Translating the Translator: Decomposing the Cost of English-Forced Inter-Agent Communication

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 introduce OmnilingualGAIA2, a machine-translated expansion (with partial human- expert validation) of the GAIA2 agentic benchmark, covering ten target languages spanning five writing systems, paired with a localised and human-calibrated multilingual verifier. Evaluating seven frontier and open-weight agents, we find a universal cross-lingual gap of 8.8-18.4 pass@3 points that is agent-asymmetric in magnitude, concentrates on tool-orchestration rather than quantitative reasoning, and does not close with model scale. A stratified error attribution decomposes the gap as predominantly model-driven (55%), with a bounded translation-contamination floor of only 6.4% of scenario-language pairs. Human-expert linguistic analysis further identifies morphological cue loss and amplified ambiguity as the primary failure mechanisms in non-Latin-script languages. Our results argue that multilingual agentic evaluation must become a standard part of the reporting protocol for globally deployed agents.

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.

LLMs deployed multilingually are often audited via English explanations for non-English inputs. We evaluate extractive explanations ''where the model identifies input token spans as evidence alongside a generated rationale'' and uncover a systematic trade-off: English-pivot explanations can achieve higher span agreement with human rationales while their evidence becomes less causally grounded in the model's prediction, as measured by both comprehensiveness and sufficiency. Across 3 tasks, 5languages, and 2multilingual LLM families, we find that English explanations frequently produce fluent but loosely anchored rationales, with comprehensiveness degrading by up to 5.7x relative to native-language conditions - even as task accuracy remains stable across settings. For socially nuanced classification, English pivots also fail to preserve pragmatic cues, reducing both faithfulness and span agreement. We recommend auditing explanations in the input language, reporting multi-faceted faithfulness metrics beyond lexical overlap, and treating English rationales as communication summaries rather than faithful decision traces.