Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University · Chinese Academy of Sciences · National Cheng-Kung University · Peking University · Engineering Research Center of Knowledge-Driven Human-Machine Intelligence, MoE, China · University of Birmingham
Achieving accurate garment grasping under dynamically changing illumination is crucial for all-day operation of service robots.However, the reduced illumination in low-light scenes severely degrades garment structural features, leading to a significant drop in grasping robustness.Existing methods typically enhance RGB features by exploiting the illumination-invariant properties of non-RGB modalities, yet they overlook the varying dependence on non-RGB features under varying lighting conditions, which can introduce misaligned non-RGB cues and thereby weaken the model's adaptability to illumination changes when utilizing multimodal information.To address this problem, we propose GraspALL, an illumination-structure interactive compensation model.The innovation of GraspALL lies in encoding continuous illumination changes into quantitative references to guide adaptive feature fusion between RGB and non-RGB modalities according to varying lighting intensities, thereby generating illumination-consistent grasping representations.Experiments on the self-built garment grasping dataset demonstrate that GraspALL improves grasping accuracy by 32-44% over baselines under diverse illumination conditions.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Structure maps generated by the Canny operator from identical scenes under different luminance levels.
Figure 3: Overview of our GraspALL. (A) describes the generation process of the Parametric Luminance Curve and luminance compensation features (in Sec. 3.1 ). (B) illustrates the generation process of structural compensation features adaptive to the input luminance (in Sec. 3.2 ). (C) outlines the generation process of grasp points based on the luminance and structural compensation features (in Sec. 3.3 ).
Figure 4: Flowchart of proposed depth-optimal search strategy.
Figure 5: Construction of our MIGG dataset. (a) shows the household scenes and eight categories of garment assets. (b) shows that we obtain images under different illumination conditions by randomly combining the assets with the scenes. We undergo degradation in multiple dimensions such as color difference ( ΔE00 ), black crush, texture clarity, and color temperature, rather than simple luminance attenuation. The lower part of (b) describes the dataset’s degradation status and the number/frequency of each garment category. (c) presents the captured garment images, depth map and semantic mask map. “ Luminance ” is calculated by averaging the histograms.
Class
Luminance: 90 – 120
Luminance: 60 – 90
Luminance: 30 – 60
Luminance: 0 – 30
——
SegMiF
MRFS
AMDA
Ours
SegMiF
MRFS
AMDA
Ours
SegMiF
MRFS
AMDA
Ours
SegMiF
MRFS
AMDA
Ours
Glove
74.9%
77.9%
76.6%
84.4%
70.1%
71.1%
75.5%
84.2%
61.9%
62.5%
70.7%
83.1%
62.3%
61.8%
68.5%
81.7%
Hat
82.8%
80.1%
81.5%
86.4%
74.6%
78.7%
80.3%
85.8%
71.8%
70.6%
75.9%
85.5%
65.4%
68.2%
71.3%
84.7%
Scarf
76.0%
82.2%
79.1%
85.7%
73.3%
75.1%
77.0%
86.3%
65.4%
65.7%
73.1%
85.7%
66.3%
63.5%
68.6%
85.6%
Sock
70.9%
67.2%
72.8%
83.5%
66.2%
65.7%
68.0%
82.2%
62.3%
58.9%
65.5%
80.3%
56.9%
61.8%
59.3%
79.2%
Tie
72.5%
80.3%
79.9%
84.7%
70.7%
73.9%
74.4%
84.1%
64.1%
66.2%
71.1%
82.1%
60.8%
65.3%
66.9%
81.4%
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of semantic mask generation accuracy between our GraspALL and other baseline methods under different luminance levels. The best results are highlighted in bold , and performance improvements are shown in red .
Class
Luminance: 80 – 120
Luminance: 40 – 80
Luminance: 0 – 40
——
BiFCNet
SAM-M
ReKep
DarkSeg
Ours
BiFCNet
SAM-M
ReKep
DarkSeg
Ours
BiFCNet
SAM-M
ReKep
DarkSeg
Ours
Glove
9/15
10/15
8/15
11/15
14/15
8/15
9/15
8/15
10/15
14/15
5/15
5/15
6/15
7/15
12/15
Hat
11/15
10/15
9/15
13/15
15/15
9/15
8/15
8/15
9/15
13/15
6/15
7/15
6/15
8/15
13/15
Scarf
10/15
9/15
10/15
12/15
14/15
8/15
8/15
7/15
8/15
13/15
6/15
6/15
5/15
7/15
13/15
Sock
9/15
7/15
10/15
11/15
13/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
9/15
13/15
5/15
5/15
6/15
7/15
11/15
Tie
9/15
10/15
8/15
10/15
13/15
6/15
5/15
6/15
7/15
11/15
3/15
5/15
5/15
6/15
10/15
Table 2: Comparison of garment grasping accuracy between our GraspALL and other baseline methods under different luminance levels.
Figure 6: Comparison of semantic mask and grasping key points between our GraspALL and baselines under different luminance levels.
