SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2604.05697

GraspSense: Physically Grounded Grasp and Grip Planning for a Dexterous Robotic Hand via Language-Guided Perception and Force Maps

Abstract

Dexterous robotic manipulation requires more than geometrically valid grasps: it demands physically grounded contact strategies that account for the spatially non-uniform mechanical properties of the object. However, existing grasp planners typically treat the surface as structurally homogeneous, even though contact in a weak region can damage the object despite a geometrically perfect grasp. We present a pipeline for grasp selection and force regulation in a five-fingered robotic hand, based on a map of locally admissible contact loads. From an operator command, the system identifies the target object, reconstructs its 3D geometry using SAM3D, and imports the model into Isaac Sim. A physics-informed geometric analysis then computes a force map that encodes the maximum lateral contact force admissible at each surface location without deformation. Grasp candidates are filtered by geometric validity and task-goal consistency. When multiple candidates are comparable under classical metrics, they are re-ranked using a force-map-aware criterion that favors grasps with contacts in mechanically admissible regions. An impedance controller scales the stiffness of each finger according to the locally admissible force at the contact point, enabling safe and reliable grasp execution. Validation on paper, plastic, and glass cups shows that the proposed approach consistently selects structurally stronger contact regions and keeps grip forces within safe bounds. In this way, the work reframes dexterous manipulation from a purely geometric problem into a physically grounded joint planning problem of grasp selection and grip execution for future humanoid systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Elizaveta Semenyakina, Ivan Snegirev, Mariya Lezina, Miguel Altamirano Cabrera, Safina Gulyamova, Dzmitry Tsetserukou. 2026-04-07. GraspSense: Physically Grounded Grasp and Grip Planning for a Dexterous Robotic Hand via Language-Guided Perception and Force Maps. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05697

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO