aiqbench analysis
This study challenges the universality of Attention Transfer in Vision Transformers, demonstrating that simply copying attention maps from a pre-trained teacher fails when there is an architectural mismatch between the teacher and student models. The research identifies specific native components within the teacher's architecture as essential for unlocking the utility of transferred attention patterns, rather than the attention mechanisms themselves being inherently flawed. These findings refine best practices for model distillation by highlighting that structural compatibility is a prerequisite for successful knowledge transfer in ViT families.
Attention Transfer Is Not Universally Effective for Vision Transformers
arXiv:2605.07191v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A recent work shows that Attention Transfer, which transfers only the attention patterns from a pre-trained teacher Vision Transformer (ViT) to a randomly initialized standard student ViT, is sufficient to recover the full benefit of the teacher's pre-trained weights. We revisit this finding on a comprehensive benchmark of 20 teachers from 11 well-known ViT families and reveal that Attention Transfer is not universally effective. While 7 families transfer successfully, 4 consistently fail, falling up to 5.1\% below the from-scratch no-transfer baseline. Further results demonstrate that this failure is family-consistent across model sizes, and persists under extended training durations, different transfer datasets, and out-of-distribution evaluations. Controlled analyses then consistently localize the problem to the attention-routing channel, indicating that the key issue is not whether the student can match the teacher's attention patterns, but whether the matched patterns remain functional for the student. Crucially, we identify architectural mismatch between the pre-trained teacher and the standard student as the primary mechanism. By adding only the teacher's native architectural components to the student in a randomly initialized state, we completely reverse the failure for all 4 families. Notably, these components alone do not improve from-scratch training, confirming that they specifically unlock the usability of the teacher's attention. We further show that this failure is not explained by the inadequate choice of transfer loss, differences in pre-training recipes, or the intrinsic quality of attention maps. Our findings refine the prevailing understanding of attention in ViT representations: attention is sufficient \textit{only} when the student architecture matches the teacher.
Abstract:A recent work shows that Attention Transfer, which transfers only the attention patterns from a pre-trained teacher Vision Transformer (ViT) to a randomly initialized standard student ViT, is sufficient to recover the full benefit of the teacher's pre-trained weights. We revisit this finding on a comprehensive benchmark of 20 teachers from 11 well-known ViT families and reveal that Attention Transfer is not universally effective. While 7 families transfer successfully, 4 consistently fail, falling up to 5.1\% below the from-scratch no-transfer baseline. Further results demonstrate that this failure is family-consistent across model sizes, and persists under extended training durations, different transfer datasets, and out-of-distribution evaluations. Controlled analyses then consistently localize the problem to the attention-routing channel, indicating that the key issue is not whether the student can match the teacher's attention patterns, but whether the matched patterns remain functional for the student. Crucially, we identify architectural mismatch between the pre-trained teacher and the standard student as the primary mechanism. By adding only the teacher's native architectural components to the student in a randomly initialized state, we completely reverse the failure for all 4 families. Notably, these components alone do not improve from-scratch training, confirming that they specifically unlock the usability of the teacher's attention. We further show that this failure is not explained by the inadequate choice of transfer loss, differences in pre-training recipes, or the intrinsic quality of attention maps. Our findings refine the prevailing understanding of attention in ViT representations: attention is sufficient \textit{only} when the student architecture matches the teacher.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2605.07191 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2605.07191v2 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.07191 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 350 words
Related coverage

BRICS Draws a New Global Line: Full Text of New Delhi Declaration
slguardian.org · Sep 12, 2026
Attention is Case-Sensitive
arXiv · Aug 6, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026