MVEB: Massive Video Embedding Benchmark
Summary
This paper introduces MVEB, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating video embeddings across 23 tasks, finding that no single model dominates and that audio's contribution depends on dataset annotation provenance. It integrates into the MTEB ecosystem for unified multimodal evaluation.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 06/16/26, 03:33 PM
Paper page - MVEB: Massive Video Embedding Benchmark
Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2606.14958 Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Abstract
A large-scale video embedding benchmark evaluates diverse models across multiple video understanding tasks, revealing that different model architectures excel in specific domains and demonstrating the nuanced impact of audio on performance based on dataset characteristics.
We introduce the Massive Video Embedding Benchmark (MVEB), a 23-task benchmark forvideo embeddingsspanning classification,zero-shot classification, clustering, pair classification, retrieval, andvideo-centric question answering. We evaluate 33 models and find that no single model dominates: MLLM-based embeddings lead on classification, clustering, pair classification, and QA;multimodal bindingleads on retrieval andzero-shot classification;generative MLLMswithout contrastive adaptation collapse oncross-modal tasks. Paired video-only vs. audio+video evaluations show that audio’s contribution depends on dataset annotation provenance: audio helps when labels were produced from both modalities and hurts when they were produced from visuals alone, a six-point gap consistent across model families. MVEB is derived from MVEB+, a 184-task pool, and is designed to maintain task diversity while reducing evaluation cost. It integrates into theMTEB ecosystemfor unified evaluation across text, image, audio, and video. We release MVEB and all 184 tasks along with code and a leaderboard at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/mteb.
View arXiv pageView PDFProject pageAdd to collection
Models citing this paper0
No model linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.14958 in a model README.md to link it from this page.
Datasets citing this paper0
No dataset linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.14958 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.
Spaces citing this paper0
No Space linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.14958 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.
Collections including this paper1
Similar Articles
VEFX-Bench: A Holistic Benchmark for Generic Video Editing and Visual Effects
VEFX-Bench introduces a large-scale human-annotated video editing dataset (5,049 examples) with multi-dimensional quality labels and a specialized reward model for standardized evaluation of video editing systems. The paper addresses the lack of comprehensive benchmarks in AI-assisted video creation by providing VEFX-Dataset, VEFX-Reward, and a 300-video-prompt benchmark that reveals gaps in current editing models.
VIABench: A Comprehensive Video Benchmark Collected from Blind Individuals for Visual Impairment Assistance
Introduces VIABench, a comprehensive video benchmark for evaluating multimodal large language models in real-world visual assistance for blind and visually impaired individuals, covering 761 videos and 14,526 annotations across three tasks.
MBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark on Memory Capability for Video World Models
This paper introduces MBench, a benchmark for evaluating the memory capabilities of video world models across entity, environment, and causal consistency over long temporal horizons.
UEmbed: Unified Sparse and Dense Multimodal Embeddings
UEmbed is a decoder-only multimodal embedding model that produces both sparse and dense representations in a single forward pass, released at 2B, 4B, and 9B scales. It outperforms existing public-data-trained multimodal embedding models on MMEB-v2 and remains competitive on BEIR.
M^3Eval: Multi-Modal Memory Evaluation through Cognitively-Grounded Video Tasks
M^3Eval is a comprehensive evaluation framework and benchmark for probing memory capabilities in multi-modal models, grounded in cognitive psychology. Experiments reveal consistent weaknesses in memory maintenance, interference patterns, and spatial-temporal grounding.