Denoising generative models have recently become the dominant paradigm for dexterous grasp generation, owing to their ability to model complex grasp distributions from large-scale data. However, existing diffusion-based methods typically formulate generation as a stochastic differential equation (SDE), which often requires many sequential denoising steps and introduces trajectory instability that can lead to physically infeasible grasps. In this paper, we propose EFF-Grasp, a novel Flow-Matching-based framework for physics-aware dexterous grasp generation. Specifically, we reformulate grasp synthesis as a deterministic ordinary differential equation (ODE) process, which enables efficient and stable generation through smooth probability flows. To further enforce physical feasibility, we introduce a training-free physics-aware energy guidance strategy. Our method defines an energy-guided target distribution using adapted explicit physical energy functions that capture key grasp constraints, and estimates the corresponding guidance term via a local Monte Carlo approximation during inference. In this way, EFF-Grasp dynamically steers the generation trajectory toward physically feasible regions without requiring additional physics-based training or simulation feedback. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets show that EFF-Grasp achieves superior performance in grasp quality and physical feasibility, while requiring substantially fewer sampling steps than diffusion-based baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of the physics-aware generation process in EFF-Grasp.
Figure 2: Overview of the EFF-Grasp sampling process. The method integrates Flow Matching with the training-free physics-aware guidance strategy. By evaluating candidate grasps using energy fields via local Monte Carlo sampling, we compute the physical energy field to guide the ODE trajectory towards physically feasible regions.
Method
DexGraspNet
UniDexGrasp
DexGRAB
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Div ↑
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Div ↑
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Div ↑
UniDexGrasp [ 38 ]
33.9
70.1
31.9
0.14
23.7
65.5
24.5
0.14
20.8
55.8
37.4
0.08
GraspTTA [ 12 ]
18.6
67.8
24.5
0.13
21.0
65.3
21.2
0.10
14.4
51.0
51.4
0.10
SceneDiffuser [ 10 ]
26.6
66.9
31.0
0.15
28.3
74.8
25.1
0.15
39.1
85.0
41.1
0.12
UGG [ 24 ]
46.9
79.0
25.2
0.14
46.0
83.2
24.5
0.14
42.7
90.6
33.2
0.12
DGA [ 41 ]
53.6
90.4
21.5
0.22
54.8
90.8
18.9
0.25
56.5
91.8
28.6
0.12
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on three large-scale datasets. Best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
Method
MultiDex
RealDex
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Div ↑
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Div ↑
UniDexGrasp [ 38 ]
21.6
47.5
13.5
0.08
27.1
59.4
39.0
0.11
GraspTTA [ 12 ]
30.3
62.8
19.0
0.11
13.3
46.4
40.1
0.09
SceneDiffuser [ 10 ]
69.8
85.6
14.6
0.27
21.7
56.1
42.0
0.09
UGG [ 24 ]
55.3
93.4
10.3
0.12
32.7
63.4
34.4
0.10
DGA [ 41 ]
72.2
96.3
9.6
0.23
34.6
71.2
23.1
0.14
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on small-scale and real-world datasets. Best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
Figure 3: Visualization of generation results produced by our method across all datasets.
Figure 4: Compared to the SOTA method DGA, EFF-Grasp generates more stable and physically feasible grasps (see the boxed failure cases of DGA).
Figure 5: Comparison of Success Rate and Penetration Depth versus NFE on MultiDex and RealDex datasets. The left y-axis represents the Success Rate (%), and the right y-axis indicates the Penetration Depth (mm). Solid lines denote our method, while dashed lines represent the DGA baseline. Our method consistently outperforms DGA, achieving significantly higher success rates and lower penetration depths, particularly demonstrating faster convergence at lower NFEs.
ID
Model Variant
SRF
ERF
SPF
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Div. ↑
a
Baseline (Vanilla FM)
47.0
90.7
17.1
0.16
b
+ SRF
✓
48.0
91.2
16.0
0.16
c
+ ERF
✓
45.5
90.4
14.7
0.15
d
+ SRF & ERF
✓
✓
47.1
90.8
15.4
0.15
e
+ SRF & ERF & SPF
✓
✓
✓
67.2
91.2
20.7
0.16
f
+ SRF & ERF & SPF (Original forms)
✓
✓
✓
66.7
91.1
20.7
0.16
Table 3: Ablation study of physical energy functions on DexGraspNet.
Figure 6: Qualitative visualization of the ablation study. Variant e yields the optimal results (bolded in Table 3 ), validating the effectiveness of our proposed energy terms over the baseline (a) and original forms (f).
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
DexGraspNet → UniDexGrasp
DexGraspNet → DexGRAB
DexGraspNet → RealDex
DexGraspNet → MultiDex
70.0
93.5
19.8
60.8
91.0
23.8
41.0
80.1
18.6
61.0
93.4
8.0
UniDexGrasp → DexGraspNet
UniDexGrasp → DexGRAB
UniDexGrasp → RealDex
UniDexGrasp → MultiDex
67.2
91.5
21.6
60.6
91.7
24.1
42.8
78.8
20.2
59.4
94.1
9.5
DexGRAB → RealDex
DexGRAB → MultiDex
RealDex → DexGRAB
RealDex → MultiDex
29.0
58.5
26.1
55.0
94.7
9.6
61.0
91.3
23.5
51.9
90.0
8.3
Table 4: EFF-Grasp achieves superior cross-dataset generalization performance.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
DexGraspNet → UniDexGrasp
DexGraspNet → DexGRAB
DexGraspNet → RealDex
DexGraspNet → MultiDex
70.0
93.5
19.8
60.8
91.0
23.8
41.0
80.1
18.6
61.0
93.4
8.0
UniDexGrasp → DexGraspNet
UniDexGrasp → DexGRAB
UniDexGrasp → RealDex
UniDexGrasp → MultiDex
67.2
91.5
21.6
60.6
91.7
24.1
42.8
78.8
20.2
59.4
94.1
9.5
DexGRAB → DexGraspNet
DexGRAB → UniDexGrasp
DexGRAB → RealDex
DexGRAB → MultiDex
63.4
89.2
20.4
63.6
90.3
18.9
29.0
58.5
26.1
55.0
94.7
9.6
Appendix
Table 5: EFF-Grasp achieves superior cross-dataset generalization performance.
Guidance Scale s
0
10
30
50
100
Suc.6 (%)
65.9
78.8
77.5
69.1
26.9
Suc.1 (%)
95.0
98.8
97.5
95.6
50.3
Pen. (mm)
15.2
16.2
10.5
18.7
19.9
Appendix
Table 6: Sensitivity to Guidance Scale s .
Temperature τ
0.01
0.05
0.1
1.0
Suc.6 (%)
7.2
77.5
77.8
70.9
Suc.1 (%)
19.7
97.5
97.5
96.6
Pen. (mm)
21.0
10.5
18.9
14.8
Appendix
Table 7: Sensitivity to Temperature τ .
Component
Weight
Suc.6 ↑
Suc.1 ↑
Pen. ↓
wERF
0.1
76.9
97.5
19.9
0.25
77.5
98.8
18.7
0.4
77.5
97.5
10.5
0.5
77.5
97.8
13.1
1.0
70.3
95.3
16.3
wSPF
0.1
72.8
96.8
12.5
Appendix
Table 8: Sensitivity to Energy Field Weights. We vary each weight component while fixing the others to the default value (0.4).
Figure 7: Additional visualization of grasps generated by EFF-Grasp on various objects from different datasets.