pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27872 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.AI

Modeling Clinical Concern Trajectories in Language Model Agents

Sukesh Subaharan , Venkatesan VS , Murugadasan P , Sivakumar D , Gautham N , Ganeshkumar M This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords LLM agentsclinical concernstate dynamicsescalation trajectorieshuman-in-the-loopsynthetic scenariosrisk encoder
0
0 comments X

The pith

Integrating second-order dynamics into LLM agents produces smooth, anticipatory clinical concern trajectories instead of abrupt escalations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Large language model agents in clinical settings typically escalate abruptly once risk thresholds are met, providing little insight into building concerns beforehand. This paper proposes integrating a memoryless risk encoder with continuous first- and second-order dynamics to generate ongoing escalation pressure signals. In tests with synthetic ward scenarios, the dynamic approach yields gradual trajectories that highlight rising unease prior to any escalation, while stateless versions show sharp jumps. Such visibility could allow clinicians to monitor and intervene more effectively without ceding authority to the AI. The work focuses on making agent behavior more legible to human oversight in healthcare contexts.

Core claim

Across synthetic ward scenarios, stateless agents exhibit sharp escalation cliffs, while second-order dynamics produce smooth, anticipatory concern trajectories despite similar escalation timing. These trajectories surface sustained unease prior to escalation, enabling human-in-the-loop monitoring and more informed intervention. Explicit state dynamics can make LLM agents more clinically legible by revealing how long concern has been rising, not just when thresholds are crossed.

What carries the argument

Lightweight agent architecture in which a memoryless clinical risk encoder is integrated over time using first- and second-order dynamics to produce a continuous escalation pressure signal.

If this is right

  • Reveals pre-escalation signals of accumulating clinical concern for better visibility.
  • Preserves similar escalation timing as stateless agents but with smoother paths.
  • Supports human-in-the-loop monitoring without delegating clinical authority to the agent.
  • Highlights the duration of rising concern rather than only the moment of threshold crossing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying these dynamics to real-world clinical data streams could reveal whether the smooth trajectories hold beyond synthetic wards.
  • The method might extend to other sequential decision tasks where gradual risk buildup is key, such as monitoring equipment failures.
  • Future integrations with longer context windows could amplify the anticipatory benefits for extended patient stays.

Load-bearing premise

Synthetic ward scenarios accurately capture the gradual accumulation of clinical concern, and a memoryless risk encoder can be integrated with continuous dynamics without introducing artifacts not seen in real patient data.

What would settle it

If experiments on actual clinical datasets show that second-order dynamic agents do not produce distinguishable smooth pre-escalation trajectories compared to stateless ones, the central claim would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27872 by Ganeshkumar M, Gautham N, Murugadasan P, Sivakumar D, Sukesh Subaharan, Venkatesan VS.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative escalation pressure trajectories (𝐸𝑡 ) for stateless, first-order, and second-order agents under noisy longitudinal deterioration (abrupt and slow deterioration) and stable. While instantaneous differences are modest, second-order hysteretic dynamics exhibit smoother accumulation and reduced backtracking of escalation pressure, visible as fewer sharp inflections when trajectories are viewed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Unease Lead Time (ULT), measuring the delay between initial elevation of escalation pressure and escalation. Differences are shown for completeness; escalation timing itself is not a primary outcome of this study. Error bars denote mean ± standard deviation. 3.3 Summary Across Metrics view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Unease Area (UA, cumulative escalation pressure prior to escalation or over the full trajectory) across agent variants. First-order dynamics exhibit the largest accumulated unease, consistent with sustained concern that attenuates slowly. Second-order dynamics reduce cumulative unease relative to first-order integration while maintaining smooth accumulation. Error bars denote mean ± standard deviation. 3.5… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Escalation Jerk (EJ), defined as the maximum absolute change in escalation pressure between consecutive timesteps, across agent variants. Stateless agents exhibit the highest jerk, indicating abrupt reactive changes. Both stateful agents reduce jerk relative to the stateless baseline: first-order dynamics yield the lowest mean EJ, while second-order hysteretic dynamics show intermediate jerk with higher va… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents deployed in clinical settings often exhibit abrupt, threshold-driven behavior, offering little visibility into accumulating risk prior to escalation. In real-world care, however, clinicians act on gradually rising concern rather than instantaneous triggers. We study whether explicit state dynamics can expose such pre-escalation signals without delegating clinical authority to the agent. We introduce a lightweight agent architecture in which a memoryless clinical risk encoder is integrated over time using first- and second-order dynamics to produce a continuous escalation pressure signal. Across synthetic ward scenarios, stateless agents exhibit sharp escalation cliffs, while second-order dynamics produce smooth, anticipatory concern trajectories despite similar escalation timing. These trajectories surface sustained unease prior to escalation, enabling human-in-the-loop monitoring and more informed intervention. Our results suggest that explicit state dynamics can make LLM agents more clinically legible by revealing how long concern has been rising, not just when thresholds are crossed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes integrating a memoryless clinical risk encoder with first- and second-order dynamics in LLM agents to generate a continuous escalation pressure signal. In synthetic ward scenarios, it claims that stateless (memoryless) agents produce abrupt escalation cliffs, whereas the dynamical integration yields smooth, anticipatory concern trajectories with comparable escalation timing. This is presented as improving clinical legibility for human oversight without transferring decision authority to the agent.

