Abstract
Text embeddings for Portuguese have no dedicated benchmark: evaluation rests on translated corpora such as English MS MARCO or on thin multilingual coverage, with native tasks scattered and unconsolidated. We introduce MTEB-BR, a benchmark of 22 native Brazilian-Portuguese tasks across seven categories (classification, multilabel classification, pair classification, semantic textual similarity, clustering, retrieval, and reranking), admitting only data created or found in Portuguese and excluding translations by construction. We evaluate 93 models spanning 23M to 27B parameters: 73 open-weight and 20 closed commercial APIs. Alongside the leaderboard we report a statistical layer for every headline comparison: per-task bootstrap confidence intervals, paired-bootstrap significance, a task- and instance-level discrimination analysis (how sharply each task separates models) adapted from Item Response Theory, and a cross-leaderboard correlation. Three findings stand out. The benchmark cleanly separates about a dozen tiers of models, though the top six are statistically too close to order. An openly licensed, self-hostable model reaches that leading tier, so strong Portuguese embedding quality does not require a commercial API. And a model's rank on the global multilingual leaderboard predicts its Portuguese rank only moderately (Spearman rho = 0.75 over 55 shared models; one model ranks 3rd there and 49th here), so a native benchmark measures something the multilingual boards do not. We release every task, our code, and a public leaderboard, so practitioners can choose Portuguese embedding models on native evidence.
Explore similar work
Jul 5, 2026cs.CL
Portuguese remains underrepresented in text embedding evaluation, despite being one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. As a result, embedding models are often selected based on English or multilingual metrics, while their effectiveness in Portuguese remains unclear. We present MTEB-PT, a Portuguese benchmark constructed from a subset of MMTEB, comprising 14 existing datasets across Semantic Textual Similarity (STS), classification, retrieval, and reranking. We use this benchmark to evaluate 17 open- and closed-source embedding models under a unified protocol. Our results show that Portuguese performance is strongly task-dependent: multilingual rankings do not reliably predict Portuguese-specific performance across task families, no single model dominates all settings, and models with stronger long-context capacity are particularly advantageous on longer-input tasks such as retrieval and reranking. The benchmark also shows that language-specific fine-tuning still improves model performance in Portuguese, especially on task types that match the adaptation data most closely. To examine this effect, we fine-tune three representative backbone models with Portuguese contrastive supervision and Matryoshka Representation Learning (MRL). These benchmark-informed baselines yield their strongest gains on STS, consistent with the predominantly symmetric supervision used during training, while also improving retrieval and remaining competitive under dimensional truncation. We release the MTEB-PT benchmark, the fine-tuned models, and the training and evaluation code.
Lucas Hideki Takeuchi Okamura, Alexandre Alcoforado, Anna Helena Reali Costa
May 29, 2026cs.CL
Large-scale multilingual text embedding models play crucial role in both research and industry, yet their behavior in language-specific, multi-task settings remains insufficiently understood. Although benchmarking platforms such as MTEB report results across more than 250 languages, conclusions about model superiority often depend on implicit choices of dataset compositions and performance aggregation methods. To address this gap, we present a meta-study of multilingual model performance robustness in MTEB, applying a diverse set of multi-criteria decision-making ranking schemes and introducing two robustness indicators: dataset-composition robustness (sensitivity of rankings to changing dataset compositions) and ranking-scheme robustness (sensitivity to aggregation method change). They enable systematic sensitivity analysis of whether benchmarking conclusions remain stable under different evaluation designs. We conduct an in-depth analysis on five languages (English, French, German, Hindi, and Spanish) across nine tasks (e.g., classification, clustering, retrieval) and release results for approximately 230 additional languages. The task-specific analyses show that large-scale LLM-based models are often robust top performers, though not uniformly (e.g., in retrieval task), while task-agnostic results reveal that only a small subset of models remains consistently strong across tasks, ranking schemes, and data subsamples.
Ana Gjorgjevikj, Barbara Koroušić Seljak, Tome Eftimov
Jul 26, 2026cs.IR
Choosing the right text embedding model is one of the most consequential -- and most frequently under-examined -- decisions in building a retrieval or search system, yet the model that tops a leaderboard is rarely the best choice for a given deployment. This report develops a practical, evidence-based framework for embedding model selection, built on a benchmarking study that evaluates T3EM (Text 3 Embedding Model), a commercial API-based embedding model, against a broad set of open-source alternatives on English-language retrieval tasks, and situates these findings within the wider Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) landscape spanning classification, clustering, semantic similarity, reranking, pair classification, bitext mining, and summarization. Beyond raw benchmark scores, the report traces the full path from embedding model to retrieved result -- how embeddings are produced, how they are indexed and searched at scale, and how document chunking strategy shapes retrieval quality -- so that model choice can be reasoned about as one decision within a complete retrieval pipeline rather than in isolation. The result is a consolidated set of practical recommendations for selecting an embedding model according to task, latency, cost, and deployment constraints.
Madhav S Baidya