pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08749 · v1 · pith:DC7QVS4Snew · submitted 2019-07-20 · 💻 cs.RO

Generating Optimal Grasps Under A Stress-Minimizing Metric

Zherong Pan , Xifeng Gao , Dinesh Manocha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords grasp quality metricstress minimizationrobotic graspinggrasp planningfragile objectsoptimizationmaterial properties
0
0 comments X

The pith

The stress-minimizing metric finds grasps that maximize the largest external wrench an object can resist before fracturing.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines a stress-minimizing metric for grasp quality that incorporates the material properties of the grasped object. It calculates the largest wrench the grasp can resist without causing the object to break, assuming the object is made of uniform isotropic material. This approach matters for handling fragile or valuable items where conventional metrics that ignore material would fail to prevent damage. The authors also provide algorithms to find grasps that maximize this metric globally and show in experiments that the metric responds to object shape details unlike standard ones, at comparable computation time.

Core claim

The stress-minimizing metric measures the maximal resistible external wrenches without causing fracture in homogeneous isotropic target objects, enabling grasp planning algorithms that generate globally optimal grasps under this criterion, which experiments confirm is sensitive to object geometries.

What carries the argument

The stress-minimizing (SM) metric, which quantifies grasp quality as the maximum wrench resistible without exceeding material fracture limits.

If this is right

  • Grasp planners can optimize directly for resistance to fracture in addition to force closure.
  • The metric produces different optimal grasps when object geometry changes stress distribution.
  • Globally optimal grasps under the metric can be computed at cost comparable to conventional metrics.
  • SM grasps are suitable for valuable and fragile objects where prior metrics are not.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The metric could be extended to objects with non-uniform material properties by relaxing the homogeneity assumption.
  • Integration with force-closure or other quality measures could produce combined grasp objectives.
  • Physical robot experiments with breakable test objects would directly test the predicted fracture thresholds.

Load-bearing premise

The target objects are made of homogeneous isotropic materials.

What would settle it

Apply the maximal predicted wrench from an SM-optimal grasp to a physical homogeneous isotropic object and observe whether fracture occurs at the predicted threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.08749 by Dinesh Manocha, Xifeng Gao, Zherong Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of our method where the target object is a bunny head and the two-point grasp has contact points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The target object is a U-shaped tuning fork, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: We compare the computational cost of computing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the first and second row, we show globally optimal grasps for 8 different target objects under both the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The jth triangle. where on ∂Ω. This system is discretized using Galerkin’s method with piecewise linear u and piecewise constant f. All the integrals are evaluated using variable-order Gauss Quadratures. This linear system is denoted by: (D + C)u = A ⎛ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ g0 [∇g]x [∇g]y [∇g] z ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ + B ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ f1 ⋮ fN ⎞ ⎟ ⎠ , where D is the coefficient matrix of D, A is the coefficient matrix of body force terms, a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present stress-minimizing (SM) metric, a new metric of grasp qualities. Unlike previous metrics that ignore the material of target objects, we assume that target objects are made of homogeneous isotopic materials. SM metric measures the maximal resistible external wrenches without causing fracture in the target objects. Therefore, SM metric is useful for robot grasping valuable and fragile objects. In this paper, we analyze the properties of this new metric, propose grasp planning algorithms to generate globally optimal grasps maximizing the SM metric, and compare the performance of the SM metric and a conventional metric. Our experiments show that SM metric is aware of the geometries of target objects while the conventional metric are not. We also show that the computational cost of the SM metric is on par with that of the conventional metric.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a stress-minimizing (SM) metric for grasp quality that incorporates the material properties of target objects under the assumption of homogeneous isotropic materials. The metric is defined to quantify the largest external wrenches a grasp can resist without inducing fracture. The authors analyze the metric's properties, develop algorithms for computing globally optimal grasps that maximize the SM metric, and present experiments comparing it to a conventional metric, claiming that SM grasps are sensitive to object geometry while conventional ones are not and that computational costs are comparable.

