4DMemory: Benchmarking Long-Horizon Spatiotemporal Memory with Harness-Augmented Agents
Authors: Yanhao Jia, Yi Zhu, Yiran Zhong, Weigao Sun, Feida Zhu, Pengkun Jiao, Sihan Yang, Ming Ma, Steven Hoi, Erik Cambria
Organizations: Nanyang Technological University · Token Foundry, Alibaba · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Humans efficiently process multimodal streams spanning hours to years, building persistent, fine-grained spatiotemporal memories that support reasoning about and predicting long-horizon events. In contrast, existing benchmarks focus on short- and medium-context tasks, and most foundation models struggle to preserve fine-grained information over long horizons. To evaluate and improve long-horizon spatiotemporal reasoning, we introduce the LongVideo dataset and the 4DMemoryBench. LongVideo comprises about 900 hours of video and over 5,000 manually reviewed questions covering visual, textual, and spatiotemporal reasoning across diverse context lengths. We further develop the 4DMemory Harness, which integrates four complementary skills, 22+ specialized tool models, and a model-specific retrieval-augmented generation system. Evaluating 13 leading models, we find that standalone foundation models struggle with long-horizon tasks, while the 4DMemory Harness improves all of them by over 50%. Compared to previous benchmark, the same models exhibit a performance drop of more than 10% on 4DMemoryBench. We hope 4DMemory will facilitate the development of spatiotemporal agents capable of addressing complex, long-horizon tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation for 4DMemory Agent. (a) Traditional models with limited active context may lose access to earlier observations, leaving relevant evidence unavailable for temporal reasoning. (b) 4DMemory Agent coordinates persistent memory and task-specific skills through a harness to retrieve evidence and reason over events and their relations.
Benchmark
Corpus (h)
Temporal extent (Max)
Multi-History Scope?
Harness Support?
Video-MME ( Fu et al., 2025 )
254
1 h
✗
✗
LongVideoBench ( Wu et al., 2024 )
NR
1 h
✗
✗
HourVideo ( Chandrasegaran et al., 2024 )
381
2 h
✗
✗
LVBench ( Wang et al., 2025a )
117
68.4 min
✗
✗
InfiniBench ( Ataallah et al., 2025 )
>1,000
52.6 min
✗
✗
EgoMonth ( Chen et al., 2026 )
301
4-5 hours a
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison with representative long-video and multimodal-memory benchmarks. Corpus hours measure total source-video duration, whereas temporal extent describes the video input or history scale, not the minimum evidence needed to answer a question. The final column summarizes documented evaluation or harness functionality, rather than whether third-party agents could be integrated.
Figure 2: Comparison of previous Video-MME (top) and LVBench (bottom) scores with 4DMemory results for the same models. All models shown score lower on 4DMemory, with dashed arrows indicating the decrease in percentage points.
Figure 3: Overview of the LongVideo construction pipeline. Hours-level videos undergo audio-text screening, clip construction, and evidence refinement to obtain coherent clips with grounded captions. Visual evidence, audio captions, and transcripts are aligned to original source timestamps and organized into chronological multimodal evidence chains. QA pairs are then constructed from multiple evidence chains and checked for answer correctness, clip necessity, and potential shortcuts.
Figure 4: Illustration of 4DMemory Agent framework. (a) The harness builds persistent, question-independent memory of events, entities, and spatial relations, preserving source timestamps for reuse across questions. (b) A foundation model retrieves timestamped evidence and iteratively refines its queries and reasoning, with optional tools provided by a skill library.
Invocation
Ordered
Order-relaxed
Overall
Model
3 judges
Opus-5
3 judges
Opus-5
3 judges
Opus-5
Gemini 3.1-Pro
99.81
58.38
63.82
58.38
63.82
58.27
63.69
GPT-5.6 Sol
100.00
70.14
71.29
70.46
71.61
70.46
71.61
Opus-4.8
98.70
71.96
73.22
72.76
74.02
71.81
73.05
MiMo-V2.5
100.00
58.59
60.84
64.06
66.36
64.06
66.36
Grok-4.6
100.00
72.04
74.11
75.55
77.64
75.55
77.64
Table 2: The overall performance on the 4DMemory Benchmark among 13 SOTA methods.
