Body movement communicates intent at distances and in conditions where neither the face, nor speech can be captured. We study the recognition of communicative intent from 2D body pose alone. We argue that body motion is a reliable signal especially in scenarios that require real time low-cost on-device person-to-robot communication in long distance environments, such as rescue missions. However, existing resources do not isolate this signal. Affective corpora combine body, face, voice and text, while skeleton action-recognition benchmarks label the action performed rather than the message conveyed. We release a dataset of real frames of full-body pose covering ten communicative intents and we compare it against other real (IPC) and synthetic (MotionLCM, VEO3.1, Kimodo) ones that span a range of difficulty. We target systems that can run on a robot's limited onboard hardware. We benchmark multiple models, from skeleton graph classifiers to joint motion-forecasting networks, and report performance metrics together with frame rate on an embedded GPU (NVIDIA Orin~Nano), since speed matters as much as accuracy in our scenario. Finally, we show that a model's own autoregressive self-consistency works as an unsupervised reliability signal. We give a short proof that bounds the probability that a self-consistent prediction is correct, show that this probability grows with the number of consistent steps, and identify the conditions under which a confident prediction can still be false, benchmarked against industry-standard metrics.
Although large language models (LLMs) have shown considerable progress in pragmatic language understanding, prior research has focused mainly on their comprehension of verbal behavior. Nonetheless, non-verbal behavior remains a fundamental component of human communication, especially when deliberately utilized in isolation to convey indirect meanings. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of LLMs' ability to infer pragmatic meaning in dialogue consisting solely of non-verbal responses. We explore three research questions: (1) Can LLMs recognize indirect intent conveyed through non-verbal responses? (2) When and how do LLMs fail to capture non-verbal intent? (3) How can we improve LLMs' ability to interpret non-verbal intent?. Through the evaluation, we observe that LLMs struggle to infer underlying meaning from non-verbal responses, with accuracy dropping by up to 60% points compared to verbal ones. Further extensive analysis reveals a behavioral pattern in LLMs' interpretations of non-verbal behavior and demonstrates that in-context learning facilitates pragmatic inference.