Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Actions Speak Louder than Words: Measuring Cross-Lingual Policy Retention in Tool-Using Agents

Sourabrata Mukherjee, Kalika Bali, Sunayana Sitaram · Aug 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

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. Yet those actions are the product: they fix cost and latency, decide how the system fails, and are the only auditable part of its behaviour. We make the action policy the measured object across 8 models, 6 parallel benchmarks and 41 languages (2.38M rollouts). The naive measurement fails: five confounds sit between raw trace similarity and any defensible claim, each able to flip a conclusion. Short traces score higher, empty traces score perfectly, unrelated traces agree by chance over half the time, the gap is capped by each model's reproducibility, and a model asked the same question twice in one language answers differently, leaving no baseline. We remove all five, and every correction makes the effect larger. Divergence proves structural, not sampling noise: it survives greedy decoding in every cell and stays flat as temperature rises, even as models grow less self-consistent. Normalised by their own reproducibility, four very different frontier models converge under greedy decoding, each keeping 71-73% of its action policy across languages, with model identity explaining only 5.7% of the variance. Below roughly 10B parameters it breaks down, and the ordering among smaller models is largely an artifact of a chance floor we measure by permutation rather than assume. Agents route non-English tasks through English; this pivot is causally load-bearing, confirmed by a pre-registered prediction across four models, and models will not abandon it when told to. Finally, a single trace-extraction regex, not the model, manufactured a multilingual failure: two worked examples raise one model's measured accuracy twenty-sixfold while its accuracy on readable outputs barely moves.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps?"

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps?"

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps?"

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps?"

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Finally, a single trace-extraction regex, not the model, manufactured a multilingual failure: two worked examples raise one model's measured accuracy twenty-sixfold while its accuracy on readable outputs barely moves."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory (inferred)
  • Expertise required: Multilingual

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps?

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.
  • Yet those actions are the product: they fix cost and latency, decide how the system fails, and are the only auditable part of its behaviour.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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.
  • We make the action policy the measured object across 8 models, 6 parallel benchmarks and 41 languages (2.38M rollouts).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.