Question: By how much does the new parser outperform the current state-of-the-art?
Evidence: Table TABREF12 compares our novel system with other state-of-the-art transition-based dependency parsers on the PT-SD. Greedy parsers are in the first block, beam-search and dynamic programming parsers in the second block. The third block shows the best result on this benchmark, obtained with constituent parsing with generative re-ranking and conversion to dependencies. Despite being the only non-projective parser tested on a practically projective dataset, our parser achieves the highest score among greedy transition-based models (even above those trained with a dynamic oracle).
We even slightly outperform the arc-swift system of Qi2017, with the same model architecture, implementation and training setup, but based on the projective arc-eager transition-based parser instead. This may be because our system takes into consideration any permissible attachment between the focus word INLINEFORM0 and any word in INLINEFORM1 at each configuration, while their approach is limited by the arc-eager logic: it allows all possible rightward arcs (possibly fewer than our approach as the arc-eager stack usually contains a small number of words), but only one leftward arc is permitted per parser state. It is also worth noting that the arc-swift and NL-Covington parsers have the same worst-case time complexity, ( INLINEFORM2 ), as adding non-local arc transitions to the arc-eager parser increases its complexity from linear to quadratic, but it does not affect the complexity of the Covington algorithm. Thus, it can be argued that this technique is better suited to Covington than to arc-eager parsing.
FLOAT SELECTED: Table 2: Accuracy comparison of state-of-theart transition-based dependency parsers on PT-SD. The “Type” column shows the type of parser: gs is a greedy parser trained with a static oracle, gd a greedy parser trained with a dynamic oracle, b(n) a beam search parser with beam size n, dp a parser that employs global training with dynamic programming, and c a constituent parser with conversion to dependencies.
Table TABREF12 compares our novel system with other state-of-the-art transition-based dependency parsers on the PT-SD. Greedy parsers are in the first block, beam-search and dynamic programming parsers in the second block. The third block shows the best result on this benchmark, obtained with constituent parsing with generative re-ranking and conversion to dependencies. Despite being the only non-projective parser tested on a practically projective dataset, our parser achieves the highest score among greedy transition-based models (even above those trained with a dynamic oracle).

We even slightly outperform the arc-swift system of Qi2017, with the same model architecture, implementation and training setup, but based on the projective arc-eager transition-based parser instead.
FLOAT SELECTED: Table 2: Accuracy comparison of state-of-theart transition-based dependency parsers on PT-SD. The “Type” column shows the type of parser: gs is a greedy parser trained with a static oracle, gd a greedy parser trained with a dynamic oracle, b(n) a beam search parser with beam size n, dp a parser that employs global training with dynamic programming, and c a constituent parser with conversion to dependencies.
Answer: Proposed method achieves 94.5 UAS and 92.4 LAS  compared to 94.3 and 92.2 of best state-of-the -art greedy based parser. Best state-of-the art parser overall achieves 95.8 UAS and 94.6 LAS.