Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

MedMKEB: A Comprehensive Knowledge Editing Benchmark for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces MedMKEB, a benchmark for testing whether medical multimodal large language models can have their knowledge edited, and reports that current editing methods fail to transfer to medicine.

desk verdict A sensible medical multimodal knowledge-editing benchmark, but the full text we received is unreadable, so the empirical claims are unverifiable from this submission. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05083 v1 pith:WAJYYVML submitted 2025-08-07 cs.AI

Dexuan Xu , Jieyi Wang , Zhongyan Chai , Yongzhi Cao , Hanpin Wang , Huamin Zhang , Yu Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords knowledgeeditingmultimodallargelanguagemodelsmedicalvisualquestionansweringbenchmarkcounterfactualsequentialreliabilityrobustness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces MedMKEB, which it claims is the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating knowledge editing in medical multimodal large language models. The paper argues that updating outdated or incorrect medical knowledge without retraining requires five properties—reliability, generality, locality, portability, and robustness—and that no existing benchmark tests them jointly for vision-plus-text medical models. MedMKEB is built on a high-quality medical visual question-answering dataset and adds four kinds of constructed editing tasks: counterfactual correction, semantic generalization, knowledge transfer, and adversarial robustness, with human expert validation. Through single-editing and sequential-editing experiments on state-of-the-art general and medical MLLMs, the paper reports that existing knowledge-based editing approaches underperform, showing that they do not transfer well to medicine and that specialized editing strategies are needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the benchmark itself. A MedMKEB instance couples an image, a question, an edit target, and a validation answer, so evaluation can ask not only whether the edit took, but also whether the model preserves unrelated knowledge (locality), applies the edit to new phrasings (generality), carries it to related medical cases (portability), and resists adversarial inputs (robustness), both after a single edit and after a sequence of edits. Scoring along these five axes is the mechanism that turns abstract editing desiderata into measurable failure.

What would settle it

Recruit independent medical experts to answer a random sample of MedMKEB counterfactual and adversarial questions from image and question alone, without applying or knowing the edit. If a substantial fraction of experts give the pre-edit answer rather than the target answer, then the benchmark's targets are ambiguous and its reported failure scores would need re-interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MedMKEB is the first benchmark comprehensive enough to assess knowledge editing in medical multimodal large language models, and that under this benchmark current editing methods show clear limitations. MedMKEB starts from a high-quality medical visual question-answering dataset and adds editing tasks of four kinds: counterfactual correction, which replaces an outdated fact; semantic generalization, which applies the edit to paraphrases; knowledge transfer, which carries the edit to related medical cases; and adversarial robustness, which checks that edits survive tricky inputs. Every edit target is human-validated. The paper then runs single-editing and seq

Load-bearing premise

The edit targets and human-validated answers used in MedMKEB are correct and unambiguous, so a method's low score is attributable to the method rather than to flawed or unanswerable benchmark questions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Knowledge-based editing methods that work in general text or multimodal settings will need rethinking before medical deployment: MedMKEB reportedly shows low reliability after single edits.
  • Sequential editing—updating a model many times in a row—is a realistic clinical need, and the paper reports that current methods struggle to preserve earlier edits while making new ones.
  • With human-validated edit targets, MedMKEB can serve as a standard evaluation instrument for future medical knowledge-editing algorithms and as a safety check before deployment.
  • The paper draws a direct implication that specialized editing strategies for medicine are needed rather than straightforward reuse of general-domain methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The four editing task types could be reused as a training curriculum: a method trained to pass counterfactual correction and adversarial robustness might learn to separate image-derived facts from stored encyclopedic facts.
  • If MedMKEB becomes standard, comparing medical MLLMs against text-only medical LLMs on the same edit targets would isolate how much of the failure is caused by the image modality.
  • A testable extension is to measure calibration and confidence alongside accuracy: in clinical settings, an edit that changes the answer but leaves the model overconfident may be more dangerous than one that fails outright.
  • The benchmark may also expose a distinction between correcting genuinely outdated facts and overriding facts still visible in the image; resolving that distinction is a design question for future editions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. MedMKEB proposes a benchmark for knowledge editing in medical multimodal large language models. The abstract claims it is the first comprehensive benchmark covering reliability, generality, locality, portability, and robustness, and that extensive single and sequential editing experiments on state-of-the-art general and medical MLLMs demonstrate the limitations of existing knowledge-based editing methods in medicine. The benchmark is said to be built on a medical VQA dataset, enriched with four editing-task types (counterfactual correction, semantic generalization, knowledge transfer, adversarial robustness), and to incorporate human expert validation. The provided full text is largely encoding-corrupted, so most construction details, task definitions, experimental tables, and related-work comparisons cannot be read from the available material.

