Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Stereo Hand-Object Reconstruction for Human-to-Robot Handover

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read StereoHO reconstructs hand and object shape by multiplying two RGB views' probabilistic shape guesses, enough for a robot to receive transparent and thin household objects in handovers.

desk verdict Real stereo RGB handover system with a genuine fusion idea, but the headline CD gains are partly confounded by segmentation-mask inputs; engage with the paper, not with its abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07487 v3 pith:CM7XL724 submitted 2024-12-10 cs.RO cs.CV

Yik Lung Pang , Alessio Xompero , Changjae Oh , Andrea Cavallaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords hand-objectreconstructionstereoRGBhuman-to-robothandovershapecodebooksigneddistancefieldtransparentobjectsvectorquantization6-DoFgrasping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a robot can receive a wide range of household objects from a human using only two ordinary RGB cameras, without depth sensors and without assuming anything about the object's shape. The key idea is to reconstruct the hand and object probabilistically: each camera view proposes a distribution over learned 3D shape patches, and the two views are combined by multiplying these distributions into one coherent shape. The authors train on synthetic data and test on real data, reporting lower object reconstruction error than prior RGB methods in both single-view and stereo settings. In physical handover experiments, the reconstructed shape lets a robot grasp and receive diverse objects, including transparent containers that defeat depth-based methods, with 75 percent grasping success on opaque household objects and 91 percent on transparent ones. This matters because transparent and oddly shaped objects are exactly the cases where depth cameras and hand-crafted shape priors fail.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a learned shape codebook plus a product fusion rule. A shape codebook is a finite set of quantized 3D patch embeddings learned by a vector-quantized autoencoder from synthetic hand-object data. For each camera view, StereoHO predicts a probability distribution over codebook entries for every voxel in a grid centred on the wrist. The central identity is the fusion rule $P = P_L P_R$ (element-wise multiplication of the left and right per-voxel distributions), which yields a joint stereo distribution that is then decoded to a truncated signed distance field. The same product is computed independently for hand and object, and a projection-based outlier removal step enforces consistency with the observed segmentation masks.

What would settle it

Use a test object visible from both cameras, introduce a shared error by offsetting both predicted wrist poses in the same direction, and compare the product-fused reconstruction with the better of the two single-view reconstructions; if fusion no longer beats the best single view, the independence assumption is falsified. A complementary check is to score the fused probability distribution against ground-truth SDF occupancy: an overconfident product would show systematically lower calibration than either view alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

StereoHO jointly reconstructs hand and object geometry from wide-baseline stereo RGB images by treating shape prediction as classification over a learned codebook of 512 discrete 3D shape embeddings. For each view, a convolutional encoder produces a per-voxel probability distribution over this codebook for hand and object separately; the stereo prediction is the element-wise product of the left and right distributions, decoded by SDF decoders into a truncated signed distance field and then a pointcloud. A projection-based outlier removal step filters reconstructed points against segmentation masks in both views. On the DexYCB test set, the method reports object Chamfer distance improvements over IHOI in the single-view setting and over SVHO in the stereo setting, while remaining comparable on hand reconstruction. In the handover pipeline, this reconstruction supports 6-DoF grasp planning and hand-collision avoidance, achieving over 75 percent grasping success on CORSMAL containers, 75 percent on opaque household objects, and 91 percent on transparent containers, outperforming depth-based baselines on transparent objects.

