Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the recognition of communicative intent through 2D body pose, emphasizing its reliability in real-time, low-cost person-to-robot communication, particularly in challenging environments like rescue missions. A new dataset featuring full-body poses across ten communicative intents is introduced, enabling a comparison with existing benchmarks that often overlook the communicative aspect of body motion. The authors demonstrate that a model's autoregressive self-consistency can serve as an unsupervised reliability measure, with performance metrics indicating that accuracy and speed are both critical for effective deployment on limited onboard hardware.
Self-consistent predictions from body pose models can provide a reliable measure of communicative intent, crucial for real-time robot interactions in complex environments.
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.