Shipping in 76 Locales: A Multi-Case Study of LLM-Agent Localization Pipelines for Production Mobile Apps

Large language model (LLM) agents translate software interfaces at scale, yet production evidence on what breaks—and which safeguards catch it—is nearly absent: a 2026 mapping study of localization testing retained 24 primary studies, though none on LLM-driven localization. We report a multi-case study of fourteen shipped mobile apps by one developer (ten iOS, four Android; 40–76 locales; roughly 347,000 units) at five maturity levels. Mining the repositories (catalogs, 4473 commits, process documents, tooling), we code defects into thirteen classes in two waves, the second under a frozen codebook, and map each to its detecting layer. Translation quality is not independently measured; the defect record is a lower bound. Of 468 commit-anchored defects, process and coverage gaps—strings escaping the pipeline—are modal in each wave (26.7% and 27.5%); placeholder errors are near-absent (9 in 347,000 units). LLM judges are the largest operational detector (26.7%), ahead of humans (16.0%) and validators (13.7%), yet 127 defects (27.1%) escaped every layer until our audit. What escapes tracks validator scope, not maturity alone. Layered validation, not prompt-level care, determines what reaches users. Translation takes minutes; the validation stack is the lasting cost. We derive six testable propositions and ten guidelines, and release the codebook, dataset, and scripts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Information
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/info17101026
Primary Topic
Software Engineering Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Shipping in 76 Locales: A Multi-Case Study of LLM-Agent Localization Pipelines for Production Mobile Apps

Hoang Hai Nguyen
Information
Software Engineering Research
article

Shipping in 76 Locales: A Multi-Case Study of LLM-Agent Localization Pipelines for Production Mobile Apps

Hoang Hai Nguyen
article en

Abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents translate software interfaces at scale, yet production evidence on what breaks—and which safeguards catch it—is nearly absent: a 2026 mapping study of localization testing retained 24 primary studies, though none on LLM-driven localization. We report a multi-case study of fourteen shipped mobile apps by one developer (ten iOS, four Android; 40–76 locales; roughly 347,000 units) at five maturity levels. Mining the repositories (catalogs, 4473 commits, process documents, tooling), we code defects into thirteen classes in two waves, the second under a frozen codebook, and map each to its detecting layer. Translation quality is not independently measured; the defect record is a lower bound. Of 468 commit-anchored defects, process and coverage gaps—strings escaping the pipeline—are modal in each wave (26.7% and 27.5%); placeholder errors are near-absent (9 in 347,000 units). LLM judges are the largest operational detector (26.7%), ahead of humans (16.0%) and validators (13.7%), yet 127 defects (27.1%) escaped every layer until our audit. What escapes tracks validator scope, not maturity alone. Layered validation, not prompt-level care, determines what reaches users. Translation takes minutes; the validation stack is the lasting cost. We derive six testable propositions and ten guidelines, and release the codebook, dataset, and scripts.

InformationVol. 17(10)
University of Science and Technology - The University of Da Nang (VN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Software Engineering Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.