Synthesizing high-quality dexterous grasps is a fundamental challenge in robot manipulation, requiring adherence to diversity, kinematic feasibility (valid hand-object contact without penetration), and dynamic stability (secure multi-contact forces). The recent framework Dexonomy successfully ensures broad grasp diversity through dense sampling and improves kinematic feasibility via a simulator-based refinement method that excels at resolving exact collisions. However, its reliance on fixed contact points restricts the hand's reachability and prevents the optimization of grasp metrics for dynamic stability. Conversely, purely gradient-based optimizers can maximize dynamic stability but rely on simplified contact approximations that inevitably cause physical penetrations. To bridge this gap, we propose GraspADMM, a novel grasp synthesis framework that preserves sampling-based diversity while improving kinematic feasibility and dynamic stability. By formulating the refinement stage using the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM), we decouple the target contact points on the object from the actual contact locations on the hand. This decomposition allows the pipeline to alternate between updating the target object points to directly maximize dynamic grasp metrics, and adjusting the hand pose to physically reach these targets while strictly respecting collision boundaries. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GraspADMM significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving a nearly 15% absolute improvement in grasp success rate for type-unaware synthesis and roughly a 100% relative improvement in type-aware synthesis. Furthermore, our approach maintains robust, physically plausible grasp generation even under extreme low-friction conditions.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Overview . From the same initialization, our GraspADMM framework generates robust grasps by optimizing contact points on the hand (red) and the object (yellow), while Dexonomy [ 13 ] simply fixes these points.
Methodology
Diversity
Kinematic Feasibility
Dynamic Stability
Speed
Sampling-based (e.g., GraspIt! [ 4 ] )
×
×
∼
×
Gradient-based (e.g., MALA [ 5 ] )
∼
×
✓
∼
Simulator-based (Dexonomy [ 13 ] )
✓
∼
∼
✓
GraspADMM (Ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
TABLE I : Comparison of Dexterous Grasp Synthesis Paradigms. We evaluate existing methodologies based on their ability to satisfy the four core requirements of high-quality grasp generation. ( ✓ : Fully supports; ∼ : Partially supports / Some work supports; × : Struggles).
Fig. 2 : ADMM Optimization Pipeline . (a) Update target object contact points po via gradient descent to maximize dynamic stability. (b) Update hand pose q and points ph via forward-simulated transposed Jacobian control to satisfy kinematic feasibility. (c) Update the dual variable λ .
Method
GSR ↑
OSR ↑
CDC ↓
PD ↓
Div ↓
DexGraspNet [ 8 ]
12.1
57.0
7.6
4.9
29.0
FRoGGeR [ 10 ]
10.3
55.7
5.0
0.2
27.0
SpringGrasp [ 11 ]
7.8
35.4
23.6
16.6
70.2
BODex [ 12 ]
49.2
96.6
3.0
0.6
32.5
Dexonomy [ 13 ]
60.5
96.5
0.21
0.0
34.2
GraspADMM (Ours)
74.6
97.2
0.17
0.0
25.7
TABLE II : Type-Unaware Grasp Synthesis Comparison. Our method greatly outperforms Dexonomy on grasp success rate and diversity.
Fig. 3 : Visualization of Optimized Grasps. Comparison using the Allegro hand (blue) and Shadow hand (black). Given identical initializations, our method synthesizes more physically stable grasps than Dexonomy. Two representative ADMM convergence curves are also shown here.
Fig. 4 : Performance on the Hard Benchmark. Grasp success rate and object success rate across varying tangential friction coefficients. Our method consistently outperforms Dexonomy.
Grasp Type
GSR (%) ↑
OSR (%) ↑
CLN ↑
Div (%) ↓
Power
62.8 / 32.9
96.2 / 88.7
12.3 / 9.3
26.4 / 25.2
Intermediate
54.6 / 29.9
96.1 / 89.0
7.4 / 6.4
25.6 / 25.0
Precision
59.2 / 37.5
99.1 / 95.2
5.5 / 4.7
25.1 / 25.0
TABLE III : Type-Aware Grasp Synthesis Comparison. Results are presented as (Ours / Dexonomy [ 13 ] ). We achieve roughly a 100% relative improvement on the grasp success rate.
Fig. 5 : Robustness under Extreme Low Friction ( μ=0.1 ). For each displayed object-template pair, Dexonomy produces only one successful grasp among 100 attempts ( GSR=1% ), while GraspADMM produces more successful grasps from the same 100 initializations ( GSR>5% ). The aggregate success rates over the full benchmark are reported in Fig. 4.
GSR ↑
OSR ↑
CDC ↓
PD ↓
No initialization
27.2
55.1
0.31
0.0
ρ=0
17.8
72.6
10.24
4.95
ρ=102
73.5
96.7
0.21
0.0
ρ=104
59.3
96.2
0.29
0.0
ρ→∞
62.6
94.7
0.04
0.0
Ours ( ρ=103 )
74.6
97.2
0.17
0.0
TABLE IV : Ablation Study. A good initialization and a moderate ρ like 102 and 103 is important.
Fig. 6 : Effect of Dual Variable Annealing. Green: target object contacts po . Red: dual-shifted targets po−λ .
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, PA 15213 · Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, MD 20742 · Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104
Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, List, F-91120 Palaiseau, France · Ecole Centrale Lyon, CNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205, Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), F-69130 Ecully, France