Load-bearing premise

The stereo fusion rule $P = P_L P_R$ assumes that, once the true hand-object shape is fixed, the two camera views' errors are conditionally independent, so multiplying their per-voxel codebook probabilities produces a calibrated joint probability rather than an overconfident one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ordinary stereo RGB cameras become sufficient for safe human-to-robot handover of unknown objects, including transparent and reflective ones, removing the depth-camera requirement.
  • The method transfers from synthetic training data to real, unseen household objects without hand-crafted geometric priors, so non-container objects and arbitrary grasp orientations are handled.
  • Multi-view coherence is achieved probabilistically at the shape-code level rather than by merging pointclouds, which naturally gives a per-voxel uncertainty signal.
  • Object reconstruction error drops when using two views instead of one, while hand reconstruction stays roughly at the same quality as single-view methods.
  • The reconstructed pointcloud can directly drive 6-DoF grasp estimation and hand-collision filtering in a closed-loop robot pipeline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: what is not tested in the paper is whether three or more views fused by the same product rule would keep reducing reconstruction error, which would confirm the independence assumption rather than just the two-view result.
  • Editorial inference: the per-voxel probabilities over codebooks could be read as calibrated confidence, letting the robot ask the human to reposition when the stereo views disagree or when the top codebook probability is low; the paper does not explore this.
  • Editorial inference: because the components are trained purely on synthetic data with domain-invariant masks, the same architecture is a candidate for other RGB-only perception tasks such as teleoperated grasping or assistive dressing, where transparent or deformable objects appear.
  • Editorial inference: the frame-by-frame reconstruction-quality gating suggested in the pipeline indicates that temporal fusion of the probability distributions across frames could further stabilise handovers; the paper instead replaces rather than accumulates predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes StereoHO, a stereo RGB method for joint hand-object reconstruction that learns discrete codebooks of shape embeddings on synthetic data, predicts per-view probability distributions over these codebooks, and fuses the two views by element-wise multiplication of the distributions before decoding to a truncated signed distance field and pointcloud. The reconstructed hand-object shape is filtered by projecting it against predicted segmentation masks, and the output is used to plan 6-DoF grasps for a UR5 robot in human-to-robot handovers. The authors evaluate reconstruction on DexYCB against IHOI (single-view) and SVHO (stereo), reporting lower object Chamfer distances, and conduct real handover experiments with containers and general household objects, including transparent ones. The central claims are that the probabilistic combination of single-view predictions improves object reconstruction over existing RGB-based single-view and stereo methods, and that the reconstructed shapes enable successful robot handovers.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it is among the first to combine learned codebook priors with a probabilistic multi-view fusion for hand-object reconstruction from RGB only, and it demonstrates a complete handover pipeline with real robot experiments and transparent objects. The use of synthetic-only training with evaluation on real data (DexYCB and physical handovers) is a strength, and the paper ships a reproducible link to code and videos. The reported object Chamfer improvements over IHOI and SVHO are potentially large, and the real-robot success rates (75-91%) for household objects are encouraging. However, the comparison is confounded by the use of segmentation masks as additional input, and the paper provides no statistical uncertainty quantification; these issues currently limit the strength of the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A and Section IV-D (Fig. 7)] The central quantitative comparison is confounded by an input modality difference. Section III-A states that the model takes the segmentation masks of the object (MO) and hand (MH) as input, and the ablation 'Ours (no segmentation mask)' in Fig. 7 shows that masks improve object reconstruction. The paper does not state whether masks are ground-truth or predicted during DexYCB evaluation, nor whether the baselines IHOI and SVHO received any mask information. Because the abstract claims a reduction in object Chamfer distance compared to 'existing RGB based hand-object reconstruction methods,' the reported gains cannot be attributed to the proposed codebook and probabilistic fusion until the comparison is controlled for the additional mask input. The authors should either report the no-mask variant as the main result, provide baselines augmented with masks, or explicitly justify why mask input is not an unfair advantage in the comparison.
  2. [Section III-A, equation P = PLPR] The stereo fusion rule assumes that the per-view probability distributions over the codebook are conditionally independent given the true hand-object shape. This assumption is not validated, and the paper provides no alternative fusion rules (e.g., sum, max, or a learned combination) or any calibration analysis. Without such an ablation, the claim that the method combines single-view reconstructions 'probabilistically' to form a coherent stereo reconstruction is not fully supported: the stereo improvement over SVHO could be driven by the additional view, the mask input, or the codebook representation rather than by the product rule. A controlled comparison of fusion rules, or evidence that PL and PR are calibrated for the reported improvement, is needed.
  3. [Section IV-D and Section IV-E (Table I, Fig. 7)] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any reconstruction or handover metric. The reported differences, such as the 9.71 cm^2 object Chamfer improvement over IHOI in the single-view seen category, may be within run-to-run or subject-to-subject variation; the paper does not specify the number of DexYCB frames used or the variance across participants. The handover success rates (e.g., 75% and 91% on household objects) are aggregates over configurations with no per-participant breakdown or interval estimates. The authors should report standard deviations across multiple training runs or test splits, and ideally a paired statistical test, to support the quantitative claims.
  4. [Section IV-E, comparison with CB] The handover comparison with the CORSMAL baseline (CB) is not apples-to-apples: CB assumes the object starts on the table and remains upright, while StereoHO assumes the object is already held by the human. The text concludes the methods are 'on par' for containers, but the differing assumptions and the lack of statistical testing make this conclusion difficult to interpret. The authors should either align the test conditions or explicitly acknowledge that the comparison is qualitative rather than a controlled benchmark.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II] Typo: 'Signed Distance Dields' should be 'Signed Distance Fields.'
  2. [Section III-D] The notation 'TW B' is ambiguous; please clarify the subscript/superscript convention for the wrist-to-robot transform, or use a consistent bold/italic format.
  3. [Section IV-D] The separation of the DexYCB test set into 'seen' and 'unseen' categories is described as based on 'similarity in 3D shape' but no quantitative criterion is given. Please specify the similarity measure or provide a reference for the split.
  4. [Section IV-A] The paper does not report how many DexYCB frames or subjects are used in the reconstruction evaluation. Adding this information would help reproduce the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: training is on ObMan, evaluation is on external DexYCB and real robot handovers, and no equation reduces to a fitted constant.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained with respect to the claimed predictions. The shape codebooks and image-to-shape encoder are trained on the synthetic ObMan dataset, the autoencoder reconstruction quality is reported on ObMan, and the reconstruction comparisons are run on DexYCB, an external benchmark; the handover results come from real robot trials with objects outside the training set. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no equation in the paper reduces to its own input. Self-citations appear (SVHO [27], the authors' earlier handover method [6], and the CORSMAL benchmarking protocol [4]), but they are used as comparison baselines, prior context, or evaluation protocol, not as the justification for the proposed fusion. The unvalidated conditional-independence assumption P=PLPR and the fact that segmentation masks are an extra input relative to the RGB baselines are correctness/fairness concerns, not circularity, because the reported Chamfer distance is computed against DexYCB ground truth and still depends on the learned shape decoder. Accordingly, the paper's core claims are not forced by construction or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on learned priors from ObMan, a set of hand-tuned hyperparameters, and several domain assumptions about stereo fusion, mask transfer, and pose accuracy. No independent evidence is provided for the conditional-independence fusion rule or the representativeness of ObMan for transparent household objects.