Model
PLC
LRL
SRL
Lsc
Lbce
mIoU
mGSR
Model-1
✗
65.4%
50.0%
Model-2
✗
71.3%
72.5%
Model-3
✗
68.5%
57.5%
Model-4
✗
64.9%
50.2%
Model-5
✗
68.7%
70.4%
Model-6
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
82.6%
88.3%
Table 3: Ablation study of different components (Lum: 0-40).
Figure 7: Comparisons of Parameters, FPS, mIoU and FLOPs.
Figure 8: Differences in Grad-CAM at different luminance levels.
Figure 9: Setup and observation of real-world experiment.
Luminance
BiFCNet
SAM-M
ReKep
DarkSeg
Ours
Lu: 0 - 20
5 / 15
4 / 15
6 / 15
7 / 15
12 / 15
Lu: 20 - 40
7 / 15
5 / 15
7 / 15
10 / 15
13 / 15
Lu: 40 - 60
7 / 15
7 / 15
9 / 15
11 / 15
13 / 15
Lu: 60 - 80
9 / 15
8 / 15
10 / 15
11 / 15
14 / 15
Table 4: Real-world success rate under different luminance levels.
Figure 10: Explanation of using RGB in low-light conditions.
Method
Luminance < 20
Luminance < 40
#Params
N=6,R=256
mIoU:80.8%
mIoU:81.5%
34.53
N=12,R=256
mIoU: 82.2%
mIoU: 83.1%
47.83
N=18,R=256
mIoU:82.5%
mIoU:83.7%
61.13
R=128,N=12
mIoU:80.3%
mIoU:80.9%
47.83
R=256,N=12
mIoU: 82.2%
mIoU: 83.1%
47.83
R=512,N=12
mIoU:81.4%
mIoU:82.0%
47.83
Table 5: The effect of different N and R on model performance.
Figure 11: Visualize the different luminance curves in the trained Parametric Luminance Curves.
Luminance
BiFCNet [ 48 ]
SAM-M [ 14 ]
ReKep [ 13 ]
DarkSeg [ 45 ]
Ours
Lu: 0 - 20
5 / 15
4 / 15
6 / 15
7 / 15
12 / 15
Lu: 20 - 40
7 / 15
5 / 15
7 / 15
10 / 15
13 / 15
Lu: 40 - 60
7 / 15
7 / 15
9 / 15
11 / 15
13 / 15
Lu: 60 - 80
9 / 15
8 / 15
10 / 15
11 / 15
14 / 15
Table 6: Real-world grasping success rate of different methods.
Luminance
SegMiF [ 16 ]
MRFS [ 37 ]
AMDA [ 46 ]
Ours
Lu: 0 - 20
51.2%
52.9%
55.1%
70.5%
Lu: 20 - 40
55.8%
58.3%
59.5%
71.3%
Lu: 40 - 60
59.4%
62.7%
63.8%
72.4%
Lu: 60 - 80
64.3%
65.6%
66.3%
74.3%
Table 7: Accuracy rate of mask generation by different methods.
GraspALL ( mGSR )
DarkSeg ( mGSR )
Luminance
with ST
without ST
with ST
without ST
0−20
80.0%
66.7%
46.7%
33.3%
Luminance
GraspALL ( mIoU )
DarkSeg ( mIoU )
0−20
70.5%
61.4%
50.7%
36.9%
Table 8: Analysis for our transfer strategy (sim-to-real).
Figure 12: Garment images under different illumination conditions collected in real-world scenarios.
Figure 13: We use the method in [ 34 ] to transfer the model trained on the synthetic dataset to the real-world dataset. Model(ϕ) denotes the model trained on synthetic data. pgt represents the pseudo-labels generated by the model. The domain adaptation process is as follows: first, train the model using synthetic data; then, train the model using both synthetic and real data; finally, train the model using real data.
Method
Luminance
mIoU
mGSR
GraspALL
0 - 20
82.2%
82.5%
GraspALL + [ 30 ]
0 - 20
82.9%
83.3%
GraspALL + TSD-En
0 - 20
84.5%
86.6%
GraspALL
20 - 40
83.1%
84.1%
GraspALL + [ 30 ]
20 - 40
83.6%
85.0%
GraspALL + TSD-En
20 - 40
85.2%
87.5%
Table 9: The improvement brought by the TSD-En to GraspALL.
Figure 14: Visualization results with and without our depth map enhancement strategy (TSD-En).
Method
Luminance < 20
Luminance < 40
Average
GraspALL + [ 26 ]
17/25 (68%)
18/25 (72%)
70%
GraspALL + [ 5 ]
17/25 (68%)
19/25 (76%)
72%
GraspALL + [ 45 ]
19/25 (76%)
20/25 (80%)
78%
GraspALL + Ours
21/25 (84%)
22/25 (88%)
86%
Table 10: Grasping performance of different grasping strategies.
Luminance
DarkSeg
BiFCNet
GraspALL
0−20
59.2%
46.7%
70.5%
20−40
61.6%
54.5%
74.4%
Table 11: Analysis for our Grasping Strategy (in Simulation)
Figure 15: Comparison between our grasping strategy and mainstream strategies that take the geometric center as the grasp point.
Figure 16: Non-garment images (towels and shopping bags) captured under different illumination conditions in real-world scenarios.
