# Cite What You Explore: Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning over Medical KGs with Verifiable Evidence

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07739 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07739/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Clinical and biomedical applications, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 4 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Clinical and biomedical applications](https://mlsanity.com/lr/clinical-and-biomedical-applications/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Post-discharge risk prediction from electronic health records (EHRs) is difficult because many dependencies that link discharge-time observations to downstream complications, such as comorbidity cascades and drug-disease interactions, are absent from the record. External medical knowledge graphs (KGs) can supply these missing dependencies, but tracing them demands three properties: KG exploration must remain cost-bounded, retrieved evidence must be differentiated by source quality, and the resulting rationale must be citable for retrospective review. Large language models (LLMs) can plan and verify over structured evidence, making them natural candidates for KG reasoning, but existing LLM-based methods do not satisfy these three properties jointly. In this paper, we propose BAR, a Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning framework over medical KGs with three contributions. First, BAR refines the raw KG into disease-specific evidence graphs whose edges carry support scores and provenance records, turning the KG into a quality-annotated reasoning space rather than a static feature source. Second, an LLM then reasons over this graph through a plan-navigate-verify loop that decomposes the question into steps, retrieves evidence under a patient-specific budget, and revises when verification fails. Third, a reasoning policy is trained with a reward that compares predictions with and without acquired evidence, combined with acquisition cost and citation-integrity terms. Across 8 diseases and 3 prediction horizons on MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV, BAR improves AUPRC by 3.4 points over the strongest baseline, raises citation precision from 59.8% to 77.9%, and consumes only 62-65% of the budget cap.