Significance. If the benchmark is valid and released with its construction protocol, it would address a genuine gap: there is no standard instrument for evaluating multimodal knowledge editing in medicine. The proposed evaluation axes are appropriate for deployment-critical medical settings, and the aim of human expert validation is a positive step toward trustworthy targets. The empirical finding that current textual/multimodal editing methods transfer poorly would be useful if it is shown to be attributable to editing failure rather than benchmark artifacts. However, the current manuscript does not make this case verifiably: the task-construction and validation premises are asserted rather than documented, and the abstract's central empirical claim is qualitative. The significance therefore rests on load-bearing details that are not yet visible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §2 (Benchmark Construction)] The central premise of the paper is that low post-edit success rates indicate genuine limitations of editing methods. This requires that the constructed edit targets are valid instruments. The abstract asserts 'human expert validation' and 'carefully constructed editing tasks,' but the available text provides no construction protocol, no validator inclusion criteria, no sample size, and no inter-annotator agreement statistics. If counterfactual or adversarial targets are ambiguous, not uniquely answerable from the image, or encode expert opinion rather than unambiguous factual corrections, then the reported failures could be benchmark artifacts. Please provide the full task-generation protocol and validation statistics, including examples and exclusion rules.
  2. [Abstract / §4 (Experiments)] The abstract's main empirical claim—'extensive single editing and sequential editing experiments ... demonstrate the limitations of existing knowledge-based editing approaches'—is stated without a single number, model name, or metric. The portions of the full text that appear to contain tables are corrupted (rows show repeated 'C' placeholders and unreadable headers), so the experiments cannot be checked. Please report the model list, number of edits, per-task success rates, and the evaluation rule (e.g., exact match vs. semantic equivalence) for each of the five assessed properties, with standard errors or significance tests where appropriate.
  3. [§2, Task Types] The four editing task types (counterfactual correction, semantic generalization, knowledge transfer, adversarial robustness) are named but not formally defined in the abstract or in any readable portion of the text. These definitions are load-bearing because they determine what counts as a successful edit and therefore whether a low score reflects an editing-method failure or an ill-posed task. Please provide formal definitions, generation rules, and at least one worked example per task type, together with the criteria used to decide that the edited target is the correct answer.
  4. [Related Work / Novelty Claim] The abstract claims MedMKEB is 'the first comprehensive benchmark' for this setting. This claim cannot be verified from the available text because the related-work section is unreadable. Even if this is a novelty claim rather than a scientific result, it should be substantiated by an explicit comparison with existing medical knowledge-editing benchmarks and multimodal editing benchmarks, including any recently released alternatives. If any prior benchmark covers a subset of the proposed dimensions, the claim should be qualified accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Whole document] The submitted text is encoding-corrupted (mojibake); most paragraphs and all tables are unreadable in the version provided. A properly encoded, machine-readable PDF is required for review. This is not a scientific criticism of the content, but it blocks verification.
  2. [Tables] The visible tables appear with 'C' symbols in place of numeric entries and with unlabeled rows/columns. Please ensure all tables have clear column headers, numeric values, and a caption describing the metric and the evaluation protocol.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract would be materially improved by including a concrete headline result, such as the average edit-success rate of the best baseline under single editing and the degradation under sequential editing. This would make the 'limitations' claim falsifiable from the abstract alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MedMKEB is a benchmark construction with human-validated edit targets and measured model evaluations, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that MedMKEB is the first comprehensive medical multimodal knowledge-editing benchmark and that existing editing methods underperform on it. This is an empirical evaluation claim, not a derived theorem. The benchmark's edit targets are described as 'carefully constructed' and subject to 'human expert validation,' which is an external check on label correctness rather than a parameter fitted from the models being tested. The conclusion that existing methods 'demonstrate the limitations' is a measurement outcome, not an input to the benchmark construction. There is no equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain that makes the result equivalent to its assumptions. The abstract's 'first comprehensive' phrasing is a novelty assertion, not a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Concerns about the unavailability of the full construction protocol, validator agreement statistics, or target-selection details are validity and reproducibility risks, not circularity. Even if the benchmark artifacts are imperfect, that would affect whether low scores are attributable to the methods, but it would not make the paper's reasoning circular in the sense of defining the conclusion into the inputs. Therefore, no circular step can be identified from the available text.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or formal entities are introduced. MedMKEB is a dataset and evaluation artifact, not a new mechanism, particle, dimension, or formal object, so the invented-entities ledger is empty. The free parameters listed are the hand-chosen benchmark design decisions that the visible claims rest on.