Metrics
α =0.01
α =0.03
α =0.05
α =0.07
α =0.09
mIoU
78.2%
80.9%
82.8%
81.1%
79.6%
mGSR
78.3%
81.6%
84.2%
82.5%
81.6%
Table 12: The effect of different α on model (Luminance:0-40).
Method
mIoU
Method
mGSR
SegMiF [ 16 ]
64.6%
BiFCNet [ 48 ]
52.4%
MRFS [ 37 ]
67.5%
SAM-M [ 14 ]
59.2%
AMDA [ 46 ]
68.9%
DarkSeg [ 45 ]
63.3%
GraspALL
86.7%
GraspALL
88.3%
Table 13: Performance of different methods on other objects.
Luminance
BiFCNet [ 48 ]
SAM-M [ 14 ]
DarkSeg [ 45 ]
Ours
Lu: 00 - 40
37.7% (4.8-7.5)
35.5% (3.4-5.5)
48.8% (5.3-8.7)
80.0% (2.9-3.6)
Lu: 40 - 80
44.4% (3.8-4.9)
40.0% (4.5-6.4)
53.3% (2.5-4.4)
84.4% (1.9-3.2)
Table 14: Statistical analysis of different methods. The red font indicates the accuracy fluctuation across three experimental rounds.
Figure 17: The test samples we collected for different types of image degradation (exposure, noise, and motion blur).
Grasping is a foundational capability in robotic manipulation. Scene-level 6-DoF grasp synthesis relies on point clouds for metric geometry, yet real-world point observations are often noisy, incomplete, and over-smoothed. RGB images provide object-region, boundary, and appearance cues, yet two bottlenecks limit their effective use in scene representation and local grasp reasoning. We present MMGNet, a Multi-Modal Grasp Synthesis Network that addresses these bottlenecks through hierarchical image-to-3D feature injection and rotational graspness modeling. Hierarchical injection integrates multi-scale image features throughout 3D representation formation, while the rotational graspness jointly predicts the grasp approach direction and in-plane rotation before organizing local image-informed features through grasp-shaded grouping. Ablation studies show that these two modules provide complementary gains. MMGNet achieves a mean AP of 60.34 on GraspNet-1Billion with RealSense, surpassing all compared methods. In real-world experiments with adversarial grasp objects, MMGNet improves the grasp success rate over AnyGrasp by 8.46 percentage points. Code, models, and data will be released upon publication.
Rui Cao, Jia-Hui Pan, Yichuan Li +4
Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Sino-German College of Intelligent Manufacturing, Shenzhen Technology University, Shenzhen, China
Humans can grasp objects effortlessly, whereas multi-fingered robots are far from this level of generality. We argue that the most natural source of robot grasping data is from humans, who pick up thousands of objects every day. We present HUG, a flow-matching model that generates diverse human grasps for any user-specified object in a single RGB-D image captured from a stereo camera. Using smart glasses, we first collect 1M-HUGs, an egocentric dataset of human grasps spanning 1M frames (27.8 hrs) and 6,707 object instances across 41 buildings. Next, to model the distribution of natural human grasps, our novel flow-matching model fuses RGB and depth observations to output a grasp parameterized by wrist translation, wrist rotation, and MANO hand pose. Predicted grasps can be retargeted to various robot hands, enabling zero-shot grasping in everyday scenes. To standardize evaluation, we build a new simulated benchmark, HUG-Bench, of 90 unseen objects from five geometric categories and various sizes, with metric-scale 3D meshes. We evaluate HUG in the real world on the 30-object test set of HUG-Bench across multiple stereo cameras, robot embodiments, and household environments. HUG outperforms the state-of-the-art grasping baselines by +23% and +34% on our challenging object set. Code, data, benchmark, checkpoints, and an interactive demo are released on our website: https://grasping.io/
Kevin Yuanbo Wu, Tianxing Zhou, Isaac Tu +5
New York University · Tsinghua University · University of Michigan
Vision-guided robot grasping based on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) generalizes well but poses safety risks in the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). Recent works solved it by designing benign adversarial attacks and patches with RGB modality, yet depth-independent characteristics limit their effectiveness on RGBD modality. In this work, we propose the Multimodal Adversarial Quality Policy (MAQP) to realize multimodal safe grasping. Our framework introduces two key components. First, the Heterogeneous Dual-Patch Optimization Scheme (HDPOS) mitigates the distribution discrepancy between RGB and depth modalities in patch generation by adopting modality-specific initialization strategies, employing a Gaussian distribution for depth patches and a uniform distribution for RGB patches, while jointly optimizing both modalities under a unified objective function. Second, the Gradient-Level Modality Balancing Strategy (GLMBS) is designed to resolve the optimization imbalance from RGB and Depth patches in patch shape adaptation by reweighting gradient contributions based on per-channel sensitivity analysis and applying distance-adaptive perturbation bounds. We conduct extensive experiments on the benchmark datasets and a cobot, showing the effectiveness of MAQP.
Kunlin Xie, Chenghao Li, Haolan Zhang +1
The authors are with the School of Information Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi, Ishikawa 923-1292, Japan