Advances in model editing through neuron pruning hold promise for removing undesirable concepts from large language models. However, it remains unclear whether models have the capacity to reacquire pruned concepts after editing. To investigate this, we evaluate concept relearning in models by tracking concept saliency and similarity in pruned neurons during retraining for named entity recognition tasks. Our findings reveal that models can quickly regain performance post-pruning by relocating advanced concepts to earlier layers and reallocating pruned concepts to primed neurons with similar semantics. This suggests that models exhibit polysemantic capacities and can blend old and new concepts in individual neurons. While neuron pruning provides interpretability into model concepts, our results highlight the challenges of permanent concept removal for improved model *safety*. Monitoring concept reemergence and developing techniques to mitigate relearning of unsafe concepts will be important directions for more robust model editing. Overall, our work strongly demonstrates the resilience and fluidity of concept representations in LLMs post concept removal.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have successfully been applied to code generation tasks, raising the question of how well these models understand programming. Typical programming languages have invariances and equivariances in their semantics that human programmers intuitively understand and exploit, such as the (near) invariance to the renaming of identifiers. We show that LLMs not only fail to properly generate correct Python code when default function names are swapped, but some of them even become more confident in their incorrect predictions as the model size increases, an instance of the recently discovered phenomenon of Inverse Scaling, which runs contrary to the commonly observed trend of increasing prediction quality with increasing model size. Our findings indicate that, despite their astonishing typical-case performance, LLMs still lack a deep, abstract understanding of the content they manipulate, making them unsuitable for tasks that statistically deviate from their training data, and that mere scaling is not enough to achieve such capability.

Recent model editing techniques promise to mitigate the problem of memorizing false or outdated associations during LLM training. However, we show that these techniques can introduce large unwanted side effects which are not detected by existing specificity benchmarks. We extend the existing CounterFact benchmark to include a dynamic component and dub our benchmark CounterFact+. Additionally, we extend the metrics used for measuring specificity by a principled KL divergence-based metric. We use this improved benchmark to evaluate recent model editing techniques and find that they suffer from low specificity. Our findings highlight the need for improved specificity benchmarks that identify and prevent unwanted side effects.