My Chiffon Nguyen, Aulia Adila, Saksorn Ruangtanusak +4cs.CL cs.AI
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. To fill this gap, we introduce SEATauBench, the first agent-focused evaluation framework for SEA sovereign AI. SeaTau adapts TauBench to five languages -- Mandarin, Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, and Filipino -- and evaluates agents across progressively localized settings that vary the language of user-agent interaction, tool specifications, and task domains. Across three recent models, we find that English agent capabilities transfer reasonably well when only the conversation language changes, but quality and robustness degrade sharply as more task contexts are localized, with the largest losses in full domain adaptation. We also the limits of English-only agent assessment for measuring agent capabilities in SEA languages. More broadly, SeaTau provides a diagnostic benchmark and reusable adaptation pipeline for building reliable multilingual agents for linguistically diverse regions. Data and code can be accessed at github.com/SEACrowd/SEATauBench.
This paper presents PSA-Eval, a failure-centered runtime evaluation framework for deployed trilingual public-space agents. The central claim is that, when the evaluation object shifts from a static input-output mapping to a runtime system, the basic unit of analysis should shift from score to failure. PSA-Eval extends the conventional chain Question -> Answer -> Score -> End into Question -> Batch -> Run -> Score -> Failure Case -> Repair -> Regression Batch, making failures traceable, reviewable, repairable, and regression-testable. The framework uses trilingual equivalent inputs as controlled probes for observing group-level cross-language policy drift. We conduct a pilot study on a real trilingual digital front-desk system deployed in the lobby of an international financial institution. The pilot uses a simplified single-foundation-model setting (MA = MB), so the observed drift should not be interpreted as an A/B foundation-model difference. The study contains 81 samples organized into 27 trilingual equivalent question groups. Although the system achieves an average score of 23.15/24, 14 groups show non-zero cross-language score drift, 5 groups show drift of at least 3 points, and the maximum drift reaches 9 points. These results provide initial evidence that failure-centered runtime evaluation can expose structured deployment signals hidden by aggregate scoring.