Significance. If the synthetic comparison holds under a fully specified implementation, the work offers a lightweight architectural pattern for exposing pre-escalation dynamics in clinical LLM agents. The explicit separation of a stateless risk encoder from continuous state integration avoids circularity and provides a concrete, falsifiable distinction between threshold-driven and trajectory-based behavior. This could inform human-in-the-loop monitoring designs, though the result remains confined to synthetic data and does not claim improved real-world outcomes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Architecture / Methods] The manuscript describes first- and second-order dynamics for integrating the risk encoder output but supplies no differential equations, discrete update rules, or integration time constants (e.g., in the architecture section). Without these definitions, the claimed 'continuous escalation pressure signal' and the distinction between first- and second-order effects cannot be reproduced or verified.
  2. [Experiments / Results] No quantitative metrics, error bars, or statistical comparisons are reported for the trajectory shapes across scenarios (e.g., slope, curvature, time-to-escalation variance, or area under the concern curve). The central observational claim of 'sharp cliffs' versus 'smooth, anticipatory' trajectories therefore rests on qualitative description alone.
  3. [Experimental Setup] The construction of the synthetic ward scenarios and the precise mapping from scenario events to risk-encoder outputs is not detailed. This leaves open whether the gradual accumulation of concern is an emergent property of the dynamics or an artifact of how the scenarios and encoder were hand-crafted.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract and introduction use 'second-order dynamics' and 'escalation pressure signal' without an accompanying figure or equation reference that would allow readers to visualize the claimed smoothness.
  2. [Results] Clarify whether the reported 'similar escalation timing' is measured by a specific threshold-crossing rule or by human judgment; a precise definition would strengthen the comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important gaps in reproducibility and quantitative rigor that we agree require attention. We respond to each major comment below and commit to incorporating the requested details and analyses in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Architecture / Methods] The manuscript describes first- and second-order dynamics for integrating the risk encoder output but supplies no differential equations, discrete update rules, or integration time constants (e.g., in the architecture section). Without these definitions, the claimed 'continuous escalation pressure signal' and the distinction between first- and second-order effects cannot be reproduced or verified.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit mathematical formulations were omitted and that this prevents independent verification. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection under Methods that states the continuous-time differential equations for both the first-order integrator (dC/dt = −C/τ + r(t)) and the second-order system (d²C/dt² + 2ζω dC/dt + ω²C = r(t)), together with the exact discrete-time Euler updates, the fixed integration time step, and the concrete parameter values (τ, ζ, ω) used to generate the reported trajectories. These additions will make the claimed distinction between stateless threshold behavior and smooth anticipatory dynamics fully reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments / Results] No quantitative metrics, error bars, or statistical comparisons are reported for the trajectory shapes across scenarios (e.g., slope, curvature, time-to-escalation variance, or area under the concern curve). The central observational claim of 'sharp cliffs' versus 'smooth, anticipatory' trajectories therefore rests on qualitative description alone.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the present results rest on visual inspection alone. We will revise the Results section to include quantitative descriptors of trajectory shape: mean slope, maximum curvature, time-to-escalation variance across repeated runs, and area under the concern curve. We will also report error bars obtained from multiple independent simulations with different random seeds and will perform statistical comparisons (Welch t-tests) between the stateless and dynamical conditions to substantiate the claimed differences in smoothness and anticipatory behavior. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experimental Setup] The construction of the synthetic ward scenarios and the precise mapping from scenario events to risk-encoder outputs is not detailed. This leaves open whether the gradual accumulation of concern is an emergent property of the dynamics or an artifact of how the scenarios and encoder were hand-crafted.