free parameters (8)
  • Codebook size C = 512
    Set in Section III-E; controls the number of discrete shape embeddings and is chosen by hand.
  • Embedding size S = 128
    Set in Section III-E; dimension of each shape code.
  • T-SDF grid dimension D = 128
    Set in Section III-E; resolution of the discretized Signed Distance Field.
  • Commitment loss weight beta = 1.0
    Set in Section III-E; balances codebook commitment in Eq. (1).
  • Cross-entropy weights wc = 0.25 (empty), 0.75 (rest)
    Set in Section III-E; down-weights empty space in Eq. (2).
  • T-SDF sampling threshold = 1 cm
    Set in Section III-A; points within 1 cm of the surface are kept as the pointcloud.
  • Number of grasp candidates N = 200
    Set in Section III-E; number of grasps sampled per handover.
  • IoU improvement threshold IoU* = not specified
    Mentioned in Section III-D; used to update pointclouds when reconstruction quality improves.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ObMan synthetic hand-object data provides sufficient 3D shape priors for real-world objects, including transparent and non-container objects.
    The shape codebooks and image-to-shape encoder are trained only on ObMan (Section III-B, III-C, IV-A); if ObMan's object and hand coverage is unrepresentative, the method will not generalize to DexYCB or household objects.
  • domain assumption The two views' predicted probability distributions are conditionally independent given the true shape, so element-wise multiplication P = PL PR is a valid fusion rule.
    Introduced in Section III-A without validation; if false, the stereo reconstruction is not a calibrated joint estimate.
  • domain assumption Segmentation masks are domain-invariant and can bridge the synthetic-to-real gap.
    The method includes hand and object masks as inputs and uses them for outlier removal (Section III-A, III-D); this assumes masks transfer across domains and are accurate.
  • domain assumption Per-view wrist poses and camera calibration are accurate enough for voxel projection, triangulation, and coordinate transformation.
    The grid is centered on the predicted wrist pose, and the pipeline relies on FrankMocap and hand-eye calibration (Section III-A, III-D); pose errors propagate into the reconstruction and grasp.
  • domain assumption Sampling the T-SDF at a threshold of 1 cm yields pointclouds sufficient for grasp estimation.
    The decoder output is converted to a pointcloud by thresholding (Section III-A); this choice assumes the resulting density is adequate for 6-DoF GraspNet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stereo Hand-Object Reconstruction for Human-to-Robot Handover." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CM7XL724

