Medical multimodal reasoning models are typically trained on teacher-generated rationales, discarding the valid reasoning in students' own failed trajectories, while general-domain correction methods offer little guidance for errors in image reading, anatomical context, or differential diagnosis. We propose MedEvo, which uses medical knowledge, namely a tag taxonomy and error-type diagnosis, to navigate both trajectory repair and data selection. For each failed rollout, a gold-blind auditor locates the first consequential error and provides a minimal, answer-free hint; the same student retains the valid prefix and regenerates the erroneous suffix. After each round, MedEvo identifies capability gaps across medical tags on a held-out feedback set and prioritizes related questions for new rollouts and repairs. With supervised fine-tuning (SFT) alone, MedEvo raises Qwen3.5-9B mean accuracy across seven benchmarks from 65.57% to 69.12% (47.40% to 54.50% on the multimodal track of MedXpertQA (MedXpertQA-MM)), surpassing teacher-distillation SFT (66.93%). It also raises Qwen3.5-35B and Qwen3.5-397B mean accuracy from 67.91% to 73.04% and from 71.83% to 74.95%, respectively. Our analyses show that failed trajectories contain reasoning worth preserving, that repair success does not imply learning value, and that independent feedback is key to sustained improvement.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Medical multimodal reasoning across model scales. Mean accuracy on seven benchmarks. MedEvo improves 9B/35B/397B Qwen3.5 models. B: billion parameters; Hindsight Hint Distillation (HHD) [ 57 ] .
Figure 2: Local trajectory repair. A minimal, answer-blind hint guides the student to recover from a failed reasoning step while retaining its supported prefix. Localization and admission checks are detailed in § 3.2.1 and § 3.2.4 .
Figure 3: Medical multimodal data. Top: modality and difficulty; bottom: examples. Electrocardiogram (ECG); magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP); positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Examples include both anatomical images and physiological recordings.
Figure 4: Knowledge Navigation in MedEvo. (a) Medical tags organize questions. (b) The current student generates fresh rollouts. (c) Knowledge-guided trajectory navigation localizes errors and provides recovery hints through a gold-blind auditor; the student preserves the valid prefix and regenerates the suffix. (d) Admitted trajectories update the training set, retaining valid historical targets; the next model trains from M0 . (e) Fixed-set feedback guides question selection for the next round.
Round-wise accuracy
Paired bootstrap
Benchmark
R0
R1
R2
R3
Δ (R3–R0)
95% CI
PMC-VQA
59.20
59.54 ↑
60.97 ↑
62.68 ↑
+3.48
[+1.9, +5.1]
VQA-RAD
68.10
68.47 ↑
68.06 ↓
70.40 ↑
+2.30
[+0.8, +3.8]
SLAKE
76.80
76.92 ↑
77.34 ↑
78.23 ↑
+1.43
[+0.2, +2.7]
PathVQA
48.80
52.38 ↑
51.27 ↓
53.34 ↑
+4.54
[+2.6, +6.5]
OmniMedVQA
82.20
80.81 ↓
81.58 ↑
85.41 ↑
+3.21
[+1.5, +4.9]
Table 3: Evolution and statistical uncertainty (Qwen3.5-9B). Left: accuracy (%) across rounds, each trained from Base (R0). Right: absolute gain R3 − R0 and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) (10,000 paired question resamples). The mean CI resamples each benchmark independently before averaging. All gain CIs exclude zero. Arrows compare consecutive rounds; MedXQA annotations give absolute changes. Bold/underline: best/second-best per row.
35B
397B
Benchmark
R0
R1
R2
R3
R0
R1
R2
PMC-VQA
62.40
63.12 ↑
60.33 ↓
64.63 ↑
63.47
64.87 ↑
65.72 ↑
VQA-RAD
70.50
62.08 ↓
70.91 ↑
75.83 ↑
74.72
76.05 ↑
77.15 ↑
SLAKE
70.10
78.14 ↑
79.18 ↑
80.30 ↑
77.38
78.89 ↑
79.10 ↑
PathVQA
49.15
52.71 ↑
50.87 ↓
56.01 ↑
52.49
58.51 ↑
57.90 ↓
OmniMedVQA
83.20
85.39 ↑
85.22 ↓
83.97 ↓
85.10
85.15 ↑
85.05 ↓
Table 6: Scaling to larger models. Accuracy (%) for Qwen3.5-35B (left) and Qwen3.5-397B (right). Every round trains from Base (R0). Avg.: seven-benchmark mean. Arrows compare consecutive rounds; MedXQA annotations give absolute changes. Bold/underline: best/second-best within each model scale and benchmark.
