Pramana: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Epistemic Reasoning through Navya-Nyaya
Paper • 2604.04937 • Published • 1
instruction stringlengths 239 534 | input stringclasses 1
value | output stringlengths 8.05k 13.1k |
|---|---|---|
Three people (Alice, Bob, Carol) each have one pet: a cat, a dog, or a fish. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice does not have the cat
2. Bob has the dog
3. Carol does not have the fish
**Question**: Who has which pet?
--- | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are three people and three pets, creating multiple possible assignments. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which person has which pet. The doubt arises because... | |
On an island, there are three inhabitants: A, B, and C. Each person is either a Knight (always tells the truth) or a Knave (always lies). You encounter them and hear the following statements:
**Statements**:
1. A says: "B is a Knave."
2. B says: "C is a Knave."
3. C says: "A is a Knight."
**Question**: What type is e... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Viparyaya Samshaya (Doubt arising from contradictory possibilities)
**Justification**: Each person can be either a Knight or a Knave, creating 2³ = 8 possible assignments. However, the statements create logical dependencies where the truth value of each statement depends o... | |
Four friends (Alice, Bob, Carol, David) are comparing their heights. The following information is known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice is taller than Bob
2. Bob is taller than Carol
3. Carol is taller than David
4. Alice is taller than Carol
**Question**: What is the complete height ranking from tallest to shortest?
--- | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: We have four people and need to determine their relative heights. While some pairwise comparisons are given, the complete ordering is not immediately obvious. Multiple arrangements ... | |
Four people (Alice, Bob, Carol, David) must be divided into two groups. Each person belongs to exactly one group. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice and Bob are in the same group
2. Carol and David are in different groups
3. If Alice is in Group 1, then Carol is in Group 2
4. Bob is not in ... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are multiple ways to divide four people into two groups. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which specific assignment satisfies all constraints. The doubt arise... | |
Consider four logical statements P, Q, R, and S. The following information is known:
**Given Facts**:
1. If P is true, then Q is true
2. If Q is true, then R is true
3. If R is true, then S is true
4. P is true
**Question**: What are the truth values of P, Q, R, and S?
--- | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Viparyaya Samshaya (Doubt arising from chain of implications)
**Justification**: We have a chain of conditional statements: P → Q → R → S. While P is given as true, the truth values of Q, R, and S depend on whether the implications hold. Without systematically applying mod... | |
Four people (Alice, Bob, Carol, David) must each be assigned to one of four rooms (Room 1, Room 2, Room 3, Room 4). Each person gets exactly one room, and each room has exactly one person. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice is not in Room 1
2. Bob is not in Room 4
3. Carol is in Room 3
4. D... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are four people and four rooms, creating multiple possible assignments. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which person is in which room. The doubt arises becau... | |
Three people (Alice, Bob, Carol) must each join one of three teams (Team A, Team B, Team C). Each person joins exactly one team, and each team has exactly one person. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice is not in Team C
2. Bob is not in Team A
3. Carol is not in Team B
**Question**: Which p... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are three people and three teams, creating multiple possible assignments. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which person is on which team. The doubt arises bec... | |
Five people (Alice, Bob, Carol, David, Eve) must each be assigned to one of five positions (Position 1, Position 2, Position 3, Position 4, Position 5) in a line. Each person gets exactly one position, and each position has exactly one person. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice is not in Po... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are five people and five positions, creating multiple possible assignments. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which person is in which position. The doubt aris... | |
On an island, there are three inhabitants: A, B, and C. Each person is either a Knight (always tells the truth) or a Knave (always lies). You encounter them and hear the following statements:
**Statements**:
1. A says: "B is a Knight."
2. B says: "C is a Knave."
3. C says: "A is a Knave."
**Question**: What type is e... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Viparyaya Samshaya (Doubt arising from contradictory possibilities)
**Justification**: Each person can be either a Knight or a Knave, creating 2³ = 8 possible assignments. However, the statements create logical dependencies where the truth value of each statement depends o... | |
On an island, there are four inhabitants: A, B, C, and D. Each person is either a Knight (always tells the truth) or a Knave (always lies). You encounter them and hear the following statements:
