arXiv:2604. 04532v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluation language is typically treated as a fixed English default in agentic code benchmarks, yet we show that changing the judge's language can invert backbone rankings.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 28715v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While AI development and evaluation for Southeast Asia (SEA) has grown rapidly, agent capabilities in regional languages are still poorly understood despite its importance to sovereign AI.
Agentic benchmarks aim to measure how well AI agents plan, search, execute, and recover within realistic multi-tool environments, but they are almost exclusively in English. As AI agents are globally deployed to a linguistically diverse user base, whether agentic competence measured in English transfers to other languages remains an open question.
We evaluate large language models (LLMs) as language agents playing goal-directed dialogue games in self-play across 30 languages: the 24 official EU languages plus six others. Unlike static or preference-based evaluation, this paradigm is multi-turn, reference-free and programmatically scored, and because the game mechanics are language-agnostic it extends to a new language by localising a fixed set of prompt and word-list files.
arXiv:2601. 05366v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents that invoke external tools through structured function calls.
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps? Multilingual evaluation rarely asks: it compares final answers and discards the actions.