Tailored Teaching with Balanced Difficulty: Elevating Reasoning in Multimodal Chain-of-Thought via Prompt Curriculum

The effectiveness of Multimodal Chain-of-Thought (MCoT) prompting is often limited by the use of randomly or manually selected examples. These examples fail to account for both model-specific knowledge distributions and the intrinsic complexity of the tasks, resulting in suboptimal and unstable model performance. To address this, we propose a novel framework inspired by the pedagogical principle of "tailored teaching with balanced difficulty". We reframe prompt selection as a prompt curriculum design problem: constructing a well ordered set of training examples that align with the model's current capabilities. Our approach integrates two complementary signals: (1) model-perceived difficulty, quantified through prediction disagreement in an active learning setup, capturing what the model itself finds challenging; and (2) intrinsic sample complexity, which measures the inherent difficulty of each question-image pair independently of any model. By jointly analyzing these signals, we develop a difficulty-balanced sampling strategy that ensures the selected prompt examples are diverse across both dimensions. Extensive experiments conducted on five challenging benchmarks and multiple popular Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate that our method yields substantial and consistent improvements and greatly reduces performance discrepancies caused by random sampling, providing a principled and robust approach for enhancing multimodal reasoning.

MultiMedEdit: A Scenario-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Editing in Medical VQA

Knowledge editing (KE) provides a scalable approach for updating factual knowledge in large language models without full retraining. While previous studies have demonstrated effectiveness in general domains and medical QA tasks, little attention has been paid to KE in multimodal medical scenarios. Unlike text-only settings, medical KE demands integrating updated knowledge with visual reasoning to support safe and interpretable clinical decisions. To address this gap, we propose MultiMedEdit, the first benchmark tailored to evaluating KE in clinical multimodal tasks. Our framework spans both understanding and reasoning task types, defines a three-dimensional metric suite (reliability, generality, and locality), and supports cross-paradigm comparisons across general and domain-specific models. We conduct extensive experiments under single-editing and lifelong-editing settings. Results suggest that current methods struggle with generalization and long-tail reasoning, particularly in complex clinical workflows. We further present an efficiency analysis (e.g., edit latency, memory footprint), revealing practical trade-offs in real-world deployment across KE paradigms. Overall, MultiMedEdit not only reveals the limitations of current approaches but also provides a solid foundation for developing clinically robust knowledge editing techniques in the future.