An Actionable Diagnosis of Multilingual, Multi-Agent Planning Failures
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Multilingual multi-agent systems exhibit substantial degradation beyond English, yet prior work rarely identifies how task-critical information is lost when user requests are converted into executable plans. We study the planner in a multi-agent system as the request-to-action interface and derive an actionable taxonomy of planning-grounding failures from failed real-world task executions. LLM-based analysis shows that these failures constitute an increasing share of unsuccessful executions as language-resource availability declines, with the strongest effects in low-resource languages. To test whether the taxonomy supports mitigation, we introduce TART, Taxonomy-Guided Actionable Representation, that makes the taxonomy's key aspects explicit to the planner and downstream sub-agents. Across multiple languages, three LLM backbones, two datasets, and two agentic configurations, TART consistently improves performance. On multilingual GAIA, it raises a state-of-the-art system's accuracy by 5.6 percentage points averaged across eleven languages spanning low- to high-resource settings.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 14 of its 90 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.
Builds on
14 of 90 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025OWL: Optimized Workforce Learning for General Multi-Agent Assistance in Real-World Task Automation29 May
- 2025X-WebAgentBench: A Multilingual Interactive Web Benchmark for Evaluating Global Agentic System21 May
- 2025MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents3 Mar
Other references · 11
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
- 2020The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP Worldcited by 798
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2019CCNet: Extracting High Quality Monolingual Datasets from Web Crawl Datacited by 548
- 2021TAT-QA: A Question Answering Benchmark on a Hybrid of Tabular and Textual Content in Financecited by 408
- 2020HybridQA: A Dataset of Multi-Hop Question Answering over Tabular and Textual Datacited by 264
- 2024SCITAT: A Question Answering Benchmark for Scientific Tables and Text Covering Diverse Reasoning Typescited by 10
- 2026Lost in Execution: On the Multilingual Robustness of Tool Calling in Large Language Modelscited by 10
- 2026Why Do LLM-based Web Agents Fail? A Hierarchical Planning Perspectivecited by 9
- 2025MULTITAT: Benchmarking Multilingual Table-and-Text Question Answeringcited by 2
- 2026GAIA-v2-LILT: Multilingual Adaptation of Agent Benchmark beyond Translationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures
- 2026SIMMER: Benchmarking Latent Failures in LLM Executable Planning with a World Model
- 2025Hell or High Water: Evaluating Agentic Recovery from External Failures
- 2025MAPS: A Multilingual Benchmark for Agent Performance and Security
- 2025How Do LLMs Fail In Agentic Scenarios? A Qualitative Analysis of Success and Failure Scenarios of Various LLMs in Agentic Simulations
- 2025Exploring Autonomous Agents: A Closer Look at Why They Fail When Completing Tasks
- 2026Agent vs. Parametric World Models: Hybrid Planning for Reliable Language Agents