Significance. If the mapping from contact wrenches to fracture onset is accurate under the stated material model, the SM metric would provide a more physically grounded alternative to existing grasp-quality measures for applications involving fragile or valuable objects. The inclusion of planning algorithms and direct experimental comparison to a baseline metric strengthens the practical contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the SM metric bounds the onset of fracture rests entirely on the homogeneous isotropic material assumption, yet the manuscript supplies no sensitivity analysis, robustness checks, or comparisons against anisotropic/inhomogeneous cases. This assumption is load-bearing for the utility claim regarding real fragile objects.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'isotopic' is a typographical error and should read 'isotropic'.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: 'the conventional metric are not' contains a subject-verb agreement error.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and the opportunity to respond. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the SM metric bounds the onset of fracture rests entirely on the homogeneous isotropic material assumption, yet the manuscript supplies no sensitivity analysis, robustness checks, or comparisons against anisotropic/inhomogeneous cases. This assumption is load-bearing for the utility claim regarding real fragile objects.

    Authors: The manuscript states the homogeneous isotropic linear-elastic assumption explicitly in the abstract and in the problem formulation section. The SM metric is defined to bound fracture onset precisely under that model; the central claim is therefore conditional on the assumption rather than an assertion of universal validity. No sensitivity analysis for anisotropic or inhomogeneous materials appears in the paper because the contribution centers on deriving the metric, proving its properties, and developing globally optimal grasp planners within the stated model. Adding such analysis would require new constitutive models, additional finite-element validation, and separate experiments, which lie outside the scope of the present work. We agree that material-model robustness is important for deployment on real objects and identify it as a natural direction for follow-on research. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: SM metric defined directly from stress analysis under explicit material assumptions

full rationale

The abstract and provided text present the SM metric as a first-principles quantity: maximal resistible wrench before fracture, computed from contact-induced stress fields under the stated homogeneous isotropic material model. No equations reduce the metric to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The material assumption is declared upfront as the basis for the definition rather than derived or smuggled. This is the most common honest case of a self-contained derivation against external benchmarks (here, the continuum mechanics model), warranting score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption of homogeneous isotropic materials and the newly defined metric; no free parameters or invented physical entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Target objects are made of homogeneous isotropic materials
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the modeling assumption enabling the SM metric definition.
invented entities (1)
  • Stress-minimizing (SM) metric no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify grasp quality via maximal resistible wrenches before material fracture
    Newly introduced quantity whose definition and computation are the core contribution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1048 out tokens · 18060 ms · 2026-05-24T19:10:06.821808+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Active soft end effectors for efficient grasping and safe handling,

    A. Al-Ibadi, S. Nefti-Meziani, and S. Davis, “Active soft end effectors for efficient grasping and safe handling,” IEEE Access , vol. 6, pp. 23 591–23 601, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    3D mesh generation,

    P. Alliez, C. Jamin, L. Rineau, S. Tayeb, J. Tournois, and M. Yvinec, “3D mesh generation,” in CGAL User and Reference Manual , 4.14 ed. CGAL Editorial Board, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    The mosek interior point optimizer for linear programming: an implementation of the homogeneous algorithm,

    E. D. Andersen and K. D. Andersen, “The mosek interior point optimizer for linear programming: an implementation of the homogeneous algorithm,” in High performance optimization. Springer, 2000, pp. 197–232

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Branch and bound algorithms-principles and examples,

    J. Clausen, “Branch and bound algorithms-principles and examples,” 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Numerical solutions in axisymmetric elasticity,

    T. A. Cruse, D. Snow, and R. Wilson, “Numerical solutions in axisymmetric elasticity,” Computers & Structures , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 445–451, 1977

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    H. Dai, A. Majumdar, and R. Tedrake, Synthesis and Optimization of Force Closure Grasps via Sequential Semidefinite Programming . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 285–305

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Planning optimal grasps,

    C. Ferrari and J. Canny, “Planning optimal grasps,” in Proceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , May 1992, pp. 2290– 2295 vol.3

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Nihu: An open source c++ bem library

    P. Fiala and P. Rucz, “Nihu: An open source c++ bem library.” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 75, pp. 101–112, 2014

