# Does Explainability Transfer? A Controlled Benchmark of Attribution Methods on Vision Transformers and CNNs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02396 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02396/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 37 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.14030/) (2021)
- [ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0575/) (2014)
- [DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07193/) (2023)
- [Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.06377/) (2021)
- [Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02391/) (2016)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.12877/) (2020)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1311.2901/) (2013)
- [Pyramid Vision Transformer: A Versatile Backbone for Dense Prediction without Convolutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12122/) (2021)
- [Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.02685/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03825/) (2017)
- [Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.11063/) (2017)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00928/) (2020)
- [Do Vision Transformers See Like Convolutional Neural Networks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.08810/) (2021)
- [MobileViT: Light-weight, General-purpose, and Mobile-friendly Vision Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.02178/) (2021)
- [Transformer Interpretability Beyond Attention Visualization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.09838/) (2020)
- [Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.07896/) (2020)
- [Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07538/) (2018)
- [MaxViT: Multi-Axis Vision Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.01697/) (2022)
- [Top-down Neural Attention by Excitation Backprop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.00507/) (2016)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00631/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Most evidence on the effectiveness of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) attribution methods has been established on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), with limited investigation into whether these conclusions generalize to the diverse Vision Transformer (ViT) architectures that now dominate computer vision. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates attribution quality across five dimensions: faithfulness, localization, robustness, complexity, and computational cost. A standardized framework assesses 13 attribution methods from four algorithmic families on eight representative backbones spanning CNNs, isotropic ViTs, hierarchical transformers, hybrid architectures, and linear-attention transformers. The results show that attribution performance is strongly architecture-dependent and that rankings established on CNNs do not reliably transfer to transformer-based models. CAM-based methods achieve the highest scores under the conventional bounding-box localization metric on CNNs and most ViTs but perform poorly on linear-attention architectures. Pixel-level dense-mask evaluation further reveals that these gains largely reflect metric saturation rather than accurate localization. CAM-based methods also exhibit limited robustness on global-attention transformers, whereas attention rollout provides consistently stable explanations with poor localization. Furthermore, faithfulness correlation offers limited discrimination between attribution methods, highlighting the limitations of single-metric evaluation. These findings challenge prevailing conclusions on attribution performance and demonstrate the need for architecture-aware, multi-dimensional evaluation. The open-source code for the evaluation framework and benchmark results is available at https://github.com/Nishan-Charlie/VIT_XAI_Bench.