For video-text retrieval, the use of CLIP has been a de facto choice. Since CLIP provides only image and text encoders, this consensus has led to a biased paradigm that entirely ignores the sound track of videos. While several attempts have been made to reintroduce audio -- typically by incorporating an audio encoder and fusing its output with visual features -- these methods face two challenges: ineffective representation of speech content and suboptimal vision-audio fusion. To address these issues jointly, we propose SAVE, a Speech Aware Video rEpresentation learning method. SAVE improves upon AVIGATE, a SOTA audiovisual method, with a dedicated speech branch for more effective speech embedding. Furthermore, we introduce soft-ALBEF for early vision-audio alignment that facilitates fusion. Extensive experiments on five benchmarks show that SAVE compares favorably against the SOTA, outperforming AVIGATE by +4.1% on MSRVTT-9k, +1.9% on MSRVTT-7k, +2.5% on VATEX, +9.8% on Charades, and +2.1% on LSMDC, in light of the SumR metric.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of this paper . (a) Problem : Current audio encoders ( ResNet-18 [ 13 ] and AST [ 9 ] ), trained on datasets of environmental sounds, are not well suited for speech embedding. (b) Solution : We improve the state-of-the-art in audio-enhanced video-text retrieval by introducing a dedicated speech branch for speech-aware video embedding. (c) Results : Our method consistently outperforms SOTA audio-enhanced models (TEFAL [ 17 ] and AVIGATE [ 18 ] ) across five benchmarks.
Method
Audio
Speech
Video embedding network
Early vision-audio alignment
MV-9k SumR
EclipSE [ 27 ]
ResNet-18
✗
Bi-branch
✗
197.8
TEFAL [ 17 ]
AST
✗
Bi-branch
✗
209.2
AVIGATE [ 18 ]
AST
✗
Bi-branch
✗
207.7
SAVE (ours)
AST
ASR + CLIP
Tri-branch
✓
216.2
Table 1: SOTA audiovisual methods for video-text retrieval .
Figure 2: Hard vs . soft labels for early vision-audio alignment . For the videos in the first two rows, their associated sound tracks are not semantically relevant w.r.t. the video content. Enforcing vision-audio alignment for these videos is adverse. By contrast, the soft labels, estimated by ImageBind [ 8 ] , provide finer supervision for better vision-audio alignment.
Figure 3: Proposed s peech- a ware v ideo r e presentation learning (SAVE) method for video-text retrieval . Given a short video V associated with a sound track A , SAVE uses a tri-branch network to embed the video frames to a set of visual tokens {vi} , the sound to a set of audio tokens {ai} , and the speech to a set of textual tokens {si} . Gated fusion conditioned on the visual tokens is performed on the audio and textual tokens, yielding fused tokens {a^i} and {s^i} , respectively. By aggregating {vi} , {a^i} and {s^i} , we obtain {v^i} as a speech-aware video representation. The video’s relevance w.r.t. a specific query T is computed as a multi-grained similarity between {v^i} and the query embedding t . Soft-ALBEF is used only during training for better alignment between the visual and audio tokens.
Figure 4: Proportion of videos with audio / ASR available .
Benchmark
Train
Val.
Test
MSRVTT-9k [ 53 ]
9,000
–
1,000
MSRVTT-7k [ 49 ]
6,513
497
2,990
VATEX [ 47 ]
25,991
1,500
1,500
Charades [ 43 ]
7,985
–
1,863
LSMDC [ 39 ]
101,079
7,408
1,000
Table 2: Number of videos per benchmark .