Figure 5: Selection, hints, and feedback (Qwen3.5-9B). (a) Longest-8k versus random-8k questions: lower repair success can yield higher downstream accuracy. (b) Hint-count ablation uses the same longest-8k subset and run configuration as (a), with five continuation attempts; k=1 reproduces its 66.78% single-hint baseline. Three hints perform best. (c,d) Training accuracy and seven-benchmark mean with training-error or fixed-set feedback. Feedback: 5,000 held-out questions.
Figure 6: Scale, uncertainty, and difficulty. (a) Mean accuracy after R3 for 9B/35B and R2 for 397B. (b) Repair acceptance with/without entropy localization; pointwise 95% Wilson intervals use 45,000 attempts per setting. (c) Error rates and step counts by min–max-normalized step-entropy bin; the diagonal is y=100x . (d) Accuracy on a modality-stratified 2,000-question subset of the feedback set; counts use the right axis. Heuristic is a training-free HHD-inspired hint-recovery baseline (Appendix 8.6 ).
Agreement
Error family
Audit criterion
Pass (%)
κ
95% CI
V
R
D
K
Original trajectory erroneous
95.5
0.90
[0.83, 0.97]
96
96
94
96
Valid repair boundary
84.5
0.85
[0.66, 0.88]
88
84
82
84
No answer leakage in hint
97.2
0.94
[0.87, 1.00]
96
100
96
97
Image-grounded repaired reasoning
78.5
0.70
[0.58, 0.82]
76
80
76
82
Correct repaired answer
88.3
0.89
[0.81, 0.97]
88
89
88
88
Table 7: Human audit of repaired trajectories. Adjudicated binary pass rates (%) and pre-adjudication Cohen's κ . The 95% bootstrap CIs are for κ , resampling trajectories with the two independent ratings paired. V/R/D/K: visual, reasoning, differential-diagnosis, and knowledge errors. Repaired-output checks are shaded blue.
Resource
Size
Role
Training bank
81,293 questions
Source of original correct rollouts, accepted repairs, and retained valid targets.
Fixed feedback set
5,000 questions
Medical capability diagnosis and subsequent data selection; excluded from training.
Final evaluation
7 benchmarks
Independent downstream accuracy reporting.
Table 8: Dataset roles and sizes. Test coverage is counted in benchmarks.
Figure 7: Error-subtype evolution (Qwen3.5-9B). Bar heights normalize each subtype rate by R0; labels show original percentages. Arrows and multipliers compare R3 with R0. Family ratios divide summed R3 rates by summed R0 rates. Horizontal R1–R5 codes identify reasoning-error subtypes; legend R0–R3 labels identify training rounds.
Table 12
Subtype
R0
R1
R2
R3
V1 Missed key finding
3.12
2.95
↓
2.36
↓
2.12
↓
V2 Spurious finding
2.87
2.82
↓
2.28
↓
2.05
↓
V3 Location / laterality
2.65
2.68
↑
2.20
↓
1.98
↓
V4 Sequence / phase
2.91
2.74
↓
2.32
↓
2.08
↓
V5 Cross-image alignment
2.55
2.60
↑
2.24
↓
2.00
↓
R1 Omitted evidence
2.88
2.55
↓
2.16
↓
1.95
↓
Table 11: Error-subtype rates (%). Visual/reasoning subtypes are on the left; differential/knowledge subtypes on the right. R1–R5 are reasoning-error codes. Arrows compare consecutive rounds: blue ↓ /red ↑ /gray = indicate lower/higher/unchanged rates. Bold/underline: two lowest distinct rates per row; blue shading: R3.
Error family
R1
R2
R3
Attempted
Successful
Success (%)
Attempted
Successful
Success (%)
Attempted
Successful
Success (%)
Visual misreading
12,189
9,826
80.61
10,245 ↓
6,789 ↓
66.27 ↓
10,478 ↑
7,094 ↑
67.70 ↑
Reasoning error
9,355
5,279
56.43
7,857 ↓
6,246 ↑
79.50 ↑
6,789 ↓
5,647 ↓
83.18 ↑
Differential error
4,064
2,995
73.70
6,742 ↑
4,673 ↑
69.31 ↓
4,786 ↓
3,291 ↓
68.76 ↓
Knowledge gap
1,625
1,467
90.28
987 ↓
550 ↓
55.72 ↓
1,567 ↑
765 ↑
48.82 ↓
Table 12: Repair outcomes by error family. Attempted and successful question counts, and repair success rates (%). Gray arrows track counts; blue/red arrows mark rising/falling success rates. Bold/underline: best/second-best rates per family; blue shading: R3.