**Statements**:
1. A says: "B is a Knave."
2. B says: "C is a Knight."
3. C says: "D is a Knave."
4. D says: "A is a Knight."... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Viparyaya Samshaya (Doubt arising from contradictory possibilities)
**Justification**: Each person can be either a Knight or a Knave, creating 2⁴ = 16 possible assignments. However, the statements create logical dependencies where the truth value of each statement depends ... | |
On an island, there are three inhabitants: A, B, and C. Each person is either a Knight (always tells the truth) or a Knave (always lies). You encounter them and hear the following statements:
**Statements**:
1. A says: "B is a Knight."
2. B says: "A and C are the same type."
3. C says: "A is a Knave."
**Question**: W... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Viparyaya Samshaya (Doubt arising from contradictory possibilities)
**Justification**: Each person can be either a Knight or a Knave, creating 2³ = 8 possible assignments. However, the statements create logical dependencies where the truth value of each statement depends o... | |
Four friends (Alice, Bob, Carol, David) are comparing their ages. The following information is known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice is older than Bob
2. Bob is older than Carol
3. Carol is older than David
4. Alice is older than David
**Question**: What is the complete age ranking from oldest to youngest?
--- | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: We have four people and need to determine their relative ages. While some pairwise comparisons are given, the complete ordering is not immediately obvious. Multiple arrangements mig... | |
Five runners (Alice, Bob, Carol, David, Eve) competed in a race. The following information is known about their finishing times (faster time means better rank):
**Constraints**:
1. Alice finished before Bob
2. Bob finished before Carol
3. Carol finished before David
4. David finished before Eve
5. Alice finished befor... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: We have five runners and need to determine their relative finishing positions. While some pairwise comparisons are given, the complete ordering is not immediately obvious. Multiple ... | |
Four objects (Alice, Bob, Carol, David) are being weighed. The following information is known about their weights:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice weighs more than Bob
2. Bob weighs more than Carol
3. Carol weighs more than David
4. Alice weighs more than David
**Question**: What is the complete weight ranking from heavies... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: We have four objects and need to determine their relative weights. While some pairwise comparisons are given, the complete ordering is not immediately obvious. Multiple arrangements... | |
Four people (Alice, Bob, Carol, David) must be divided into two teams (Team A and Team B). Each person belongs to exactly one team. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice and Bob are in different teams
2. Carol and David are in different teams
3. If Alice is in Team A, then Carol is in Team A
4... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are multiple ways to divide four people into two teams. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which specific assignment satisfies all constraints. The doubt arises... | |
Five people (Alice, Bob, Carol, David, Eve) must be divided into two committees (Committee A and Committee B). Each person belongs to exactly one committee. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice and Bob are in different committees
2. Carol and David are in different committees
3. If Alice is i... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are multiple ways to divide five people into two committees. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which specific assignment satisfies all constraints. The doubt a... | |
Three people (Alice, Bob, Carol) must each join one of two clubs (Club A and Club B). Each person belongs to exactly one club. The following constraints are known:
**Constraints**:
1. Alice and Bob are in different clubs
2. Bob and Carol are in the same club
3. If Alice is in Club A, then Carol is in Club B
**Questio... | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Samana Dharma Upapatti (Multiple possibilities share similar properties)
**Justification**: There are multiple ways to divide three people into two clubs. Without systematic reasoning, we cannot determine which specific assignment satisfies all constraints. The doubt arise... | |
Consider five logical statements A, B, C, D, and E. The following information is known:
**Given Facts**:
1. If A is true, then B is true
2. If B is true, then C is true
3. If C is true, then D is true
4. If D is true, then E is true
5. A is true
**Question**: What are the truth values of A, B, C, D, and E?
--- | ## Samshaya (Doubt Analysis)
**Doubt Type**: Viparyaya Samshaya (Doubt arising from chain of implications)
**Justification**: We have a chain of conditional statements: A → B → C → D → E. While A is given as true, the truth values of B, C, D, and E depend on whether the implications hold. Without systematically apply... |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
Pramana Stage 0 Training Examples
This dataset contains the Stage 0 Nyaya-structured training examples used for the Pramana project.
Files
train.jsonl— training set (originallystage_0.jsonl)seed_examples/stage_zero/*.md— original seed examples (markdown)
Schema (JSONL)
Each line in train.jsonl is a JSON object with:
instruction: The problem statementinput: Optional extra input (empty for Stage 0)output: The Nyaya-structured response
Notes
- Validation data is not included yet.
Paper: Pramana: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Epistemic Reasoning through Navya-Nyaya
Citations
If you use this model/dataset, please cite:
@misc{sathish2026pramanafinetuninglargelanguage,
title={Pramana: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Epistemic Reasoning through Navya-Nyaya},
author={Sharath Sathish},
year={2026},
eprint={2604.04937},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.AI},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04937},
}
- Downloads last month
- 25