free parameters (2)
  • benchmark composition across the four editing task types
    The abstract lists counterfactual correction, semantic generalization, knowledge transfer, and adversarial robustness but gives no sizes or ratios. The mix of cases directly determines the measured failure rates of the editing methods.
  • edit success evaluation procedure (answer matching and scoring rule)
    No metric definition appears in the abstract. How a model output is judged correct after an edit is a hand-chosen choice that moves all reported success rates; the standard practice of exact-match or semantic-match thresholds is not stated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The five dimensions (reliability, generality, locality, portability, robustness) are the right axes for judging medical knowledge editing.
    The abstract frames these five dimensions as the design targets of MedMKEB but provides no justification for why these axes suffice or how they were derived from medical deployment needs.
  • domain assumption The base medical VQA data are accurate, and the constructed edits preserve clinical validity.
    The abstract calls the dataset 'high-quality' and the tasks 'carefully constructed' with 'human expert validation,' but no construction or validation protocol is given in the readable text.
  • domain assumption Single and sequential editing performance on these cases extrapolates to real medical knowledge update workloads.
    The abstract uses single and sequential editing experiments to conclude that specialized editing strategies are needed, which assumes the test distribution resembles deployment conditions for medical updates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MedMKEB: A Comprehensive Knowledge Editing Benchmark for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAJYYVML

@misc{pith2026250805083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MedMKEB: A Comprehensive Knowledge Editing Benchmark for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAJYYVML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05083}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have significantly improved medical AI, enabling it to unify the understanding of visual and textual information. However, as medical knowledge continues to evolve, it is critical to allow these models to efficiently update outdated or incorrect information without retraining from scratch. Although textual knowledge editing has been widely studied, there is still a lack of systematic benchmarks for multimodal medical knowledge editing involving image and text modalities. To fill this gap, we present MedMKEB, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the reliability, generality, locality, portability, and robustness of knowledge editing in medical multimodal large language models. MedMKEB is built on a high-quality medical visual question-answering dataset and enriched with carefully constructed editing tasks, including counterfactual correction, semantic generalization, knowledge transfer, and adversarial robustness. We incorporate human expert validation to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the benchmark. Extensive single editing and sequential editing experiments on state-of-the-art general and medical MLLMs demonstrate the limitations of existing knowledge-based editing approaches in medicine, highlighting the need to develop specialized editing strategies. MedMKEB will serve as a standard benchmark to promote the development of trustworthy and efficient medical knowledge editing algorithms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evaluating and Understanding Model Editing for Medical Vision Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    M3Bench is a clinically grounded benchmark showing that gradient-based VLM editors generalize but break locality, while memory-based editors preserve locality but fail on composition and temporal tasks, with failures ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Beurer-Kellner, L.; Cre t u, B. B. A.-M.; Debenedetti, E.; Dobos, D.; Fabian, D.; Fischer, M.; Froelicher, D.; Grosse, K.; Naeff, D.; Ozoani, E.; et al. 2025. Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08837

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, R.; Cai, Z.; Ji, K.; et al

    Chen, J.; Gui, C.; Ouyang, R.; Gao, A.; Chen, S.; Chen, G. H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, R.; Cai, Z.; Ji, K.; et al. 2024. Huatuogpt-vision, towards injecting medical visual knowledge into multimodal llms at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19280

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Chen, S.; Luo, L.; Qiu, Z.; Cao, Y.; Yang, C.; and Pan, S. 2025 a . Beyond Memorization: A Rigorous Evaluation Framework for Medical Knowledge Editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03490

