In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

Our model yields the best results on both UAS and LAS metrics of all languages except the Japanese. As for Japanese, our model gives unsatisfactory results because the original treebank was written in Roman phonetic characters instead of hiragana, which is used by both common Japanese writing and our pre-trained embeddings. Despite this, our model overall still gives 1.0% higher average UAS and LAS than the previous best parser, BIAF. Although both BIAF and STACKPTR parsers have achieved relatively high parsing accuracies on the 12 languages and have all UAS higher than 90%, our model achieves state-of-the-art results in all languages for both UAS and LAS. Overall, our model reports more than 1.0% higher average UAS than STACKPTR and 0.3% higher than BIAF. 
 Question: What are performance compared to former models?
model overall still gives 1.0% higher average UAS and LAS than the previous best parser, BIAF our model reports more than 1.0% higher average UAS than STACKPTR and 0.3% higher than BIAF

We use a standard set of supervised as well as unsupervised benchmark tasks from the literature to evaluate our trained models, following BIBREF16 Sentence embeddings are evaluated for various supervised classification tasks as follows. The predefined training split is used to tune the L2 penalty parameter using cross-validation and the accuracy and F1 scores are computed on the test set.  We perform unsupervised evaluation of the learnt sentence embeddings using the sentence cosine similarity, on the STS 2014 BIBREF31 and SICK 2014 BIBREF32 datasets. These similarity scores are compared to the gold-standard human judgements using Pearson's INLINEFORM0 BIBREF33 and Spearman's INLINEFORM1 BIBREF34 correlation scores.  
 Question: What metric is used to measure performance?
Accuracy and F1 score for supervised tasks, Pearson's and Spearman's correlation for unsupervised tasks

Furthermore, the gains in WER over the baseline are significantly larger for the Density Ratio method than for Shallow Fusion, with up to 28% relative reduction in WER (17.5% $\rightarrow $ 12.5%) compared to up to 17% relative reduction (17.5% $\rightarrow $ 14.5%) for Shallow Fusion, in the no fine-tuning scenario. 
 Question: What metrics are used for evaluation?

word error rate