Model
Ordering
State
Counting
Trajectory
CM reason
CM bind
Gemini 3.1-Pro
68.85
50.18
30.91
42.86
55.43
61.18
GPT-5.6 Sol
72.49
67.16
44.35
57.14
70.11
72.37
Opus-4.8
75.40
66.42
45.97
50.93
75.54
76.97
MiMo-V2.5
71.76
55.90
36.02
43.48
65.22
57.24
Grok-4.6
83.19
69.74
45.70
54.66
78.80
81.58
Muse Spark-1.1
82.02
73.80
47.58
62.73
78.80
78.95
Table 3: Six selected standalone-video spatiotemporal subtypes. Columns denote multi-event ordering, state-change tracking, distributed counting, path and trajectory tracking, cross-modal reasoning, and cross-modal binding, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure S1: The composition details of LongVideo dataset. The inner ring shows the distribution of QA pairs across fine-grained tasks, with blue, purple, and green representing visual, textual, and spatiotemporal tasks, respectively. The outer ring shows video content categories derived from TV episode story summaries and standalone video descriptions. Semantically related low-frequency categories are merged for readability. Percentages are normalized independently within each ring over all QA pairs and all videos, respectively, with each TV episode counted as one video.
Model
Episode ( n=172 )
Season ( n=50 )
Entire series ( n=4 )
Video ( n=111 )
Gemini-3.1
70.93 / 70.35
— / —
— / —
36.04 / 34.23
GPT-5.6
100.00 / 99.42
58.00 / 56.00
75.00 / 75.00
48.65 / 45.95
Opus-4.8
95.35 / 94.77
62.00 / 60.00
— / —
49.55 / 52.25
MiMo-2.5
68.02 / 68.02
58.00 / 56.00
50.00 / 25.00
42.34 / 39.64
Grok-4.6
27.33 / 27.33
82.00 / 80.00
100.00 / 100.00
54.95 / 54.95
Muse-1.1
95.35 / 94.77
80.00 / 76.00
100.00 / 100.00
52.25 / 50.45
Appendix
Table S1: Visual-task joint accuracy by temporal scope in the September 25, 2026 snapshot. Each cell reports Opus-only / three-judge accuracy (%). Video denotes standalone videos; the other columns denote television scopes. † marks incomplete execution or judging, and — indicates no valid judgments.
Model
Episode ( n=215 )
Season ( n=126 )
Entire series ( n=36 )
Video ( n=238 )
Gemini-3.1
99.53 / 99.53
— / —
50.00 / 50.00
59.24 / 53.36
GPT-5.6
100.00 / 100.00
96.83 / 96.03
75.00 / 72.22
71.01 / 69.33
Opus-4.8
98.14 / 98.14
85.71 / 85.71
50.00 / 50.00
72.69 / 72.69
MiMo-2.5
100.00 / 100.00
93.65 / 92.86
91.67 / 91.67
60.08 / 60.50
Grok-4.6
100.00 / 100.00
100.00 / 100.00
100.00 / 100.00
76.47 / 75.21
Muse-1.1
100.00 / 100.00
100.00 / 99.21
100.00 / 100.00
75.21 / 74.79
Appendix
Table S2: Text-task joint accuracy by temporal scope in the September 25, 2026 snapshot. Each cell reports Opus-only / three-judge accuracy (%). Video denotes standalone videos; the other columns denote television scopes. † marks incomplete execution or judging, and — indicates no valid judgments.
Model
Episode ( n=140 )
Season ( n=59 )
Entire series ( n=24 )
Video ( n=4,039 )
Gemini-3.1
90.00 / 90.00
- / -
37.50 / 37.50
58.65 / 55.31
GPT-5.6
87.86 / 87.86
37.29 / 38.98
12.50 / 12.50
69.20 / 67.96
Opus-4.8
77.86 / 77.86
66.10 / 66.10
41.67 / 41.67
71.58 / 69.94
MiMo-2.5
87.86 / 87.86
57.63 / 55.93
79.17 / 70.83
63.88 / 61.10
Grok-4.6
91.43 / 91.43
86.44 / 86.44
100.00 / 100.00
77.57 / 74.97
Muse-1.1
100.00 / 100.00
86.44 / 86.44
100.00 / 100.00
75.96 / 74.92
Appendix
Table S3: Spatiotemporal-task joint accuracy by temporal scope in the September 25, 2026 snapshot. Each cell reports Opus-only / three-judge accuracy (%). Video denotes standalone videos; the other columns denote television scopes. † marks incomplete execution or judging, and — indicates no valid judgments.
Model
Difference ( n=64 )
Ratio ( n=108 )
Above mean ( n=17 )
Max/min ( n=5 )
Range/total ( n=16 )
Top two ( n=16 )
Gemini-3.1
87.50
60.19
—
—
—
—
GPT-5.6
100.00
99.07
5.88
60.00
87.50
81.25
Opus-4.8
92.19
96.30
64.71
40.00
56.25
50.00
MiMo-2.5
78.12
62.04
41.18
60.00
75.00
43.75
Grok-4.6
29.69
25.93
82.35
60.00
87.50
81.25
Muse-1.1
98.44
92.59
70.59
60.00
87.50
81.25
Appendix
Table S4: Television visual subtypes, pooled across temporal scopes. Entries are three-judge joint accuracies (%). Difference and Ratio compare person instances with instances of the most frequent non-person object; Above mean counts units whose person count exceeds the mean; the remaining columns give the maximum/minimum count ratio, range divided by total count, and the share contributed by the two highest-count units. † and — follow Table S1 .
