让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Single-cell RNA foundation models (scFMs) are increasingly used for in-silico biological discovery, yet predictive performance alone does not reveal whether their decisions rely on biologically meaningful signals or model-specific shortcuts. We systematically investigate post-hoc attribution of downstream predictions across two tasks: cell-type annotation using pretrained Cell2Sentence and scGPT models, and perturbation prediction using scGPT+STATE in a controlled setting. For cell annotation, we use attribution to assess whether predictions rely on established marker genes and how their relevance varies with model architecture, expression rank, and the surrounding cellular context. For perturbation prediction, we compare attribution patterns with known regulatory ground-truth in a synthetic setting to assess what they reveal about the model's learned computations. Across these tasks, attribution reveals biological feature use, contextual interactions, contributions from different input pathways, learning progression, associations with prediction quality, and potential pitfalls that are not fully captured by standard performance metrics. Experiments with complete and limited regulatory knowledge further demonstrate that conclusions drawn from attribution depend strongly on the choice of biological reference, baseline, and null model. Together, these findings highlight the value of attribution as a flexible post-hoc diagnostic for understanding model behavior, identifying potential issues, and informing the development of scFMs.