Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This review analyzes 57 method-centered papers on Class Activation Mapping (CAM) in explainable AI, highlighting the evolution from traditional CNN-based methods to contemporary approaches that incorporate transformers and foundation models. It establishes a comprehensive taxonomy based on attribution mechanisms, architectural dependencies, and evaluation objectives, revealing a shift towards more complex, multi-layer, and probabilistic explanations. The findings underscore the fragmented nature of evaluation metrics in the field, pointing out gaps that future research must address to enhance the reliability and interpretability of visual explanations.
The evolution of Class Activation Mapping reveals a shift from simplistic CNN explanations to sophisticated, multi-layered insights that challenge traditional evaluation metrics.
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.
