Abstract
This paper investigates the knowledge of language models from the perspectiveof Bayesian epistemology. We explore how language models adjust theirconfidence and responses when presented with evidence with varying levels ofinformativeness and reliability. To study these properties, we create a datasetwith various types of evidence and analyze language models' responses andconfidence using verbalized confidence, token probability, and sampling. Weobserved that language models do not consistently follow Bayesian epistemology:language models follow the Bayesian confirmation assumption well with trueevidence but fail to adhere to other Bayesian assumptions when encounteringdifferent evidence types. Also, we demonstrated that language models canexhibit high confidence when given strong evidence, but this does not alwaysguarantee high accuracy. Our analysis also reveals that language models arebiased toward golden evidence and show varying performance depending on thedegree of irrelevance, helping explain why they deviate from Bayesianassumptions.