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Chen, Y.; Xu, D.; Huang, Y.; Zhan, S.; Wang, H.; Chen, D.; Wang, X.; Qiu, M.; and Li, H. 2025 b . MIMO: A Medical Vision Language Model with Visual Referring Multimodal Input and Pixel Grounding Multimodal Output. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 24732--24741

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Cheng, D.; Huang, S.; and Wei, F. 2024. Adapting Large Language Models via Reading Comprehension. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    X.; Luan, Z.; Dai, B.; and Zhang, Z

    Cheng, D.; Huang, S.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, W. X.; Luan, Z.; Dai, B.; and Zhang, Z. 2024. On Domain-Specific Post-Training for Multimodal Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19930

    arXiv 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Cheng, S.; Tian, B.; Liu, Q.; Chen, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, H.; and Zhang, N. 2023. Can We Edit Multimodal Large Language Models? In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 13877--13888

    2023

  2. [10]

    C.; Schneider, C

    Clusmann, J.; Ferber, D.; Wiest, I. C.; Schneider, C. V.; Brinker, T. J.; Foersch, S.; Truhn, D.; and Kather, J. N. 2025. Prompt injection attacks on vision language models in oncology. Nature Communications, 16(1): 1239

    2025

  3. [11]

    Dai, D.; Dong, L.; Hao, Y.; Sui, Z.; Chang, B.; and Wei, F. 2022. Knowledge Neurons in Pretrained Transformers. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 8493--8502

    2022

  4. [12]

    De Cao, N.; Aziz, W.; and Titov, I. 2021. Editing Factual Knowledge in Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 6491--6506

    2021

  5. [13]

    Du, Y.; Jiang, K.; Gao, Z.; Shi, C.; Zheng, Z.; Qi, S.; and Li, Q. 2025. MMKE-Bench: A Multimodal Editing Benchmark for Diverse Visual Knowledge. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  6. [14]

    Hartvigsen, T.; Sankaranarayanan, S.; Palangi, H.; Kim, Y.; and Ghassemi, M. 2023. Aging with grace: Lifelong model editing with discrete key-value adaptors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 47934--47959

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hu, Y.; Li, T.; Lu, Q.; Shao, W.; He, J.; Qiao, Y.; and Luo, P. 2024. Omnimedvqa: A new large-scale comprehensive evaluation benchmark for medical lvlm. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22170--22183

    2024

  8. [16]

    Huang, H.; Zhong, H.; Yu, T.; Liu, Q.; Wu, S.; Wang, L.; and Tan, T. 2024. VLKEB: A Large Vision-Language Model Knowledge Editing Benchmark. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    2024

  9. [17]

    Huang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, Y.; Xi, J.; An, J.; Wang, H.; Liang, H.; and Pan, C. 2025. Medical mllm is vulnerable: Cross-modality jailbreak and mismatched attacks on medical multimodal large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intellig...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Levy, O.; Seo, M.; Choi, E.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2017. Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension. In 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2017, 333--342. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Li, C.; Wong, C.; Zhang, S.; Usuyama, N.; Liu, H.; Yang, J.; Naumann, T.; Poon, H.; and Gao, J. 2023 a . Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 28541--28564

    2023

  12. [20]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Savarese, S.; and Hoi, S. 2023 b . Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, 19730--19742. PMLR

    2023

  13. [21]

    Liu, A.; Feng, B.; Xue, B.; Wang, B.; Wu, B.; Lu, C.; Zhao, C.; Deng, C.; Zhang, C.; Ruan, C.; et al. 2024 a . Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Wu, Q.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023 a . Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 34892--34916

    2023

  15. [23]

    Liu, X.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, N.; and Xiao, C. 2024 b . Automatic and universal prompt injection attacks against large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04957

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Liu, Y.; Deng, G.; Li, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, T.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; Zheng, Y.; et al. 2023 b . Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05499

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Meng, K.; Bau, D.; Andonian, A.; and Belinkov, Y. 2022. Locating and editing factual associations in gpt. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 17359--17372

    2022

  18. [26]

    S.; Andonian, A

    Meng, K.; Sharma, A. S.; Andonian, A. J.; Belinkov, Y.; and Bau, D. 2023. Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformer. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  19. [27]

