<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-10-18T05:36:14Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:lifeofresearch.com:11" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://lifeofresearch.com/oai2</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:lifeofresearch.com:11</identifier>
        <datestamp>2026-09-22T17:33:51Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>type:article</setSpec>
        <setSpec>openaire</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
        <dc:title>Catastrophic Forgetting in Continual RLHF: A Measurement Framework for Round-Over-Round Capability Degradation</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Pranay Mahendrakar</dc:creator>
        <dc:description>Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is widely understood to incur an alignment tax: aligning a language
model with human preferences can degrade capabilities the base model possessed. This phenomenon is well documented in
single-round comparisons. What is not well documented, despite being the actual production setting, is the cumulative
degradation across multiple rounds of RLHF — the iterated case in which preference data is collected, a reward model is
retrained, and the policy is updated repeatedly. This paper argues that the existing alignment-tax literature, while valuable,
leaves five distinct measurement gaps unaddressed: round-over-round longitudinal dynamics, capability-stratified rather
than aggregate degradation, systematic comparison across RLHF algorithms, long-tail and rare-capability decay, and
mechanistic understanding of why specific components forget. We propose a measurement framework targeting each of
these gaps and a concrete experimental protocol — a multi-round RLHF study on an open base model with capabilitydecomposed evaluation — that academic teams could execute today. We argue that this is one of the higher-leverage open
problems in alignment evaluation: the relevant techniques exist, the cost is moderate, the production relevance is high, and
the empirical baseline is genuinely thin.</dc:description>
        <dc:publisher>Life of Research</dc:publisher>
        <dc:date>2026-04-28</dc:date>
        <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
        <dc:identifier>https://lifeofresearch.com/articles/11</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19853746</dc:identifier>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:relation>https://lifeofresearch.com/articles/11/files/11/Catastrophic_Forgetting_Continual_RLHF_Mahendrakar.pdf</dc:relation>
        <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
        <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</dc:rights>
        <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>