Abstract
High-risk applications of deep learning require precise characterization of model decision-making. We conduct a systematic explainability evaluation across Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs), and Vision Mamba (ViM). Unlike predominantly qualitative studies, we quantify the alignment between model attention and human visual perception using eye-tracking ground truth. We formalize this comparison via a standardized normalization pipeline mapping post-hoc attribution maps and gaze heatmaps onto spatial probability distributions. Alignment is evaluated across fine-grained classification, medical imaging, and emotion recognition using architecture-specific XAI methods. We measure fidelity using Jensen-Shannon similarity, Chi-square similarity, and Pearson correlation, three complementary estimators capturing support overlap, mass discrepancy, and structural co-variation. Our results reveal distinct attention dynamics: CNNs tend to exhibit a more global focus, with spatially more diffuse saliency maps that correlate well with human perception in general contexts, while ViTs demonstrate fine-grained, patch-level attention, often focused on discriminative microfeatures. The Mamba architecture shows biased behavior: it achieves strong explainability in medical tasks but exhibits divergent intensity distributions in natural images; our analytical characterization of the metrics makes this dissociation explicit, since near-unit support overlap is attained simultaneously with a vanishing linear correlation. We further analyze the effect of backbone freezing and ensemble strategies on model interpretability. The results highlight how architectural and training choices influence the alignment between model saliency and human visual attention.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12703