Model
MSRVTT-9k
MSRVTT-7k
VATEX
Charades
LSMDC
mR1
R1
R5
R10
SumR
R1
R5
R10
SumR
R1
R5
R10
SumR
R1
R5
R10
SumR
R1
R5
R10
SumR
Vision-only:
CLIP4Clip, Neucom22 [ 32 ]
44.5
71.4
81.6
197.5
29.4
54.9
65.8
150.1
61.6
91.1
95.8
248.5
17.7
39.5
50.4
107.6
22.6
41.0
49.1
112.7
35.1
X-Pool, CVPR22 [ 10 ]
46.9
72.8
82.2
201.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.2
43.7
53.5
122.4
-
TS2-Net, ECCV22 [ 30 ]
47.0
74.5
83.8
205.3
29.9
56.4
67.3
153.6
59.1
90.0
95.2
244.3
16.9
38.5
49.5
104.9
23.4
42.3
50.9
116.6
35.3
X-CLIP, MM22 [ 33 ]
46.1
73.0
83.1
202.2
31.2
57.4
68.1
156.7
62.2
90.9
95.4
248.5
18.9
41.3
53.0
113.2
23.3
43.0
-
-
36.3
Table 3: Comparing with visual and audiovisual models for text-to-video retrieval . Per baseline, we cite numbers from its original paper where applicable. The proposed SAVE model outperforms visual and audiovisual baselines on all datasets.
Methods
Computational complexity
Inference time (ms) ↓
SumR ↑
Visual:
CLIP4Clip [ 32 ]
O(nV+nT)
9.76
197.5
X-Pool [ 10 ]
O(nVnT)
66.31
201.9
PIG [ 23 ]
O(nV+nT)
9.76
203.0
Audiovisual:
TEFAL [ 17 ]
O(nAnT+nVnT)
140.57
209.2
Table 4: Efficiency analysis . Inference time includes both query feature extraction and video-text similarity computation. Test set: MSRVTT-9k . GPU: NVIDIA RTX 3090.
Figure 5: Comparison per group . Our SAVE consistently outperforms PIG (best visual model) and AVIGATE (best audiovisual model) across all groups, with the largest gain obtained in the Sound-Speech-related group.
#
Setup
MSRVTT-9k
MSRVTT-7k
R1
SumR
R1
SumR
0
Full
51.3
216.2
33.5
165.8
Speech branch:
1
w/o Speech Branch
50.9
211.9( 4.3 ↓ )
33.0
164.1( 1.7 ↓ )
2
ASR: Whisper → SenseVoice
51.2
215.4( 0.8 ↓ )
33.5
165.4( 0.4 ↓ )
3
\mboxCLIPtxt : w/o parameter sharing
51.0
214.8( 1.4 ↓ )
33.4
165.0( 0.8 ↓ )
Table 5: Ablation studies of SAVE .
Figure 6: Soft-ALBEF vs ALBEF with low-score data filtered out.
Methods
R1
R5
R10
SumR
Zero-shot:
ImageBind-v
39.1
62.8
73.1
175.0
ImageBind-va
39.4
63.2
73.7
176.3
ImageBind-vas
40.6
62.6
74.1
177.3
Finetuned:
ImageBind-vas
47.2
72.9
82.0
202.1
Table 6: Comparison with ImageBind . Dataset: MSRVTT-9k .
Figure S1 : t-SNE visualizations of feature spaces across three audio encoders . All three audio encoders struggle to capture speech semantics.
Setup
Audio
Speech
Soft-ALBEF
MSRVTT-9k
MSRVTT-7k
R1
SumR
R1
SumR
SAVE
AST
Whisper
✓
51.3
216.2
33.5
165.8
SAVE-2
Whisper
Whisper
✓
50.9
215.8
33.8
166.8
SAVE-3
Whisper
✗
✓
50.2
213.0
32.9
164.0
Table S1 : Ablation study of using Whisper as the audio encoder . Backbone: CLIP (ViT-B/32).
Model
R1
R5
R10
SumR
Vision-only:
CLIP4Clip, Neucom22 [ 32 ]
43.1
70.5
81.2
194.8
X-Pool, CVPR22 [ 10 ]
44.4
73.3
84.0
201.7
TS2-Net, ECCV22 [ 30 ]
45.3
74.1
83.7
203.1
X-CLIP, MM22 [ 33 ]
46.8
73.3
84.0
204.1
DiCoSA, IJCAI23 [ 20 ]
46.7
75.2
84.3
206.2
Table S2 : The video-to-text retrieval performance of different methods . Dataset: MSRVTT-9k. Backbone: ViT-B/32.
