Pramana: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Epistemic Reasoning through Navya-Nyaya

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04937v1
• Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2026 23:45:29 GMT
• Title: Pramana: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Epistemic Reasoning through Navya-Nyaya
• Abstract summary: Large language models produce fluent text but struggle with systematic reasoning.<n>When Apple researchers added irrelevant context, LLM performance degraded by 65%.<n>This inability to ground claims in traceable evidence limits AI reliability in domains requiring justification.<n>We introduce fine-tuning on Pramana, a 2,500-year-old Indian reasoning framework.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models produce fluent text but struggle with systematic reasoning, often hallucinating confident but unfounded claims. When Apple researchers added irrelevant context to mathematical problems, LLM performance degraded by 65% Apple Machine Learning Research, exposing brittle pattern-matching beneath apparent reasoning. This epistemic gap, the inability to ground claims in traceable evidence, limits AI reliability in domains requiring justification. We introduce Pramana, a novel approach that teaches LLMs explicit epistemological methodology by fine-tuning on Navya-Nyaya logic, a 2,500-year-old Indian reasoning framework. Unlike generic chain-of-thought prompting, Navya-Nyaya enforces structured 6-phase reasoning: SAMSHAYA (doubt analysis), PRAMANA (evidence source identification), PANCHA AVAYAVA (5-member syllogism with universal rules), TARKA (counterfactual verification), HETVABHASA (fallacy detection), and NIRNAYA (ascertainment distinguishing knowledge from hypothesis). This integration of logic and epistemology provides cognitive scaffolding absent from standard reasoning approaches. We fine-tune Llama 3.2-3B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B on 55 Nyaya-structured logical problems (constraint satisfaction, Boolean SAT, multi-step deduction). Stage 1 achieves 100% semantic correctness on held-out evaluation despite only 40% strict format adherence revealing that models internalize reasoning content even when structural enforcement is imperfect. Ablation studies show format prompting and temperature critically affect performance, with optimal configurations differing by stage. We release all models, datasets, and training infrastructure on Hugging Face to enable further research on epistemic frameworks for AI reasoning.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Architectural Reasoning Capabilities of LLM Provers via the Obfuscated Natural Number Game [0.0]
  This paper identifies Architectural Reasoning as the necessary ability for future automated theorem discovery AI.<n>By renaming identifiers in the Natural Number Game in Lean 4, we created a zero-knowledge, closed environment.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art models, finding a universal latency tax where obfuscation increases inference time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T14:03:05Z)
• Pause or Fabricate? Training Language Models for Grounded Reasoning [50.104657152302956]
  We propose Grounded Reasoning via Interactive Reinforcement Learning (GRIL) for grounded reasoning under incomplete information.<n>GRIL decomposes the reasoning process into two stages: clarify and pause, which identifies whether the available information is sufficient, and grounded reasoning, which performs task solving once the necessary premises are established.<n>Experiments on GSM8K-Insufficient and MetaMATH-Insufficient show that GRIL significantly improves premise detection (up to 45%), leading to a 30% increase in task success while reducing average response length by over 20%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T16:45:29Z)
• Don't Judge a Book by its Cover: Testing LLMs' Robustness Under Logical Obfuscation [3.9997332571742934]
  We present LogiQAte, a first-of-its-kind diagnostic benchmark with 1,108 questions across four reasoning tasks.<n>We find that obfuscation severely degrades zero-shot performance, with performance dropping on average by 47% for GPT-4o, 27% for GPT-5, and 22% for reasoning model, o4-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T10:04:22Z)
• Training LLMs with LogicReward for Faithful and Rigorous Reasoning [75.30425553246177]
  We propose LogicReward, a reward system that guides model training by enforcing step-level logical correctness with a theorem prover.<n>An 8B model trained on data constructed with LogicReward surpasses GPT-4o and o4-mini by 11.6% and 2% on natural language inference and logical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-20T03:43:02Z)
• Addressing Logical Fallacies In Scientific Reasoning From Large Language Models: Towards a Dual-Inference Training Framework [0.13854111346209866]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing and hold growing promise for advancing science, healthcare, and decision-making.<n>This paper makes two contributions. First, it demonstrates how existing LLMs from major platforms exhibit systematic weaknesses when reasoning in scientific domains with negation, counterexamples, or faulty premises.<n>Second, it introduces a dual-reasoning training framework that integrates affirmative generation with structured counterfactual denial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T19:50:39Z)
• ARCHE: A Novel Task to Evaluate LLMs on Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction [70.53044880892196]
  We introduce a novel task named Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction (ARCHE), in which models must decompose complex reasoning arguments into combinations of standard reasoning paradigms in the form of a Reasoning Logic Tree (RLT)<n>To facilitate this task, we release ARCHE Bench, a new benchmark derived from 70 Nature Communications articles, including more than 1,900 references and 38,000 viewpoints.<n> Evaluations on 10 leading LLMs on ARCHE Bench reveal that models exhibit a trade-off between REA and EC, and none are yet able to extract a complete and standard reasoning chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T07:37:09Z)
• Are Language Models Efficient Reasoners? A Perspective from Logic Programming [109.47572890883248]
  Modern language models (LMs) exhibit strong deductive reasoning capabilities, yet standard evaluations emphasize correctness while overlooking a key aspect of human-like reasoning: efficiency.<n>We propose a framework for assessing LM reasoning efficiency through the lens of logic programming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T15:30:31Z)
• Towards Solving More Challenging IMO Problems via Decoupled Reasoning and Proving [48.22540519786074]
  Recent studies show that the informal accuracy exceeds 80% while formal success remains below 8% on benchmarks like PutnamBench.<n>We propose a novel framework that decouples high-level reasoning from low-level proof generation.<n>We evaluate our method on a challenging set of post-2000 IMO problems, a problem set on which no prior open-source prover has reported success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T22:38:49Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.