    Authors: We accept that the current description of the synthetic scenarios is insufficient to rule out hand-crafting artifacts. In the revision we will expand the Experimental Setup section with complete scenario timelines, the full prompt templates supplied to the risk encoder, and the deterministic mapping from each clinical event to the encoder’s scalar risk output. We will further clarify that the encoder is strictly stateless and will add a brief ablation showing that the same event sequences produce abrupt jumps when passed through the stateless agent but smooth trajectories only after dynamical integration, thereby demonstrating that the observed smoothness is generated by the state dynamics rather than by the scenario design. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between a stateless (memoryless) risk encoder and the same encoder integrated via explicit first- and second-order dynamical equations to generate a continuous escalation pressure signal. This architectural distinction directly produces the observed difference in trajectory shape (sharp cliffs vs. smooth anticipatory curves) on synthetic ward scenarios, without any parameter fitting, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation that reduces the output to the input. The escalation timing similarity and pre-escalation visibility are emergent from the integration rules themselves, which are stated independently of the final clinical decision. No equations or claims in the manuscript reduce by construction to a renaming, refit, or prior self-citation of the target result; the derivation remains self-contained within the described synthetic experiments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The approach rests on the assumption that discrete LLM risk outputs can be treated as continuous signals amenable to differential integration, plus standard numerical integration methods. No free parameters are explicitly named, but time constants for the dynamics are implicitly required. The escalation pressure signal is a new constructed quantity without external validation.

free parameters (1)
  • integration time constants
    Parameters controlling the rate of first- and second-order smoothing must be chosen or fitted to produce desired trajectory smoothness.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A memoryless clinical risk encoder output can be integrated using first- and second-order differential equations to model accumulating concern
    Invoked when the paper states that dynamics are integrated over the encoder to produce the continuous signal.
invented entities (1)
  • continuous escalation pressure signal no independent evidence
    purpose: To expose sustained pre-escalation unease through smooth trajectories
    New derived quantity whose only evidence is the synthetic comparison described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1389 out tokens · 53523 ms · 2026-05-07T07:36:35.454131+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Privacy-Preserving Clinical Decision Support for Emergency Triage Using LLMs: System Architecture and Real-World Evaluation

    Karamanlıoğlu A, Demirel B, Tural O, Doğan OT, Alpaslan FN. Privacy-Preserving Clinical Decision Support for Emergency Triage Using LLMs: System Architecture and Real-World Evaluation. Applied Sciences. 2025;15(15):8412

    2025

  2. [2]

    A large language model-based clinical decision support system for syncope recognition in the emergency department: A framework for clinical workflow integration

    Levra AG, Gatti M, Mene R, Shiffer D. A large language model-based clinical decision support system for syncope recognition in the emergency department: A framework for clinical workflow integration. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    A Demonstration of Adaptive Collaboration of Large Language Models for Medical Decision-Making

    Kim Y , Park C, Jeong H, Grau-Vilchez C, Chan YS. A Demonstration of Adaptive Collaboration of Large Language Models for Medical Decision-Making. arXiv. 2024;2411.00248

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Adaptive Reasoning and Acting in Medical Language Agents

    Dutta A, Hsiao YC. Adaptive Reasoning and Acting in Medical Language Agents. arXiv. 2024;2410.10020

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    ArgMed-Agents: Explainable Clinical Decision Reasoning with LLM Discussion via Argumentation Schemes

    Hong S, Liang X, Zhang X, Chen J. ArgMed-Agents: Explainable Clinical Decision Reasoning with LLM Discussion via Argumentation Schemes. Proceedings of IEEE BIBM. 2024:10822109

    2024

  6. [6]

    Iqbal FM, Joshi M, Fox R, et al. Outcomes of Vital Sign Monitoring of an Acute Surgical Cohort With Wearable Sensors and Digital Alerting Systems: A Pragmatically Designed Cohort Study and Propensity-Matched Analysis. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2022;10:895973

    2022

  7. [7]

    Posthuma LM, Breteler MJM, Lirk PB, Nieveen van Dijkum EJ, Visscher M. Surveillance of high-risk early postsurgical patients for real-time detection of complications using wireless monitoring (SHEPHERD study): results of a randomized multicenter stepped wedge cluster trial. Frontiers in Medicine. 2024;10:1295499

