Papers › Which Transformer to Favor: A Comparative Analysis of Efficiency in Vision Transformers
Which Transformer to Favor: A Comparative Analysis of Efficiency in Vision Transformers
Tobias Christian Nauen, Sebastian Palacio, Federico Raue, Andreas Dengel
Self-attention in Transformers comes with a high computational cost because of their quadratic computational complexity, but their effectiveness in addressing problems in language and vision has sparked extensive research aimed at enhancing their efficiency. However, diverse experimental conditions, spanning multiple input domains, prevent a fair comparison based solely on reported results, posing challenges for model selection. To address this gap in comparability, we perform a large-scale benchmark of more than 45 models for image classification, evaluating key efficiency aspects, including accuracy, speed, and memory usage. Our benchmark provides a standardized baseline for efficiency-oriented transformers. We analyze the results based on the Pareto front -- the boundary of optimal models. Surprisingly, despite claims of other models being more efficient, ViT remains Pareto optimal across multiple metrics. We observe that hybrid attention-CNN models exhibit remarkable inference memory- and parameter-efficiency. Moreover, our benchmark shows that using a larger model in general is more efficient than using higher resolution images. Thanks to our holistic evaluation, we provide a centralized resource for practitioners and researchers, facilitating informed decisions when selecting or developing efficient transformers.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2308.09372")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 4 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
4 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from tobna/whattransformertofavor. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
39721a4dfdc47d9b · report
6c81cb79fb68d221 · report
571820fa5544be0f · report
7012e19e1d021f7a · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | ImageNet | CaiT-S24 | Top 1 Accuracy | 84.91% | #273 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | XCiT-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 83.65% | #403 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | Wave-ViT-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 83.61% | #405 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | SwinV2-Ti | Top 1 Accuracy | 83.09% | #471 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | ViT-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 82.54% | #526 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | EViT (delete) | Top 1 Accuracy | 82.29% | #556 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | STViT-Swin-Ti | Top 1 Accuracy | 82.22% | #557 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | ToMe-ViT-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 82.11% | #572 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | EViT (fuse) | Top 1 Accuracy | 81.96% | #590 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | GFNet-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 81.33% | #646 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | DynamicViT-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 81.09% | #667 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | TokenLearner-ViT-8 | Top 1 Accuracy | 80.66% | #688 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | CoaT-Ti | Top 1 Accuracy | 78.42% | #833 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | Poly-SA-ViT-S | Top 1 Accuracy | 78.34% | #841 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | EfficientFormer-V2-S0 | Top 1 Accuracy | 71.53% | #1009 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections