Grad-CAM for Visualizing Attention Regions of PCA and SVM Layers in Convolutional Neural Networks

Class activation mapping (CAM) is one of the most widely used visual explanation families in explainable artificial intelligence. Its purpose is intuitive: it converts internal model evidence into a heatmap that highlights the image regions, convolutional channels, tokens, or patches that support a target class or concept. Since the first CAM formulation in 2016, the field has moved far beyond global-average-pooled CNN classifiers. CAM-style methods now include gradient-based post-hoc explanations, gradient-free score and ablation methods, high-resolution upscaling, weakly supervised localization and segmentation, transformer token attribution, causal and debiasing methods, and foundation-model-era approaches that use CLIP, DINO, SAM, or feature-distribution comparisons. This review synthesizes a strict corpus of 57 method-centered papers published from 2016 onward. The paper develops a taxonomy that separates methods by attribution mechanism, architectural dependence, and evaluation objective. It then reviews gradient-based CAMs, recent and hybrid CAM-style methods, and model-based or architecture-aware methods. Across the corpus, the main trend is clear: the field is shifting from explaining one class score in one low-resolution CNN layer toward comparative, multi-layer, probabilistic, token-aware, and foundation-model-aware explanations. At the same time, evaluation remains fragmented. Faithfulness, localization, robustness, computational cost, and human trust are often measured with different protocols. The review therefore emphasizes not only what each method contributes, but also which gap it leaves open and which later methods attempt to close that gap.

Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) is widely used to visualize model decisions, but it was originally formulated for convolutional neural networks, where spatial feature maps and channel dimensions have clear architectural meanings. Vision Transformers (ViTs) do not provide the same structure, instead representing images through tokens, attention, residual streams, and multimodal interactions. This paper presents a systematic taxonomy and literature audit of how Grad-CAM and related methods are adapted, justified, and reported for ViT-based architectures. From an initial search of more than 550 papers, we identify 175 papers that apply Grad-CAM or Grad-CAM-adjacent methods to ViTs. We find that most papers do not provide a full mathematical or implementation-level account of how Grad-CAM is adapted to transformer representations. To characterize this gap, we introduce a descriptive taxonomy of ViT Grad-CAM adaptations that makes explicit the feature locations, gradient targets, spatial reconstruction steps, and aggregation choices that are often left implicit. This taxonomy is not intended to prescribe a single correct adaptation, but to clarify the range of methodological choices being made. The study shows that Grad-CAM on ViTs is often treated as a trivial extension of CNN-based Grad-CAM, despite requiring nontrivial choices that affect rigor, reproducibility, and interpretation.

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.