    2024

  8. [8]

    Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring at the Surgical Ward for Improved Outcomes After Major Noncardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Molgaard J, Grønbæk KK, Rasmussen SS, Eiberg JP, Jørgensen LN. Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring at the Surgical Ward for Improved Outcomes After Major Noncardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2025;141(6):1114-1124

    2025

  9. [9]

    A Remote Surveillance Platform to Monitor General Care Ward Surgical Patients for Acute Physiologic Deterioration

    Safavi KC, Deng H, Driscoll W, et al. A Remote Surveillance Platform to Monitor General Care Ward Surgical Patients for Acute Physiologic Deterioration. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2021;133(4):1075-1083

    2021

  10. [10]

    Syan J, Joshi M, Beard JB, et al. A Single-Centre, Open-label, Randomised Controlled Trial with Mixed Methods Evaluation of Continuous Ambulatory Vital Signs Monitoring on Clinical Outcomes, Implementation, and Staff and Patient Experiences in Adult Postoperative Patients on General Surgical Wards (Ward-AMS Study). JMIR Preprints. 2025;81558

    2025

  11. [11]

    Evaluating the impact of an explainable machine learning system on the interobserver agreement in chest radiograph interpretation

    Pham HH, Nguyen HQ, Nguyen HT, Le LT, Lam K. Evaluating the impact of an explainable machine learning system on the interobserver agreement in chest radiograph interpretation. arXiv. 2023;2304.01220

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Personalized and Reliable Decision Sets: Enhancing Interpretability in Clinical Decision Support Systems

    Valente F, Paredes S, Henriques J. Personalized and Reliable Decision Sets: Enhancing Interpretability in Clinical Decision Support Systems. arXiv. 2021;2107.07346

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    A New Deep State-Space Analysis Framework for Patient Latent State Estimation and Classification from EHR Time Series Data

    Nakamura A, Kojima R, Okamoto Y , Uchino E, Mineharu Y . A New Deep State-Space Analysis Framework for Patient Latent State Estimation and Classification from EHR Time Series Data. arXiv. 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Unifying cardiovascular modelling with deep reinforcement learning for uncertainty aware control of sepsis treatment

    Thieme A, Patel M, Starr C, et al. Unifying cardiovascular modelling with deep reinforcement learning for uncertainty aware control of sepsis treatment. PLOS Digital Health. 2022;1(2):e0000012

    2022

  15. [15]

    Sequential decision making for a class of hidden Markov processes: application to medical treatment optimization

    Bastani H, Bayati M, Khosravi K. Sequential decision making for a class of hidden Markov processes: application to medical treatment optimization. arXiv. 2022

    2022

  16. [16]

    Controlling Long-Horizon Behavior in Language Model Agents with Explicit State Dynamics

    Subaharan S. Controlling Long-Horizon Behavior in Language Model Agents with Explicit State Dynamics. arXiv. 2026;2601.16087

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Optimal Mean Arterial Pressure Within 24 Hours of Admission for Patients With Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

    Chen J, Lin J, Wu D, Guo X, Li X, Shi S. Optimal Mean Arterial Pressure Within 24 Hours of Admission for Patients With Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2020 Jan-Dec;26:1076029620933944. doi: 10.1177/1076029620933944. PMID: 32551849; PMCID: PMC7427015

    work page doi:10.1177/1076029620933944 2020

  18. [18]

    Majumdar, Dean T

    Sumit R. Majumdar, Dean T. Eurich, John-Michael Gamble, A. Senthilselvan, Thomas J. Marrie, Oxygen Saturations Less than 92% Are Associated with Major Adverse Events in Outpatients with Pneumonia: A Population-Based Cohort Study, Clinical Infectious Diseases, V olume 52, Issue 3, 1 February 2011, Pages 325–331, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq076

    work page doi:10.1093/cid/ciq076 2011

  19. [19]

    Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis - 3)

    Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis - 3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762–774. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288

    work page doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288 2016

  20. [20]

    Fever of Unknown Origin

    Brown I, Finnigan NA. Fever of Unknown Origin. [Updated 2023 Aug 14]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan -. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532265/

    2023

  21. [21]

    DeepSeek [Internet]

    DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek [Internet]. Hangzhou, China: Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd.; 2025 [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.deepseek.com/

    2025

  22. [22]

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115. 2024. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024