MedMKEB: A Comprehensive Knowledge Editing Benchmark for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved pith:WAJYYVMLrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
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 However, as medical knowledge continues to evolve, it is critical to allow these models to efficiently update outdated or incorrect information without retraining from scratch.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.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Evaluating and Understanding Model Editing for Medical Vision Language Models
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 ...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.