Model
First pair ( n=76 )
First order ( n=64 )
Extrema gap ( n=14 )
Half diff. ( n=16 )
Adj. change ( n=16 )
Reversals ( n=17 )
Gemini-3.1
85.53
95.31
—
—
—
—
GPT-5.6
77.63
100.00
71.43
6.25
81.25
5.88
Opus-4.8
77.63
78.12
71.43
50.00
50.00
76.47
MiMo-2.5
82.89
93.75
78.57
62.50
62.50
23.53
Grok-4.6
85.53
98.44
100.00
75.00
81.25
94.12
Muse-1.1
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
81.25
94.12
Appendix
Table S5: Television temporal subtypes over visual evidence, pooled across scopes. Entries are three-judge joint accuracies (%). First pair compares the first appearances of two object types; First order orders first appearances and localizes their clips; Extrema gap measures ordinal distance between person-count extrema; Half diff. compares counts in the two temporal halves; Adj. change measures the largest adjacent-unit count change; Reversals counts changes in trend direction.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced image and video understanding and can increasingly handle longer visual inputs. Long-horizon tasks such as autonomous driving and robotic navigation require more than recognizing the current view, as models must remember and retrieve previously observed spatial layouts, routes, viewpoint changes, and object states. To evaluate this capability, we introduce LongSpace-Bench, a room-tour video benchmark for long-horizon spatial memory, covering scene perception, spatial relations, and spatial memory. In this work, we further propose LongSpace, a memory framework for long-video spatial reasoning. LongSpace models long videos as sequential chunks, incorporates 3D structural cues into early decoder layers, and constructs layer-aware memory for question-guided retrieval. Experiments on multiple spatial reasoning benchmarks show that LongSpace improves long-video spatial understanding, further demonstrating explicit spatial memory as a key capability for long-horizon video MLLMs.
Shiqiang Lang, Jing Liu, Haoyang He +6
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Zhongguancun Academy · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences +2
Next-generation visual assistants, such as smart glasses, embodied agents, and always-on life-logging systems, must reason over an entire day or more of continuous visual experience. In ultra-long video settings, relevant information is sparsely distributed across hours or days, making memory a fundamental challenge: models must accumulate information over time, recall prior states, track temporal order, and abstract recurring patterns. However, existing week-long video benchmarks are primarily designed for perception and recognition, such as moment localization or global summarization, rather than reasoning that requires integrating evidence across multiple days. To address this gap, we introduce EgoMemReason, a comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates week-long egocentric video understanding through memory-driven reasoning. EgoMemReason evaluates three complementary memory types: entity memory, tracking how object states evolve and change across days; event memory, recalling and ordering activities separated by hours or days; and behavior memory, abstracting recurring patterns from sparse, repeated observations over the whole week period. EgoMemReason comprises 500 questions across three memory types and six core challenges, with an average of 5.1 video segments of evidence per question and 25.9 hours of memory backtracking. We evaluate EgoMemReason on 17 methods across MLLMs and agentic frameworks, revealing that even the best model achieves only 39.6% overall accuracy. Further analysis shows that the three memory types fail for distinct reasons and that performance degrades as evidence spans longer temporal horizons, revealing that long-horizon memory remains far from solved. We believe EgoMemReason establishes a strong foundation for evaluating and advancing long-context, memory-aware multimodal systems.
Multimodal large language models excel on short clips but struggle on hour-long videos in an online setting, where frames are processed incrementally under limited memory. Existing online methods either retain compact visual representations that lack semantic structure, or build higher-level memory stores organized around temporal proximity rather than explicit causal links, leaving multi-hop narrative reasoning to be reconstructed by the LLM at every query. We bridge this gap with Homer, a Hierarchical Online Memory Exploration and Reasoning framework. Homer's memory mirrors the multi-scale structure of long videos, ranging from raw perception, to recurring entities, to events connected by explicit temporal and causal relations. Its agentic reasoner then explores this memory the way humans do, locating the relevant scene, looking up details, and composing the answer through multi-round memory retrieval, with a harness that verifies and corrects each step. Homer outperforms the previous best agent method by +5.5, +10.8, and +4.4 points on M3-Bench-robot, M3-Bench-web, and Video-MME-Long, and consistently lifts three various LLM backbones, indicating a model-agnostic structural capability for grounded retrieval over long videos.
Yixin Ji, Fanghua Ye, Juntao Li +5
1Soochow University · 2Tencent Hunyuan Multimodal Department