Class Activation Mapping in Explainable Computer Vision: A Method-Centered Review of CNN, Transformer, and Foundation-Model-Era Visual Explanations

Class attribution maps (CAMs) provide local explanations for the decisions of convolutional neural networks. While widely used in practice, the evaluation of CAMs remains challenging due to the lack of ground-truth explanations, making it difficult to evaluate the soundness of existing metrics. Independently, most commonly used CAM methods produce low-resolution attribution maps, which limits their usefulness for detailed interpretability. To address the evaluation challenge, we introduce a synthetic dataset with ground-truth attributions that enables a rigorous comparison of CAM evaluation metrics. Using this dataset, we analyze existing metrics and propose ARCC, a new composite metric that more reliably identifies faithful explanations. To address the low resolution issue, we introduce RefineCAM, a method that produces high-resolution attribution maps by aggregating CAMs across multiple network layers. Our results show that RefineCAM consistently outperforms existing methods according to the proposed evaluation.

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.

In recent years, several advances have been observed in Deep Learning with surprising results. Models in this area have been increasingly used in numerous applications, including those sensitive to human life, which require clear explanations and justifications. Various explainability methods have been proposed, but not many metrics to evaluate these methods. The most commonly used metric is the Intersection over Union (IoU). However, due to the characteristics of the results of the explainability methods, called saliency maps, which do not have a known shape, we hypothesise that there must be a better metric that allows one to find an explainability method that produces results that best resemble the human perception. We propose using different metrics to assess the similarity between human perception and the explanation saliency maps to find a better metric. An investigation was conducted employing a subset of the Chihuahuas images from ImageNet dataset. Several CAM-based explainability methods were used to generate saliency maps for each chihuahua image. Alignment was measured by applying distance metrics between the bounding box of human annotations and the saliency maps produced by each explainability method. Rankings of the best saliency maps were created using the results of the distance metrics and compared to the ranking obtained using people's choice, collected through crowdsourcing, of the best explanation saliency maps for each selected image. Comparison between rankings was performed using the Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) metric. The results indicate the feasibility of our method to find the explainability method that best resembles human perception. In our experiments, the two metrics that best resemble human perception corresponded to Manhattan and Correlation. Besides, the best explainability methods regarding human perception were LayerCAM, Score-CAM, and IS-CAM.