    Mitchell, E.; Lin, C.; Bosselut, A.; Finn, C.; and Manning, C. D. 2022 a . Fast Model Editing at Scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  20. [28]

    D.; and Finn, C

    Mitchell, E.; Lin, C.; Bosselut, A.; Manning, C. D.; and Finn, C. 2022 b . Memory-based model editing at scale. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 15817--15831. PMLR

    2022

  21. [29]

    Nachane, S.; Gramopadhye, O.; Chanda, P.; Ramakrishnan, G.; Jadhav, K.; Nandwani, Y.; Raghu, D.; and Joshi, S. 2024. Few shot chain-of-thought driven reasoning to prompt LLMs for open-ended medical question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2024

  22. [30]

    K.; and Sankarasubbu, M

    Pal, A.; Umapathi, L. K.; and Sankarasubbu, M. 2022. Medmcqa: A large-scale multi-subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In Conference on health, inference, and learning, 248--260. PMLR

    2022

  23. [31]

    Tan, C.; Zhang, G.; and Fu, J. 2024. Massive Editing for Large Language Models via Meta Learning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  24. [32]

    Wang, P.; Li, Z.; Zhang, N.; Xu, Z.; Yao, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Xie, P.; Huang, F.; and Chen, H. 2024 a . Wise: Rethinking the knowledge memory for lifelong model editing of large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 53764--53797

    2024

  25. [33]

    Wang, P.; Zhang, N.; Tian, B.; Xi, Z.; Yao, Y.; Xu, Z.; Wang, M.; Mao, S.; Wang, X.; Cheng, S.; et al. 2024 b . EasyEdit: An Easy-to-use Knowledge Editing Framework for Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Xiao, H.; Zhou, F.; Liu, X.; Liu, T.; Li, Z.; Liu, X.; and Huang, X. 2025. A comprehensive survey of large language models and multimodal large language models in medicine. Information Fusion, 117: 102888

    2025

  27. [35]

    Xu, D.; Chen, Y.; Chai, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Yan, Y.; Ding, W.; Wang, H.; Jin, Z.; Jiao, W.; Yue, W.; et al. 2025. Knowledge fusion in deep learning-based medical vision-language models: A review. Information Fusion, 103455

    2025

  28. [36]

    Xu, D.; Chen, Y.; Wang, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, H.; Jin, Z.; Wang, H.; Yue, W.; He, J.; Li, H.; et al. 2024 a . Mlevlm: Improve multi-level progressive capabilities based on multimodal large language model for medical visual question answering. In Findings of the Association for ...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Xu, D.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Lin, Z.; Liu, Q.; Wu, X.; Xu, T.; Wang, W.; Ye, Y.; Zhao, X.; et al. 2024 b . Editing factual knowledge and explanatory ability of medical large language models. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Ma...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Xu, R.; Lin, B.; Yang, S.; Zhang, T.; Shi, W.; Zhang, T.; Fang, Z.; Xu, W.; and Qiu, H. 2024 c . The Earth is Flat because...: Investigating LLMs’ Belief towards Misinformation via Persuasive Conversation. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Comput...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Yang, P.; Wang, H.; Huang, Y.; Yang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, G.; Yang, S.; He, L.; et al. 2024. LMKG: A large-scale and multi-source medical knowledge graph for intelligent medicine applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 284: 111323

    2024

  32. [40]

    Yu, L.; Chen, Q.; Zhou, J.; and He, L. 2024. Melo: Enhancing model editing with neuron-indexed dynamic lora. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 19449--19457

    2024

  33. [41]

    Zhang, N.; Tian, B.; Cheng, S.; Liang, X.; Hu, Y.; Xue, K.; Gou, Y.; Chen, X.; and Chen, H. 2024. InstructEdit: instruction-based knowledge editing for large language models. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 6633--6641

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zhang, X.; Wu, C.; Zhao, Z.; Lin, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; and Xie, W. 2023. Pmc-vqa: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zheng, C.; Li, L.; Dong, Q.; Fan, Y.; Wu, Z.; Xu, J.; and Chang, B. 2023. Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning? In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 4862--4876

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zhu, D.; Chen, J.; Shen, X.; Li, X.; and Elhoseiny, M. 2023. MiniGPT-4: Enhancing Vision-Language Understanding with Advanced Large Language Models. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.