arXiv:2604.03526v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing \textbf{s}alient \textbf{o}bject \textbf{d}etection (SOD) methods adopt a \textbf{passive} visual stimulus-based rationale--objects with the strongest visual stimuli are perceived as the user's primary focus (i.e., salient objects). They ignore the decisive role of users' \textbf{proactive needs} in segmenting salient objects--if a user has a need before seeing an image, the user's salient objects align with their needs, e.g., if a user's need is ``white apple'', when this user sees an image, the user's primary focus is on the ``white apple'' or ``the most white apple-like'' objects in the image. Such an oversight not only \textbf{fails to satisfy users}, but also \textbf{limits the development of downstream tasks}. For instance, in salient object ranking tasks, focusing solely on visual stimuli-based salient objects is insufficient for conducting an analysis of fine-grained relationships between users' viewing order (usually determined by user's needs) and scenes, which may result in wrong ranking results. Clearly, it is essential to detect salient objects based on user needs. Thus, we advocate a \textbf{User} \textbf{S}alient \textbf{O}bject \textbf{D}etection (UserSOD) task, which focuses on \textbf{detecting salient objects align with users' proactive needs when user have needs}. The main challenge for this new task is the lack of datasets for model training and testing.

arXiv:2604.04418v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose $v_{\text{bal}}$, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.