Benchmark Almanac

VideoEval-Pro

Video models give open-ended short answers to questions that need the whole long video, which removes the guessing that multiple choice allows.

The scoring field assumes a model judge grades the open answers.

In the authors’ words

Large multimodal models (LMMs) have recently emerged as a powerful tool for long video understanding (LVU), prompting the development of standardized LVU benchmarks to evaluate their performance. However, our investigation reveals a rather sober lesson for existing LVU benchmarks. First, most existing benchmarks rely heavily on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), whose evaluation results are inflated due to the possibility of guessing the correct answer; Second, a significant portion of questions in these benchmarks have strong priors to allow models to answer directly without even reading the input video. For example, Gemini-1.5-Pro can achieve over 50% accuracy given a random frame from a long video on Video-MME. We also observe that increasing the number of frames does not necessarily lead to improvement on existing benchmarks, which is counterintuitive. As a result, the validity and robustness of current LVU benchmarks are undermined, impeding a faithful assessment of LMMs' long-video understanding capability. To tackle this problem, we propose VideoEval-Pro, a realistic LVU benchmark containing questions with open-ended short-answer, which truly require understanding the entire video. VideoEval-Pro assesses both segment-level and full-video understanding through perception and reasoning tasks. By evaluating 21 proprietary and open-source video LMMs, we conclude the following findings: (1) video LMMs show drastic performance (>25%) drops on open-ended questions compared with MCQs; (2) surprisingly, higher MCQ scores do not lead to higher open-ended scores on VideoEval-Pro; (3) compared to other MCQ benchmarks, VideoEval-Pro benefits more from increasing the number of input frames. Our results show that VideoEval-Pro offers a more realistic and reliable measure of long video understanding, providing a clearer view of progress in this domain.

Abstract of VideoEval-Pro: Robust and Realistic Long Video Understanding Evaluation (arXiv:2505.14640, CC0)
Made by TIGER-Lab and collaborators (Ma et al.) Released May 2025 Long videos All tasks public Last in a launch post Apr 2026 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Apr 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
2
Models scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Seed2.0 Lite (0428) leads with 49.5%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 49.5%
  2. 2 Seed2.0 Pro 48%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 49.5% Apr 2026 Model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 48% Feb 2026 Model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Lite (0428) Seed2.0 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Lite (0428)

Labs headline it less often now, last in Apr 2026

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
28 Apr 2026 Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 49.5 VideoEval-Pro

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 48 VideoEval-Pro (Table 9) Capabilities

More in Audio and video

All 168 in Audio and video
  • Video-MMMU In use 300 expert-level lecture videos with questions testing perception, comprehension and adaptation of knowledge. Accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 88.7%
  • LVBench In use Hours-long video understanding with multiple-choice questions on reasoning, grounding and summarization. Gemini 4 Argon 91.7%
  • MMVU In use 3,000 expert-annotated questions on videos across 27 disciplines. Multiple-choice and open-ended accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%
  • MLVU In use Multi-task long video understanding (minutes to hours) with multiple-choice and generation tasks. Accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 90.8%
  • VoiceBench In use Spoken instructions with speaker, environment and content variation. Voice assistant responses scored by GPT judge or rules. Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 93.1%
  • TVBench In use Models answer multiple-choice questions on 10 temporal video tasks, such as action counting and ordering, that static frames cannot solve. Scored by accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 81.9%