Text editing can involve several iterations of revision. Incorporating an efficient Grammar Error Correction (GEC) tool in the initial correction round can significantly impact further human editing effort and final text quality. This raises an interesting question to quantify GEC Tool usability: How much effort can the GEC Tool save users? We present the first large-scale dataset of post-editing (PE) time annotations and corrections for two English GEC test datasets (BEA19 and CoNLL14). We introduce Post-Editing Effort in Time (PEET) for GEC Tools as a human-focused evaluation scorer to rank any GEC Tool by estimating PE time-to-correct. Using our dataset, we quantify the amount of time saved by GEC Tools in text editing. Analyzing the edit type indicated that determining whether a sentence needs correction and edits like paraphrasing and punctuation changes had the greatest impact on PE time. Finally, comparison with human rankings shows that PEET correlates well with technical effort judgment, providing a new human-centric direction for evaluating GEC tool usability. We release our dataset and code at : https://github.com/ankitvad/PEET_Scorer.

In this paper we describe our system created for SemEval-2017 Task 7: Detection and Interpretation of English Puns. We tackle subtask 1, pun detection, by leveraging features selected from sentences to design a classifier that can disambiguate between the presence or absence of a pun. We address subtask 2, pun location, by utilizing a decision flow structure that uses presence or absence of certain features to decide the next action. The results obtained by our system are encouraging, considering the simplicity of the system. We consider this system as a precursor for deeper exploration on efficient feature selection for pun detection.