@misc{pith2026241207487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stereo Hand-Object Reconstruction for Human-to-Robot Handover},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CM7XL724}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07487}
}
read the original abstract

Jointly estimating hand and object shape facilitates the grasping task in human-to-robot handovers. However, relying on hand-crafted prior knowledge about the geometric structure of the object fails when generalising to unseen objects, and depth sensors fail to detect transparent objects such as drinking glasses. In this work, we propose a stereo-based method for hand-object reconstruction that combines single-view reconstructions probabilistically to form a coherent stereo reconstruction. We learn 3D shape priors from a large synthetic hand-object dataset to ensure that our method is generalisable, and use RGB inputs to better capture transparent objects. We show that our method reduces the object Chamfer distance compared to existing RGB based hand-object reconstruction methods on single view and stereo settings. We process the reconstructed hand-object shape with a projection-based outlier removal step and use the output to guide a human-to-robot handover pipeline with wide-baseline stereo RGB cameras. Our hand-object reconstruction enables a robot to successfully receive a diverse range of household objects from the human.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We reconstruct the hand-object pointcloud from stereo RGB input for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Limitations of existing human-to-robot handover approaches. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our proposed method, StereoHO, for hand-object reconstruction with two cropped images from a wide-baseline stereo camera. StereoHO predicts the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our proposed pipeline for human-to-robot handover. For each frame, hand-object detection extracts bounding boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic object types used for training StereoHO (top row), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing single-view and stereo hand object reconstructions on DexYCB [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Single-view and stereo hand-object reconstruction errors on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparing hand (red) and object (green) reconstructions, overlaid on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of successful human-to-robot handovers of household [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Survey of human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Awareness, intelligence, and compliance,

    S. Kumar, C. Savur, and F. Sahin, “Survey of human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Awareness, intelligence, and compliance,” IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 280– 297, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Object handovers: a review for robotics,

    V . Ortenzi, A. Cosgun, T. Pardi, W. P. Chan, E. Croft, and D. Kuli ´c, “Object handovers: a review for robotics,”IEEE Trans. Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1855–1873, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Object-independent human-to-robot handovers using real time robotic vision,

    P. Rosenberger, A. Cosgun, R. Newbury, J. Kwan, V . Ortenzi, P. Corke, and M. Grafinger, “Object-independent human-to-robot handovers using real time robotic vision,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17–23, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Benchmark for human-to-robot handovers of unseen containers with unknown filling,

    R. Sanchez-Matilla, K. Chatzilygeroudis, A. Modas, N. F. Duarte, A. Xompero, P. Frossard, A. Billard, and A. Cavallaro, “Benchmark for human-to-robot handovers of unseen containers with unknown filling,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1642–1649, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    The CORSMAL benchmark for the prediction of the properties of containers,

    A. Xompero, S. Donaher, V . Iashin, F. Palermo, G. Solak, C. Coppola, R. Ishikawa, Y . Nagao, R. Hachiuma, Q. Liu, F. Feng, C. Lan, R. H. M. Chan, G. Christmann, J.-T. Song, G. Neeharika, C. K. T. Reddy, D. Jain, B. U. Rehman, and A. Cavallaro, “The CORSMAL benchmark for the prediction of the properties of containers,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 41 388–41...

