In this paper we implement and compare 7 different data augmentation strategies for the task of automatic scoring of children’s ability to understand others’ thoughts, feelings, and desires (or “mindreading”). We recruit in-domain experts to re-annotate augmented samples and determine to what extent each strategy preserves the original rating. We also carry out multiple experiments to measure how much each augmentation strategy improves the performance of automatic scoring systems. To determine the capabilities of automatic systems to generalize to unseen data, we create UK-MIND-20 - a new corpus of children’s performance on tests of mindreading, consisting of 10,320 question-answer pairs. We obtain a new state-of-the-art performance on the MIND-CA corpus, improving macro-F1-score by 6 points. Results indicate that both the number of training examples and the quality of the augmentation strategies affect the performance of the systems. The task-specific augmentations generally outperform task-agnostic augmentations. Automatic augmentations based on vectors (GloVe, FastText) perform the worst. We find that systems trained on MIND-CA generalize well to UK-MIND-20. We demonstrate that data augmentation strategies also improve the performance on unseen data.

Negation is underrepresented in existing natural language inference benchmarks. Additionally, one can often ignore the few negations in existing benchmarks and still make the right inference judgments. In this paper, we present a new benchmark for natural language inference in which negation plays a critical role. We also show that state-of-the-art transformers struggle making inference judgments with the new pairs.

In this paper we present the first work on the automated scoring of mindreading ability in middle childhood and early adolescence. We create MIND-CA, a new corpus of 11,311 question-answer pairs in English from 1,066 children aged from 7 to 14. We perform machine learning experiments and carry out extensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation. We obtain promising results, demonstrating the applicability of state-of-the-art NLP solutions to a new domain and task.

In this paper, we present a methodology for decomposing and comparing multiple meaning relations (paraphrasing, textual entailment, contradiction, and specificity). The methodology includes SHARel - a new typology that consists of 26 linguistic and 8 reason-based categories. We use the typology to annotate a corpus of 520 sentence pairs in English and we demonstrate that unlike previous typologies, SHARel can be applied to all relations of interest with a high inter-annotator agreement. We analyze and compare the frequency and distribution of the linguistic and reason-based phenomena involved in paraphrasing, textual entailment, contradiction, and specificity. This comparison allows for a much more in-depth analysis of the workings of the individual relations and the way they interact and compare with each other. We release all resources (typology, annotation guidelines, and annotated corpus) to the community.

Pairs of sentences, phrases, or other text pieces can hold semantic relations such as paraphrasing, textual entailment, contradiction, specificity, and semantic similarity. These relations are usually studied in isolation and no dataset exists where they can be compared empirically. Here we present a corpus annotated with these relations and the analysis of these results. The corpus contains 520 sentence pairs, annotated with these relations. We measure the annotation reliability of each individual relation and we examine their interactions and correlations. Among the unexpected results revealed by our analysis is that the traditionally considered direct relationship between paraphrasing and bi-directional entailment does not hold in our data.

In this paper, we present a new approach for the evaluation, error analysis, and interpretation of supervised and unsupervised Paraphrase Identification (PI) systems. Our evaluation framework makes use of a PI corpus annotated with linguistic phenomena to provide a better understanding and interpretation of the performance of various PI systems. Our approach allows for a qualitative evaluation and comparison of the PI models using human interpretable categories. It does not require modification of the training objective of the systems and does not place additional burden on the developers. We replicate several popular supervised and unsupervised PI systems. Using our evaluation framework we show that: 1) Each system performs differently with respect to a set of linguistic phenomena and makes qualitatively different kinds of errors; 2) Some linguistic phenomena are more challenging than others across all systems.

We present WARP-Text, an open-source web-based tool for annotating relationships between pairs of texts. WARP-Text supports multi-layer annotation and custom definitions of inter-textual and intra-textual relationships. Annotation can be performed at different granularity levels (such as sentences, phrases, or tokens). WARP-Text has an intuitive user-friendly interface both for project managers and annotators. WARP-Text fills a gap in the currently available NLP toolbox, as open-source alternatives for annotation of pairs of text are not readily available. WARP-Text has already been used in several annotation tasks and can be of interest to the researchers working in the areas of Paraphrasing, Entailment, Simplification, and Summarization, among others.