Configuration
Value
Configuration
Value
Framework
ms-swift + Megatron-LM backend
add_non_thinking_prefix
true
Precision
BF16
loss_scale
ignore_empty_think
micro_batch_size
1
MAX_PIXELS
3145728
global_batch_size
64
dataset_num_proc
96
packing
true
dataloader_num_workers
8
attention_backend
flash
logging_steps
1
Table 13: MoE training configuration. Recorded settings for model training.
Recent multimodal large language models have shown great promise in clinical image reasoning, but existing post-training pipelines remain predominantly outcome-centric, relying on final answer correctness or sequence-level preferences. This suffers from sparse credit assignment, making it difficult to optimize the reasoning process essential for clinical applications. Our analysis reveals that cascading errors from early-stage reasoning failures are a leading cause of incorrect predictions in medical visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks. Motivated by this, we propose Medical Reasoning-aware Policy Optimization (MRPO), an RL algorithm that incorporates step-wise process rewards. When the final answer is incorrect, MRPO assigns exponentially larger penalties to tokens in earlier invalid reasoning steps, breaking failure cascades without compromising successful paths. Across four multimodal LLM backbones, MRPO consistently outperforms standard GRPO and a recent RL baseline, and on Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking even surpasses substantially larger medical MLLMs such as HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B by 4.59 points. Moreover, MRPO reduces early-stage reasoning failures from 58.6% to 13.4%, showing that targeted mitigation of cascading failures improves both reasoning quality and final answer accuracy. Our code is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/MRPO
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical question answering and clinical reasoning, yet their improvement remains constrained by static parametric knowledge and costly expert supervision. Self-evolving agents offer a promising alternative by enabling models to improve through iterative task generation and problem-solving. However, most existing self-evolving methods are designed for easily verifiable domains such as mathematics and coding, where solutions can be checked by exact answers or executable programs. Medical reasoning is fundamentally different: it is open-ended, knowledge-intensive, and often only partially verifiable. We present MedZERO, a self-evolving framework for open-ended medical reasoning. MedZERO couples an Examiner that generates frontier medical question-option pairs with a Reasoner that solves them through evidence-grounded multi-turn reasoning with external knowledge tools. To support reliable, continual improvement, MedZERO adopts controlled knowledge accumulation, which maintains temporary exploratory knowledge and curated persistent knowledge in reasoning. We evaluate MedZERO on five public medical reasoning benchmarks using 4B- and 8B-scale base models under open-ended evaluation. At both model scales, MedZERO achieves the highest average accuracy among the evaluated methods, with gains of up to 13.7 percentage points over the next-best self-evolving baseline. Code available at https://github.com/IcecreamArtist/MedZERO.
Xilin Dang, Weilin Ruan, Xue Yang +4
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Department of Hematology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University · School of Future Technology, South China University of Technology +1
Despite recent progress, the reasoning capabilities of large multimodal language models (MLLMs) remain fundamentally constrained by static supervision, where fixed prompts, rules, or reward models provide non-adaptive guidance throughout training. Such static signals are often sufficient to enforce output formats, but fail to shape the underlying reasoning process, leading to brittle generalization and performance saturation in complex decision-making tasks. We propose Evo-PI, a principle-centric learning framework that treats reasoning principles as explicit, language-based supervision signals that can be generated, evaluated, and iteratively evolved. Instead of relying on fixed rewards, Evo-PI enables a co-evolutionary loop in which principles guide model reasoning, while model behaviors in turn refine the principles that supervise them. This dynamic alignment mechanism allows supervision to progressively adapt to the model's reasoning deficiencies. We instantiate Evo-PI in medical visual question answering as a high-stakes testbed requiring structured visual-textual reasoning. Across eight benchmarks and multiple model backbones, Evo-PI consistently improves reasoning accuracy, achieving gains of up to 24.6%. Our results suggest that evolving principle-guided supervision offers a scalable and general paradigm for training expert-aligned reasoning in MLLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/zhengxianda/Evo_PI.
Xianda Zheng, Huan Gao, Meng-Fen Chiang +3
School of Computer Science, University of Auckland · Sapiens · National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University +3