Arm-Aware Guided Dexterous Grasp Generation with Arm-Agnostic Grasp Models
Abstract
Dexterous grasp generation that considers arm-related constraints is crucial in real-world scenarios involving arm environment collision avoidance, workspace boundary grasps, and consecutive grasping. Existing hand-centric grasp models, which primarily focus on the floating hand's pose, are insufficient for such cases. Conventional arm-aware methods either rely on rejection sampling to discard infeasible samples or require retraining on arm-specific data, leading to low sample efficiency under adverse conditions or limited generalization across different robots and environments. To overcome these limitations, this letter presents an arm-aware dexterous grasp generation framework that leverages pretrained arm-agnostic grasp models while integrating arm and environmental information only at inference time. Specifically, we formulate arm-aware constrained grasp generation as a joint optimization of hand pose and arm configuration, and derive closed-form gradients for arm-related constraints. Assuming the hand pose distribution is represented by a diffusion model, we prove that gradient-based optimization is equivalent to guided diffusion sampling, steering near-feasible samples toward the feasible region. Through comprehensive evaluation involving 10k objects across 6 scenarios, we demonstrate that the proposed framework generates feasible grasps in highly constrained settings with significantly higher probability, highlighting its advantages in real-world applications. Supplementary materials and appendix are available at https://arm-aware-dexgrasp.github.io/.
Figures & tables
| C. Satisfaction(%)↑ | |||||||
| Scene | Method | CFR | RFR | FR | GSR (%)↑ | SR (%)↑ | OSR (%)↑ |
| Baseline (RS) | 15.31 | 99.96 | 15.31 | 58.17 | 8.91 | 55.15 | |
| S1 | Ours | 88.87 | 99.99 | 88.87 | 53.08 | 47.17 | 91.77 |
| Baseline (RS) | 31.08 | 99.24 | 31.08 | 60.08 | 18.68 | 74.32 | |
| S2 | Ours | 87.91 | 99.95 | 87.91 | 49.11 | 43.17 | 91.54 |
| Baseline (RS) | 25.75 | 72.24 | 25.75 | 58.46 | 15.05 | 70.31 | |
| C. Satisfaction(%)↑ | |||||||
| Scene | Method | CFR | RFR | FR | GSR (%)↑ | SR (%)↑ | OSR (%)↑ |
| Baseline (RS) | 10.92 | 85.22 | 10.58 | 54.18 | 5.73 | 39.07 | |
| S1 | Ours | 61.03 | 85.95 | 59.18 | 48.50 | 28.70 | 84.76 |
| Baseline (RS) | 32.04 | 85.35 | 30.31 | 57.82 | 17.53 | 73.60 | |
| S2 | Ours | 85.87 | 91.86 | 83.28 | 47.32 | 39.41 | 90.96 |
| Baseline (RS) | 32.56 | 55.69 | 32.37 | 57.09 | 18.48 | 75.47 | |
| C. Satisfaction(%)↑ | |||||||
| Arm | Method | CFR | RFR | FR | GSR (%)↑ | SR (%)↑ | OSR (%)↑ |
| Baseline (RS) | 90.06 | 26.07 | 25.74 | 59.54 | 15.32 | 66.33 | |
| Ours | 99.25 | 65.58 | 65.57 | 53.04 | 34.79 | 89.42 | |
| UR5 | w/o Reachability * | 99.83 | 25.89 | 22.49 | 59.48 | 15.39 | 66.92 |
| w/o Collision * | 95.77 | 67.30 | 66.13 | 52.61 | 34.79 | 89.41 | |
| Baseline (RS) | 78.20 | 21.44 | 12.26 | 58.55 | 7.18 | 37.97 | |
| Arm | Method | C. Satisfaction | GSR (%)↑ | SR (%)↑ | OSR (%)↑ | ||
| CFR (%)↑ | FR (%)↑ | AJP ( )↓ | |||||
| Baseline (RS) | 35.55 | 34.28 | 0.0686 | 58.51 | 20.06 | 71.63 | |
| Ours | 76.45 | 74.76 | 0.0398 | 49.79 | 37.72 | 90.26 | |
| UR5 | w/o Collision * | 45.11 | 48.83 | 0.0372 | 52.07 | 23.34 | 77.25 |
| w/o Joint * | 49.34 | 46.49 | 0.0614 | 56.95 | 26.48 | 83.92 | |
| Baseline (RS) | 45.52 | 44.41 | 0.0778 | 55.08 | 24.46 | 65.38 | |
| C. Satisfaction(%)↑ | |||||||
| Scene | Method | CFR | RFR | FR | GSR (%)↑ | SR (%)↑ | OSR (%)↑ |
| Baseline (PD) | 77.80 | 99.99 | 77.80 | 40.98 | 31.88 | 87.43 | |
| Baseline (PSR) | 82.38 | 99.99 | 82.38 | 24.59 | 20.26 | 78.03 | |
| S1 | Ours | 88.87 | 99.99 | 88.87 | 53.08 | 47.17 | 91.77 |
| Baseline (PD) | 95.03 | 99.97 | 95.01 | 19.37 | 18.40 | 76.74 | |
| Baseline (PSR) | 99.98 | 62.29 | 62.29 | 38.01 | 23.68 | 81.92 | |
| Corridor Scene | Object | Banana | Blue Box | Cheezit | Mustard | Toy | Apple | Tea Can | White Tape |
| Top-10 Success Num | 8/10 | 6/10 | 8/10 | 8/10 | 9/10 | 10/10 | 7/10 | 10/10 | |
| Shelf Scene | Object | Banana | Blue Box | Cheezit | Mustard | Toy | Apple | Tea Can | White Tape |
| Top-10 Success Num | 10/10 | 9/10 | 8/10 | 9/10 | 9/10 | 10/10 | 9/10 | 10/10 |
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Scene | Method | Changes of Metrics(%)↑ | |||
| FR | GSR | SR | OSR | ||
| S1 | w/ proj. | - 4.80 | + 2.54 | - 0.41 | + 0.34 |
| w/ noised grad. | - 0.75 | - 3.69 | - 3.64 | - 0.12 | |
| S2 | w/ proj. | - 18.39 | + 5.52 | - 5.19 | - 1.41 |
| w/ noised grad. | - 0.12 | - 1.96 | - 2.29 | - 0.11 | |
| S3 | w/ proj. | + 0.83 | + 0.81 | + 0.94 | + 0.33 |
| Module | Component | Time Ratio (%) |
| SDF | Query SDF | 56.8 |
| Link Jacobian | 17.8 | |
| Sphere Jacobian | 12.2 | |
| Nullspace Projection | 6.3 | |
| Others | 6.9 | |
| IK | Call Solver | 41.6 |
| Arm | IK Num. | Metrics(%)↑ | |||
| FR | GSR | SR | OSR | ||
| UR5 | 2 | 2.74 | 44.01 | 1.21 | 10.06 |
| 4 | 45.36 | 56.64 | 25.69 | 83.64 | |
| 8 | 73.16 | 57.80 | 42.29 | 90.32 | |
| Franka | 5 | 35.47 | 48.79 | 17.31 | 71.58 |
| 10 | 46.18 | 51.78 | 23.91 | 80.46 | |