Learning Dynamic Grasping

Nga Kiu Kelly Ho1Yilin Liu1Hao Xu2,3Niloy Mitra1,3

1University College London2The Chinese University of Hong Kong3Adobe Research

The paper teaser shows the initial right-hand pose and object, a grasping contact map inset, and the approach, grasp, and lift sequence.
Learning dynamic grasping from a single initial hand–object configuration. Given only an object and an initial hand pose (left), our method generates a complete grasping motion: approach, contact, and lift (right). A grasping contact map (see inset) conditions hand poses generated at arbitrary normalized times, and object motion is recovered from the hand by training-free rigid registration.

Abstract

Synthesizing believable 4D hand–object grasping sequences is important for character animation, extended reality, and embodied agents. Grasping requires a hand to approach, contact, and lift or manipulate an object coherently. Existing synthesis methods often model only the final static grasp or rely on additional conditions, such as language, target grasps, or object trajectories, to specify the interaction. We instead study the underconstrained problem of generating a complete grasping motion from a single initial hand–object state. Our framework decouples hand-motion generation from object-motion recovery. Given an object point cloud in the initial wrist frame and the initial parameterized hand configuration, conditional flow matching predicts a sequence-level contact map and a hand pose at each normalized sequence time. This time-indexed formulation avoids the error accumulation of autoregressive rollout while representing the complete motion. We then infer an attachment frame and recover rigid-object motion through training-free, contact-guided weighted registration. We evaluate on held-out DexYCB objects and unseen object geometries reconstructed from in-the-wild videos by Open-CHOIR. Compared with LatentHOI, our method produces smoother hand and object motion in every setting, matches or improves on its contact and penetration metrics in the wild under a shared initialization, and is about 30× faster per generated frame. In a 15-participant study, our motions were preferred in roughly two thirds of (forced-choice pairwise) comparisons. Precise contact closure on novel geometry, however, remains a key open challenge. Code will be released.

Explore the results

02 / Qualitative comparison

Comparison with baselines

16 scenes

The eight scenes from the main paper and eight additional scenes are shown below. DexGraspNet, LatentHOI, and ours are shown side by side with synchronized overall and side/contact views. DexGraspNet interpolates to a static grasp and holds its final pose; LatentHOI and ours generate motion.

Showing 16 of 16 sequences
P01

Potato A

Open-CHOIR
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P02

Carrot

Open-CHOIR
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P03

Teapot A

Open-CHOIR
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P04

Can A

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P05

Mug A

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P06

Banana A

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P07

Mug B

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P08

Brick A

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P09

Whisk

Open-CHOIR
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P10

Spoon A

Open-CHOIR
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P11

Potato B

Open-CHOIR
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P12

Banana B

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P13

Brick B

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P14

Can B

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P15

Banana C

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours
P16

Brick C

DexYCB
Overall viewSide / contact view
Left: DexGraspNet · Middle: LatentHOI · Right: Ours

This is a task-level comparison: LatentHOI uses object geometry and a text prompt, without the observed initial hand pose. The videos share a displayed starting configuration. Enlarge a video to inspect contact and finger motion.

03 / Sampling diversity

One starting state, different motions

3 objects · 9 samples

Three generated samples share the same initial configuration for each object, illustrating variation in the resulting grasping motions. Replay a row together to compare the samples over time.

Chinese teacup

Open-CHOIR

Spoon A

Open-CHOIR

Brick G

DexYCB

04 / Failure cases

Where grasping remains difficult

3 failure modes

Incorrect trigger-frame selection, sensitivity to the starting hand pose, and thin or small objects can lead to incomplete closure, penetration, or implausible object motion. The teacup pair includes both a successful and an unsuccessful initialization.

The recovered object motion uses a fixed rigid attachment, which excludes sliding, regrasping, release, and articulated or deformable objects. Geometric attachment does not guarantee stability under gravity or external forces.

Result video