Task: Question Answering
Input (English): We evaluate our model on two benchmark treebanks, English Penn Treebank (PTB) and Chinese Penn Treebank (CTB5.1) following standard data splitting BIBREF30, BIBREF31. POS tags are predicted by the Stanford Tagger BIBREF32. For constituent parsing, we use the standard evalb tool to evaluate the F1 score. For dependency parsing, we apply Stanford basic dependencies (SD) representation BIBREF4 converted by the Stanford parser. Following previous work BIBREF27, BIBREF33, we report the results without punctuations for both treebanks. Tables TABREF17, TABREF18 and TABREF19 compare our model to existing state-of-the-art, in which indicator Separate with our model shows the results of our model learning constituent or dependency parsing separately, (Sum) and (Concat) respectively represent the results with the indicated input token representation setting. On PTB, our model achieves 93.90 F1 score of constituent parsing and 95.91 UAS and 93.86 LAS of dependency parsing. On CTB, our model achieves a new state-of-the-art result on both constituent and dependency parsing. At last, our model is evaluated on two benchmark treebanks for both constituent and dependency parsing. The empirical results show that our parser reaches new state-of-the-art for all parsing tasks. 
 Question: How is dependency parsing empirically verified?
Output (English):  At last, our model is evaluated on two benchmark treebanks for both constituent and dependency parsing. The empirical results show that our parser reaches new state-of-the-art for all parsing tasks.