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Towards safe human- to-robot handovers of unknown containers,

    Y . L. Pang, A. Xompero, C. Oh, and A. Cavallaro, “Towards safe human- to-robot handovers of unknown containers,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot & Human Interactive Communication , 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Human grasp classifica- tion for reactive human-to-robot handovers,

    W. Yang, C. Paxton, M. Cakmak, and D. Fox, “Human grasp classifica- tion for reactive human-to-robot handovers,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot Syst., 2020, pp. 11 123–11 130

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Reactive human-to-robot handovers of arbitrary objects,

    W. Yang, C. Paxton, A. Mousavian, Y .-W. Chao, M. Cakmak, and D. Fox, “Reactive human-to-robot handovers of arbitrary objects,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics Autom. , 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Model predictive control for fluid human-to-robot handovers,

    W. Yang, B. Sundaralingam, C. Paxton, I. Akinola, Y .-W. Chao, M. Cak- mak, and D. Fox, “Model predictive control for fluid human-to-robot handovers,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics Autom. , 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Goal-auxiliary actor-critic for 6D robotic grasping with point clouds,

    L. Wang, Y . Xiang, W. Yang, A. Mousavian, and D. Fox, “Goal-auxiliary actor-critic for 6D robotic grasping with point clouds,” in Conf. Robot Learning, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    ClearGrasp: 3D shape estimation of transparent objects for manipulation,

    S. Sajjan, M. Moore, M. Pan, G. Nagaraja, J. Lee, A. Zeng, and S. Song, “ClearGrasp: 3D shape estimation of transparent objects for manipulation,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics Autom. , 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Depth restoration of hand-held transparent objects for human-to-robot handover,

    R. Yu, H. Yu, H. Yan, Z. Song, S. Li, and W. Ding, “Depth restoration of hand-held transparent objects for human-to-robot handover,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics Autom. , 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated objects,

    Y . Hasson, G. Varol, D. Tzionas, I. Kalevatykh, M. J. Black, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated objects,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Closing the loop for robotic grasping: A real-time, generative grasp synthesis approach,

    D. Morrison, P. Corke, and J. Leitner, “Closing the loop for robotic grasping: A real-time, generative grasp synthesis approach,” in Robotics: Science and Syst. , 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    6-DoF GraspNet: Variational grasp generation for object manipulation,

    A. Mousavian, C. Eppner, and D. Fox, “6-DoF GraspNet: Variational grasp generation for object manipulation,” in Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Learning implicit fields for generative shape modeling,

    Z. Chen and H. Zhang, “Learning implicit fields for generative shape modeling,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Multi-view shape estimation of transparent containers,

    A. Xompero, R. Sanchez-Matilla, A. Modas, P. Frossard, and A. Caval- laro, “Multi-view shape estimation of transparent containers,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech Signal Process. , 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    DexYCB: A benchmark for capturing hand grasping of objects,

    Y .-W. Chao, W. Yang, Y . Xiang, P. Molchanov, A. Handa, J. Tremblay, Y . S. Narang, K. Van Wyk, U. Iqbal, S. Birchfield, J. Kautz, and D. Fox, “DexYCB: A benchmark for capturing hand grasping of objects,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    OakInk: A large-scale knowledge repository for understanding hand-object interac- tion,

    L. Yang, K. Li, X. Zhan, F. Wu, A. Xu, L. Liu, and C. Lu, “OakInk: A large-scale knowledge repository for understanding hand-object interac- tion,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    What’s in your hands? 3D recon- struction of generic objects in hands,

    Y . Ye, A. Gupta, and S. Tulsiani, “What’s in your hands? 3D recon- struction of generic objects in hands,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    gSDF: Geometry-driven signed distance functions for 3D hand-object reconstruction,

    Z. Chen, S. Chen, C. Schmid, and I. Laptev, “gSDF: Geometry-driven signed distance functions for 3D hand-object reconstruction,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    HandNeRF: Learning to reconstruct hand-object interaction scene from a single RGB image,

