identifiers.
Here are some (partial) arXiv entries from the documentation.
@Article{baez/article,
author = {Baez, John C. and Lauda, Aaron D.},
title = {Higher-Dimensional Algebra V: 2-Groups},
journaltitle= {Theory and Applications of Categories},
volume = {12},
version = {3},
date = {2004},
pages = {423--491},
urldate = {2006-10-01},
eprinttype = {arxiv},
eprint = {math/0307200v3}
}
@Online{baez/online,
hyphenation = {american},
author = {Baez, John C. and Lauda, Aaron D.},
title = {Higher-Dimensional Algebra V: 2-Groups},
version = {3},
date = {2004-10-27},
eprinttype = {arxiv},
eprint = {math/0307200v3}
}
@Online{wassenberg,
hyphenation = {american},
author = {Wassenberg, Jan and Sanders, Peter},
title = {Faster Radix Sort via Virtual Memory and Write-Combining},
version = {1},
date = {2010-08-17},
eprinttype = {arxiv},
eprintclass = {cs.DS},
eprint = {1008.2849v1}
}
Annotations and additional examples can be found in the biblatex-examples.bib file. Further details can be found in section 3.10.7 of the biblatex manual.
TeXworks keeps its Typesetting Preferences in a plain text file called tools.ini within its configuration folder. NOTE the contents will vary considerably depending on the TeX engine, here is one with MiKTeX entries.
You thus have two options
a) Edit it directly (ensure you have made a backup, DO NOT edit with TeXworks nor whilst TeXworks is running ) HOWEVER for your case this may not help much as it is what some may call a "flat" format see how the chain of commands XeLaTeX+MakeIndex+BibTeX has only one program called texify.exe.
For your use we need to specify a single program to carry out your desired options XeLaTeX -> PdfLatex -> Bibtex -> PdfLatex.
b) Add entries to a new Processing tool definition inside TeXworks Preferences, HOWEVER we have just seen that also is subject to the same limitation of ONE process handler at a time.
So what is the best approach?, well there is latexmk and araura amongst other batch handlers these remove much trial and error.
Since we can see the contents of the ini we could home brew fairly easily and add an extra tool
NOTE I have 18 so the next one to be added is 019 It will differ for you. the -shell-escape should be optional try with and without
[019]
name="XeLaTeX,pdfLaTeX++BibTeX,pdfLaTeX"
program=MyTool.cmd
arguments=$fullname, -shell-escape
showPdf=true
MyTool.cmd must be somewhere on "path" , ideally alongside the MiKTeX binaries, but that is not essential if they are also on path.
Rem highly simplified to only take %1 = $fullname as passed by MiKTeX NOTE filenames with spaces are most likely to fail. (that has not been but could be allowed for)
Rem optionally %2 passes --shell-escape
::
miktex-xetex.exe %2 --synctex=1 -undump=xelatex %1
texify.exe --pdf --engine=xetex --synctex=1 --clean %1
miktex-pdftex.exe %2 --synctex=1 -undump=pdflatex %1
::
pause whilst testing
:: remove this pause once testing is done
The pause is only needed on first run to check in console it is found and working, normally there would be more messaging but this is a quick and dirty proof of concept.
Best Answer
Try adding the
.texextension back on to the file. I'm not sure why arXiv would remove it, but many editors will assume that it's there when running compile sequences.To see what I mean, compare the compilation for pdfLaTeX and BibTeX:
Note that
bibtexdoesn't need the file extension since it also looks at the files generated by the LaTeX run. Editors like TeXworks (and others, no doubt) will run these sequences for you automatically, but this requires that it knows where the extension is so that it can remove it. When there is no extension to remove, ambiguities will arise:It's likely that one of these programs picked up on the 'wrong'
myfile, causing the error that you saw. (For example, take a look inside theauxfile; runningpdflatexdirectly on this file would certainly throw an error.)