CLR-voyance: Reinforcing Open-Ended Reasoning for Inpatient Clinical Decision Support with Outcome-Aware Rubrics
Authors: Aishik Nagar, Arun-Kumar Kaliya-Perumal, Yu-Hsuan Han, Andrew Sheng-Han Huang, Kristen Kee, Yushi Cao, Yiming Chen, Hongchao Jiang
Organizations: ASUS Intelligent Cloud Services (AICS) · Rehabilitation Research Institute of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University · Department of Family Medicine,2026 Taipei Veterans General Hospital · School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore
Abstract
Inpatient clinical reasoning is a sequential decision under partial observability: the clinician sees the admission so far and must choose the next action whose downstream consequences are not yet visible. Existing clinical-LLM evaluations and RL rewards signals collapse this into closed-form retrieval, clinical journey leakage, or unanchored LLM-as-judge scoring. We introduce CLR-voyance, a framework that reformulates inpatient reasoning as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) and supervises it with rewards that are simultaneously outcome-grounded and clinician-validated. We instantiate the formulation as CLR-POMDP, which partitions successful patient journeys into a policy-visible past and an oracle-only future. Using the past information, an oracle LLM generates a case-specific query-answer pair, and the first adaptive rubric for clinical reasoning which is verifiable in the future of the patient journey. These rubrics are used for both post-training and evaluation of models for inpatient clinical reasoning. We post-train Qwen3-8B and MedGemma-4B with GRPO followed by model merging, yielding state-of-the-art inpatient clinical reasoning while retaining generalist capabilities. CLR-voyance-8B achieves 84.91% on CLR-POMDP, ahead of frontier medical reasoning models like GPT-5 (77.83%) and MedGemma-27B (66.66%) and has comparable or better performance on existing medical benchmarks. To ensure a clinically meaningful setting, we conduct a large-scale clinician alignment study, where physicians curate per-case rubrics, grade candidate responses, and provide blinded pairwise preferences of model reasoning. This study provides insights on clinical LLM-as-a-judge and clinical preference-model selection, which can inform the community at large. CLR-voyance has been deployed for 6+ months at a partner public hospital, drafting thousands of reasoning-heavy inpatient notes.
Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare requires robust performance across two complementary dimensions - diagnostic reasoning: the convergent, evidence-driven task of inferring a patient's condition from clinical data to produce a diagnosis, and clinical healthcare reasoning: the broader, navigational judgment required to communicate, plan, and adapt across multi-turn clinical interactions where a single correct answer may not exist. Recent benchmarks such as HealthBench and MedXpertQA reveal persistent weaknesses in both areas, exposing failures in complex diagnostic scenarios and limitations in contextual, patient-centered dialogue. We introduce a sequential training framework that targets these facets using synthetic data and rubric-based reinforcement learning. First, we improve diagnostic reasoning using MedBullets-derived questions with rule- and rubric-guided Reinforcement Learning (RL). We then shift to clinical reasoning by generating 5.3k synthetic multi-turn scenarios, each paired with multi-dimensional rubrics to comprehensively assess the response. This approach yields over 10% improvement on MedXpertQA, and our 30B model achieves 50.1% accuracy on HealthBench-Hard, surpassing proprietary baselines including GPT-5 (thinking). Our results show that targeted synthetic datasets and rubric-based training can systematically improve both diagnostic and interactive clinical reasoning in medical LLMs.
Clinical practice is not the selection of an answer from enumerated options: a physician gathers heterogeneous information incrementally and commits to sequential, irreversible decisions under uncertainty. Static benchmarks cannot probe and existing interactive medical benchmarks each compromise on at least one of them. We present ClinEnv, an interactive benchmark that evaluates LLMs as attending physicians over real inpatient admissions under a paradigm we term Longitudinal Inpatient Simulation. Each case is automatically constructed into an ordered sequence of decision stages; at every stage the model must actively query four specialized agents before committing to medications, procedures, and diagnoses. ClinEnv scores both what the model decides, through deterministic ontology-grounded matching, and how it gathers information. Across seven models, the strongest reaches only 0.31 decision F1, and outcome quality is sharply decoupled from process quality. Difficulty concentrates in management decisions and later stages, where models recover discharge diagnoses far more reliably than management actions (0.51 vs. 0.17 F1) and continue to issue redundant queries as cases progress. ClinEnv makes this information-acquisition gap, invisible to outcome-only evaluation, directly measurable.
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably. A central risk is an evaluation illusion: fluent and well-structured explanations can appear clinically convincing even when the final diagnosis is incorrect. We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking. CLExEval combines 5,600 expert-physician annotations with 200 clinical reasoning traces derived from 40 rare diagnostic cases. Our analysis identifies three recurring failure patterns: (i) verbosity bias, where GPT-4o-mini's diagnostic accuracy drops from 95.0% to 32.5% under information scarcity; (ii) a hidden knowledge paradox, where a specialist model reaches 92.5% maximum diagnostic potential but fails to retrieve that knowledge reliably in verbose contexts; and (iii) a 68.6% reasoning-to-output mismatch, where correct diagnoses appear in reasoning traces but are not reflected in final answers. We further evaluate the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm on a human-verified failure set (n = 142). GPT-4o-mini approved 47.9% of clinically incorrect outputs, while HuatuoGPT-o1 approved all validly scored failures and showed a positive self-preference bias. These results suggest that standalone automated clinical evaluations can substantially overestimate clinical reliability without expert-grounded validation.