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.

[Q]: Shared Self-attention Layers As our model providing two outputs from one input, there is a bifurcation setting for how much shared part should be determined. Both constituent and dependency parsers share token representation and 8 self-attention layers at most. Assuming that either parser always takes input information flow through 8 self-attention layers as shown in Figure FIGREF4, then the number of shared self-attention layers varying from 0 to 8 may reflect the shared degree in the model. When the number is set to 0, it indicates only token representation is shared for both parsers trained for the joint loss through each own 8 self-attention layers. When the number is set to less than 8, for example, 6, then it means that both parsers first shared 6 layers from token representation then have individual 2 self-attention layers. For different numbers of shared layers, the results are in Table TABREF14. We respectively disable the constituent and the dependency parser to obtain a separate learning setting for both parsers in our model. The comparison in Table TABREF14 indicates that even though without any shared self-attention layers, joint training of our model may significantly outperform separate learning mode. At last, the best performance is still obtained from sharing full 8 self-attention layers. 
 Question: How are different network components evaluated?
[A]: For different numbers of shared layers, the results are in Table TABREF14. We respectively disable the constituent and the dependency parser to obtain a separate learning setting for both parsers in our model. 


[Q]: 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?
[A]: 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


[Q]: The Style baseline achieves an Accuracy of 83%, LDA features 89% and a combination of the two gets 90%. However, training on full poems reduces this to 42—52%. 
 Question: Is the outcome of the LDA analysis evaluated in any way?
[A]:
Yes