Clinical decision-making requires reasoning over incomplete, imprecise, and linguistically expressed patient narratives. While large language models (LLMs) excel at extracting latent information from natural language, they lack the verifiability and interpretability essential for trustworthy medical AI. We propose a neuro-symbolic reasoning framework that aligns LLMs with formal logic to enable explainable and formally verifiable medical diagnosis. Patient descriptions and clinical guidelines are embedded into a neural knowledge base, where LLMs extract structured medical entities, temporal relations, and fuzzy symptom patterns, which are decoded into a symbolic knowledge base expressed in fuzzy logic and declarative rules. We perform two-stage reasoning: (1) inductive symbolic generalization to capture diagnostic patterns from encoded narratives, and (2) inference verification via a logic programming engine to derive and validate diagnoses consistent with clinical standards. Each symptom is treated as a fuzzy predicate with probabilistic weights, and inference paths are auditable, adjustable, and compatible with physician feedback. Unlike purely statistical methods, our system supports iterative refinement: misalignment between LLM-generated diagnoses and ground truth can be traced, explained, and corrected through formal rules. By combining logic-based transparency, LLM adaptability, and probabilistic robustness, the framework enables human-aligned healthcare inference with strong generalization and verifiable, step-by-step reasoning chains. We validate our framework on public benchmarks, demonstrating effective reconciliation of symbolic reasoning and LLMs with real-world clinical narratives. Results show performance comparable to state-of-the-art LLMs, while additionally providing interpretable reasoning paths and formally verifiable diagnostic conclusions.
Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical diagnosis, but real-world deployment remains challenging due to high-stakes clinical decisions and imperfect reasoning reliability. As a result, careful inspection of model behavior is essential for assessing whether diagnostic reasoning is reliable and clinically grounded. However, debugging medical LLMs remains difficult. First, developers often lack sufficient medical domain expertise to interpret model errors in clinically meaningful terms. Second, models can fail across a large and diverse set of instances involving different input types, tasks, and reasoning steps, making it challenging for developers to prioritize which errors deserve focused inspection. Third, developers struggle to identify recurring error patterns across cases, as existing debugging practices are largely instance-centric and rely on manual inspection of isolated failures. To address these challenges, we present VeriLLMed, a visual analytics system that integrates external biomedical knowledge to audit and debug medical LLM diagnostic reasoning. VeriLLMed transforms model outputs into comparable reasoning paths, constructs knowledge graph-grounded reference paths, and identifies three recurring classes of diagnosis errors: relation errors, branch errors, and missing errors. Case studies and expert evaluation demonstrate that VeriLLMed helps developers identify clinically implausible reasoning and generate actionable insights that can inform the improvement of medical LLMs.
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.
Recent reasoning-centric Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides, yet they predominantly operate on a passive-inference pattern that assumes complete information. In contrast, real-world clinical intelligence is inherently an iterative investigative process requiring strategic evidence acquisition. To bridge this gap, we formalize medical diagnosis as an Iterative Evidence-Seeking Task. We leverage Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to elicit intrinsic reasoning within a closed-loop environment, guided by a novel suite of rewards that enforce diagnostic precision and examination consistency. To facilitate this, we introduce the Retrieval-Augmented Generation-based Examination Simulator (RAGES), a high-fidelity clinical oracle that provides realistic, knowledge-grounded follow-up evidence. Empirical results across diverse datasets demonstrate that our framework enables LLMs to transition from passive responders to autonomous assistants. Notably, our model demonstrates comparable performance to larger and reasoning-enhanced baselines, while RAGES proves superior to vanilla LLMs in generating biologically plausible clinical feedback.