{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03868269733403032, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014113957135389441, 'mean_word_length': 4.889230769230769, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Group belief and grounding in conversation

When we study dialogue between artificial agents, two traditions have emerged: a subjective one with for example [8, 31, 32, 33] and an objective one with [9, 48, 39, 15, 46, 4]. The former approach, often named mentalist approach, considers that dialogue is function of the agents’ mental attitudes, usually formalized with BDI (Belief Desire Intention) modal logics. The speech acts that an agent can perform depend on his mental attitudes and are seen as modifying cognitive state of agents. Its most important application is the definition of FIPA-ACL (Agent Communication Language) semantics [13], the most used Agent Communicative Language. This approach is also based on the recognition of mental attitudes (in particular intention). Linguistically, a statement significance does not depend only on the statement but also on the speaker’s intentions. That is what Grice names non-natural significance [21]. The example of indirect speech acts is the most obvious. But nothing proves that the hearer well recognizes the correct mental state and the speaker has no warranty to have been correctly understood (even if the communication is perfect). The mentalist approach has a lot of predictive power (dialogue can be viewed as a driven by intentions and that can be planed [6, 1]). But in exchange, it needs very strong hypotheses on agents’ behavior: e.g. sincerity, cooperation. . . This approach has often been criticized (see e.g. [39, 15]) because hypotheses are too strong in open and heterogenous multi-agents systems (MAS for short). Moreover no verification on the dialogue can be performed because it would need to access to private mental attitudes of agents which is not realistic in open MAS. To get round this problem objective approaches, also called conventional or structural approaches, take into account only what is public in the dialogue. The