    H. Choi, N. Chavan-Dafle, J. Yuan, V . Isler, and H. Park, “HandNeRF: Learning to reconstruct hand-object interaction scene from a single RGB image,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics Autom. , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    In- hand 3D object scanning from an RGB sequence,

    S. Hampali, T. Hodan, L. Tran, L. Ma, C. Keskin, and V . Lepetit, “In- hand 3D object scanning from an RGB sequence,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    SHOWMe: Benchmarking object-agnostic hand-object 3D reconstruction,

    A. Swamy, V . Leroy, P. Weinzaepfel, F. Baradel, S. Galaaoui, R. Br´egier, M. Armando, J.-S. Franco, and G. Rogez, “SHOWMe: Benchmarking object-agnostic hand-object 3D reconstruction,” in Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Novel-view synthesis and pose estimation for hand-object interaction from sparse views,

    W. Qu, Z. Cui, Y . Zhang, C. Meng, C. Ma, X. Deng, and H. Wang, “Novel-view synthesis and pose estimation for hand-object interaction from sparse views,” in Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Diffusion-guided re- construction of everyday hand-object interaction clips,

    Y . Ye, P. Hebbar, A. Gupta, and S. Tulsiani, “Diffusion-guided re- construction of everyday hand-object interaction clips,” in Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Sparse multi-view hand-object reconstruction for unseen environments,

    Y . L. Pang, C. Oh, and A. Cavallaro, “Sparse multi-view hand-object reconstruction for unseen environments,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. Workshops, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    AutoSDF: Shape priors for 3D completion, reconstruction and generation,

    P. Mittal, Y .-C. Cheng, M. Singh, and S. Tulsiani, “AutoSDF: Shape priors for 3D completion, reconstruction and generation,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Neural discrete representation learning,

    A. Van Den Oord, O. Vinyals, and K. Kavukcuoglu, “Neural discrete representation learning,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” inConf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Understanding human hands in contact at internet scale,

    D. Shan, J. Geng, M. Shu, and D. F. Fouhey, “Understanding human hands in contact at internet scale,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Fast segment anything,

    X. Zhao, W. Ding, Y . An, Y . Du, T. Yu, M. Li, M. Tang, and J. Wang, “Fast segment anything,” 2023, arXiv:2306.12156v1 [cs.CV]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    FrankMocap: A monocular 3D whole-body pose estimation system via regression and integration,

    Y . Rong, T. Shiratori, and H. Joo, “FrankMocap: A monocular 3D whole-body pose estimation system via regression and integration,” in Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. Workshops , 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3D robotics hand/eye calibration,

    R. Y . Tsai and R. K. Lenz, “A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3D robotics hand/eye calibration,” IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 345–358, 1989

    1989

  28. [36]

    ShapeNet: An information-rich 3D model repository,

    A. X. Chang, T. Funkhouser, L. Guibas, P. Hanrahan, Q. Huang, Z. Li, S. Savarese, M. Savva, S. Song, H. Su, J. Xiao, L. Yi, and F. Yu, “ShapeNet: An information-rich 3D model repository,” 2015, arXiv:1512.03012v1 [cs.GR]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Embodied hands: Modeling and capturing hands and bodies together,

    J. Romero, D. Tzionas, and M. J. Black, “Embodied hands: Modeling and capturing hands and bodies together,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 36, no. 6, Nov. 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    PoseCNN: A convolutional neural network for 6D object pose estimation in cluttered scenes,

    Y . Xiang, T. Schmidt, V . Narayanan, and D. Fox, “PoseCNN: A convolutional neural network for 6D object pose estimation in cluttered scenes,” in Robotics: Science and Syst. , 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Mask R-CNN,

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. B. Girshick, “Mask R-CNN,” in Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll ´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context,” in Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Hand keypoint detection in single images using multiview bootstrapping,

    T. Simon, H. Joo, I. Matthews, and Y . Sheikh, “Hand keypoint detection in single images using multiview bootstrapping,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Fast online object tracking and segmentation: A unifying approach,

    Q. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Bertinetto, W. Hu, and P. Torr, “Fast online object tracking and segmentation: A unifying approach,” in Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.