Zero-Ablation Overstates Register Content Dependence in DINO Vision Transformers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Zero-ablation -- replacing token activations with zero vectors -- is widely used to probe token function in vision transformers. Register zeroing in DINOv2+registers and DINOv3 produces large drops (up to -36.6,pp classification, -30.9,pp segmentation), suggesting registers are functionally indispensable. However, three replacement controls -- mean-substitution, noise-substitution, and cross-image register-shuffling -- preserve performance across classification, correspondence, and segmentation, remaining within ~1,pp of the unmodified baseline. Per-patch cosine similarity shows these replacements genuinely perturb internal representations, while zeroing causes disproportionately large perturbations, consistent with why it alone degrades tasks. We conclude that zero-ablation overstates dependence on exact register content. In the frozen-feature evaluations we test, performance depends on plausible register-like activations rather than on exact image-specific values. Registers nevertheless buffer dense features from texttt[CLS] dependence and are associated with compressed patch geometry. These findings, including the replacement-control results, replicate at ViT-B scale.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.
Builds on
28 of 34 references.
References · 28
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,968
- 2020Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attentioncited by 4,586
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
- 2025DINOv3cited by 1,414
- 2022Token Merging: Your ViT But Fastercited by 1,021
- 2021iBOT: Image BERT Pre-Training with Online Tokenizercited by 903
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 871
16 more
- 2019Are Sixteen Heads Really Better than One?cited by 816
- 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 422
- 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 359
- 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 214
- 2019SPair-71k: A Large-scale Benchmark for Semantic Correspondencecited by 146
- 2023What Do Self-Supervised Vision Transformers Learn?cited by 93
- 2021The Out-of-Distribution Problem in Explainability and Search Methods for Feature Importance Explanationscited by 87
- 2025Vision Transformers Don't Need Trained Registerscited by 41
- 2024Denoising Vision Transformerscited by 40
- 2025Into the Rabbit Hull: From Task-Relevant Concepts in DINO to Minkowski Geometrycited by 34
- 2024SINDER: Repairing the Singular Defects of DINOv2cited by 18
- 2024Near, far: Patch-ordering enhances vision foundation models' scene understandingcited by 15
- 2026Vision Transformers Need More Than Registerscited by 15
- 2025Vision Transformers with Self-Distilled Registerscited by 12
- 2025Leveraging Registers in Vision Transformers for Robust Adaptationcited by 3
- 2025Grounding Intelligence in Movementcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.