VeriDx: Earning the Right to Diagnose with Disease-Centric Verification

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.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct. Most existing verification'' signals are not diagnostic: answer matching observes only the outcome, LLM-as-judge provides subjective and non-verifiable critiques, and scalar rewards (e.g., PRMs/RMs) offer little insight into where a multi-step derivation fails.We propose \textbf{SymDiag}, a neuro-symbolic framework that \textbf{reframes reasoning verification as structured failure diagnosis}. SymDiag translates natural-language CoT into symbolic constraints and performs step-level satisfiability/entailment checks to (i) localize failing steps and (ii) produce verifiable diagnostic evidence, including counterexamples, inconsistency witnesses, and missing-premise indicators. A central challenge is that apparent logic violations'' can be caused either by genuine reasoning defects or by neural-to-symbolic translation noise. SymDiag therefore incorporates a Self-Auditor that disentangles TranslationError from ReasoningError via dual symbolic encodings consistency checks, enabling robust diagnosis under partial observability. Across diverse mathematical, logical, scientific, and general reasoning benchmarks, SymDiag improves detection of unfaithful reasoning and provides substantially more effective feedback for multi-round reasoning repair than outcome-only verification and LLM-based judging, offering a principled foundation for trustworthy and scalable reasoning diagnosis.

Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning. Here, we present AegisDx, a safety-oriented framework for hypothetico-deductive clinical reasoning. AegisDx coordinates specialized LLM components through role-specific contracts, structured intermediate outputs, evidence-retrieval interfaces, and verification gates to generate broad differential diagnoses, enforce explicit screening for dangerous "must-not-miss" conditions, verify reasoning against grounded medical evidence, and structure actionable next steps. We evaluated AegisDx across three layers. On literature-derived case reports from NEJM and JAMA, with GPT-oss-120B as the shared backbone, Top-3 diagnostic accuracy was 59.9% versus 52.1% for the standalone LLM on JAMA cases and 62.7% versus 51.4% on NEJM cases. On cases from Annals of Emergency Medicine, Top-3 accuracy was 85.7% versus 68.6%; against physician-consensus must-not-miss diagnosis sets, AegisDx captured at least one such condition among its top three diagnoses in 78.0% of cases versus 52.0%. In a blinded physician evaluation of 43 real-world emergency department notes from the Yale New Haven Health System compared against GPT-5, AegisDx improved the physician-rated composite safety score from 4.31 to 4.55 on a 5-point scale (adjusted p = 2.1x10^-4), with qualitative gains in must-not-miss identification and reasoning safety. Our findings suggest that engineering diagnostic AI as a safety-oriented reasoning framework, rather than optimizing raw predictive accuracy alone, can provide a safer, more transparent, and clinically meaningful layer of bedside decision support for acute care workflows.