Model
Text-to-Video Retrieval
Video-to-Text Retrieval
R1
R5
R10
SumR
R1
R5
R10
SumR
Vision-only:
CLIP4Clip, Neucom22 [ 32 ]
46.4
72.1
82.0
200.5
45.4
73.4
82.4
201.2
X-Pool, CVPR22 [ 10 ]
48.2
73.7
82.6
204.5
46.4
73.9
84.1
204.4
TS2-Net, ECCV22 [ 30 ]
49.4
75.6
85.3
210.3
46.6
75.9
84.9
207.4
X-CLIP, MM22 [ 33 ]
49.3
75.8
84.8
209.9
48.9
76.3
85.4
210.6
Table S3 : The retrieval performance of different methods on CLIP ViT-B/16 backbone . Dataset: MSRVTT-9k.
Figure S2 : Qualitative comparison of the Top-1 retrieved videos from PIG , AVIGATE , and SAVE , with the same color-coded blocks indicating how each model ranks these candidate videos. Benefiting from the speech branch, SAVE consistently assigns the ground-truth video (with green box) the best rank, showing clear advantages on speech-related queries. Best viewed on screen.
Audio-visual representation learning develops models that connect sound and video for recognition, retrieval, localization, and robust multimodal understanding.
Unified multimodal embedding spaces have become the standard interface for cross-modal retrieval and multimodal RAG, and recent audio-video-text (AVT) encoders extend this setting to three modalities. Such encoders can produce a joint (T,V,A) embedding whenever all three modalities are available, but standard pairwise InfoNCE objectives leave this signal unused during training. We close this gap with fusion-as-teacher distillation, which treats a stop-gradient copy of the fused embedding as a teacher signal for the single-modal embeddings, paired with a Tuple-InfoNCE term that supervises the fused embedding directly. We instantiate this objective as OmniRetriever-7B. Across six zero-shot retrieval benchmarks, OmniRetriever-7B surpasses the closed-source Gemini Embedding 2 by 13.3-18.0 R@1 on Clotho and SoundDescs, and reaches the contemporary zero-shot specialist band of open video-text encoders on MSR-VTT and MSVD. To stress-test joint representations, we further release OmniRetriever-Bench, a 12-direction AVT retrieval benchmark totaling 3782 triples; on it OmniRetriever-7B attains AVG-all 34.84, improving over Gemini Embedding 2 by 1.72 and over the best prior open-source AVT method by 8.03.
Finding the right video often requires distinguishing similar scenes in which different events occur. Joint matching improves retrieval, but processing rich video representations for each query is costly. VEDJE compresses features within sampled frames while keeping their representations separate in a reusable cache. Feature-change prediction supplies an auxiliary training signal that improves retrieval from the compressed cache without adding work at query time. On MSR-VTT, MSVD, DiDeMo, and ActivityNet, VEDJE improves R@1 over matched first-stage retrievers in both retrieval directions. On MSR-VTT, it reaches 59.8 text-to-video R@1 with a fine-tuned VideoCLIP-XL first stage. In the VideoPrism configuration, shrinking the per-video cache fourfold to 12 KiB preserves text-to-video recall within 0.2 points. These results show that accurate video search can operate on compact evidence, encoded once and reused as new queries arrive.
Shahaf Wagner, Gabriele Serussi, Dan Ben Ami +2
INSIGHT Lab, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel · Decart AI · Texas A&M University, College Station
Speech and audio encoders developed over years of community effort are routinely excluded from video understanding pipelines, not because they fail, but because benchmarks never required listening. We audit 10 video benchmarks and find items largely solvable from visual cues alone: a single-frame probe answers about 76% of AVQA without audio, suggesting poor measurement of audio-visual reasoning. Building on LLaVA-OneVision, we attach a speech/audio encoder and compare five compressor architectures under 25-fold token reduction (25 Hz to 1 Hz). Across 10 benchmarks, with and without filtering, audio yields clear gains on tasks requiring speech comprehension or cross-modal grounding, while vision-centric suites remain largely unaffected. Our results show that speech encoders play a larger role in video understanding than current benchmarks suggest. We will open-source our work at https://github.com/naver-ai/unimambamia-av.
Geewook Kim, Minjoon Seo
NAVER Cloud AI, South Korea · KAIST AI, South Korea