cs.LGOct 28, 2026

Latent Decision Flow Rewards for Clinical Guideline Reasoning

Authors: Gaurav Bhatt, Marinka Zitnik

Organizations: Harvard University

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines encode evidence-based recommendations as conditional decision flows, which makes them a natural source of process supervision for training reasoning models. Two properties of clinical reasoning make this supervision difficult to use. A decision flow consistent with a guideline does not by itself determine the correct answer for a given patient, which we call the path--answer gap, and several valid decision flows can support the same clinical decision, which we call path multiplicity. Current training approaches address parts of this problem. Answer rewards supervise the final decision, and process rewards computed against a reference flow supervise one valid decision flow per case. Supervised fine-tuning on annotated flows teaches guideline-consistent reasoning but constrains the model to one trajectory per case and can reduce answer accuracy. We introduce GUIDER, a method that jointly optimizes a decision flow controller and a reasoning policy. The controller learns to generate plausible decision flows from guideline-derived supervision, and the policy learns to generate a decision flow and a final answer for each patient case. GUIDER computes the process reward for the policy over several controller-generated flows, which accounts for path multiplicity, and gates this reward on answer correctness, which addresses the path--answer gap. Joint training allows the process supervision to evolve with the policy. On MedGUIDE, GUIDER with Qwen3-14B achieves 82.5 weighted accuracy and 73.5 guideline adherence, 3.3 and 3.1 points above the strongest clinical reinforcement learning baseline. With Qwen3-14B and Gemma4-12B backbones, GUIDER also improves over CRPO, MRPO, and FaithMed on the out-of-domain benchmarks AMEGA-LLM, RealMedQA, and CancerGUIDE.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables9 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

May 26, 2026

MedGuideX: Internalizing Decision Logic from Executable Guidelines into Large Language Models for Clinical Reasoning

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encode evidence-based decision logic that clinicians apply by evaluating patient variables, conditional criteria, and recommendation rules. However, existing methods often use CPGs as free-text training data or retrieval sources, underutilizing their procedural decision structure. To better exploit this structure, we introduce a guideline-derived training pipeline that transforms CPG recommendations into executable clinical decision logic and uses it to generate factual and counterfactual question-answering data. Theses data teach models both guideline-supported decisions and how decisions change under different patient conditions. Post-training a medical LLM on the generated data yields MedGuideX. Across four clinical reasoning benchmarks, MedGuideX achieves a 10.28% relative improvement in average accuracy. Physician evaluation further shows that MedGuideX better recovers clinician authored reasoning steps and produces physician-preferred rationales in faithfulness, validity, completeness, and clarity. Overall, our results show that executable decision logic from CPGs can be transformed into scalable supervision for building reliable medical LLMs.
Oct 11, 2026

More Reasoning Is Not Always Better: Executing Clinical Guidelines with LLMs and Rules

Large language models (LLMs) have shown considerable promise in clinical decision support. However, existing approaches often rely on multi-step reasoning or multi-agent collaboration to execute clinical guidelines, introducing substantial computational overhead without reliably preventing decision errors. To address these limitations, we propose a framework for Medical Decision Execution (MedDEx) that integrates structured patient states with deterministic rule execution to support guideline-based treatment planning. MedDEx separates clinical record interpretation from guideline execution, leveraging LLMs to extract patient information and generate treatment plans while assigning guideline-defined decision logic to a rule executor. Experiments across multiple clinical guideline benchmarks demonstrate that MedDEx improves decision accuracy while reducing inference costs. Further analyses highlight the critical roles of structured patient representations and deterministic rule execution, suggesting that additional LLM reasoning does not necessarily translate into better guideline adherence.
May 10, 2026

CLR-voyance: Reinforcing Open-Ended Reasoning for Inpatient Clinical Decision Support with Outcome-Aware Rubrics

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.