Can vectors read minds better than experts? Comparing data augmentation
  strategies for the automated scoring of children's mindreading ability
  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.