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem,

    G. A. Francfort and J.-J. Marigo, “Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1319–1342, 1998

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    Convex polytopes,

    B. Gr ¨unbaum and G. C. Shephard, “Convex polytopes,” Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 257–300, 1969

    work page 1969

  11. [11]

    A sparse matrix arithmetic based on h-matrices. part i: Intro- duction to h-matrices,

    W. Hackbusch, “A sparse matrix arithmetic based on h-matrices. part i: Intro- duction to h-matrices,” Computing, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 89–108, 1999

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    dD convex hulls and delaunay triangulations,

    S. Hert and M. Seel, “dD convex hulls and delaunay triangulations,” in CGAL User and Reference Manual , 4.14 ed. CGAL Editorial Board, 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    T. J. Hughes, The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Courier Corporation, 2012

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Dex-net 2.0: Deep learning to plan robust grasps with synthetic point clouds and analytic grasp metrics,

    J. Mahler, J. Liang, S. Niyaz, M. Laskey, R. Doan, X. Liu, J. Aparicio, and K. Goldberg, “Dex-net 2.0: Deep learning to plan robust grasps with synthetic point clouds and analytic grasp metrics,” 07 2017

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Energy-bounded caging: Formal definition and 2-d energy lower bound algo- rithm based on weighted alpha shapes,

    J. Mahler, F. T. Pokorny, Z. McCarthy, A. F. van der Stappen, and K. Goldberg, “Energy-bounded caging: Formal definition and 2-d energy lower bound algo- rithm based on weighted alpha shapes,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 508–515, 2016

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Utility of contact detection reflexes in prosthetic hand control,

    B. Matulevich, G. E. Loeb, and J. A. Fishel, “Utility of contact detection reflexes in prosthetic hand control,” in 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Nov 2013, pp. 4741–4746. Q1 QSM Q1 QSM Q1 QSM Q1 QSM Fig. 4: In the first and second row, we show globally optimal grasps for 8 different target objects under both the ...

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Constructing force-closure grasps,

    V . . Nguyen, “Constructing force-closure grasps,” in Proceedings. 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , vol. 3, April 1986, pp. 1368–1373

    work page 1986

  18. [18]

    Grasp quality measures: review and performance,

    M. A. Roa and R. Su ´arez, “Grasp quality measures: review and performance,” Autonomous robots, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 65–88, 2015

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Grasping and fixturing as submodular coverage problems,

    J. D. Schulman, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Grasping and fixturing as submodular coverage problems,” in Robotics Research . Springer, 2017, pp. 571–583

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Steinbach, Numerical approximation methods for elliptic boundary value problems: finite and boundary elements

    O. Steinbach, Numerical approximation methods for elliptic boundary value problems: finite and boundary elements . Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Modeling disjunctive constraints with a logarithmic number of binary variables and constraints,

    J. P. Vielma and G. L. Nemhauser, “Modeling disjunctive constraints with a logarithmic number of binary variables and constraints,” Mathematical Program- ming, vol. 128, no. 1-2, pp. 49–72, 2011

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Evaluation of genetic algorithm on grasp planning optimization for 3d object: A comparison with simulated annealing algorithm,

    Z. Zhang, J. Gu, and J. Luo, “Evaluation of genetic algorithm on grasp planning optimization for 3d object: A comparison with simulated annealing algorithm,” in 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics , May 2013, pp. 1–8

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    An efficient algorithm for a grasp quality measure,

    Y . Zheng, “An efficient algorithm for a grasp quality measure,” IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics , vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 579–585, 2012

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Worst-case structural analysis,

    Q. Zhou, J. Panetta, and D. Zorin, “Worst-case structural analysis,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 137:1–137:12, July 2013. Algorithm 1 Compute upper bound of ¯QSM using [19] 1: sample directions d1,/uni22EF,D in SO(3) 2: fori= 1,/uni22EF,D do 3: Solve Problem 9 with d ← di for wi 4: end for 5: Return min i {wT i √ Wdi} APPENDIX THE BOUNDARY ELEM...

    work page 2013