Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

A risk-adjusted grasp margin scored on the adverse friction tail certifies force closure with probability at least β and flags grasps that classical epsilon rates as safe but fail when friction drops.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A CVaR-based risk-adjusted Ferrari-Canny margin certifies force closure with probability at least β and better ranks adverse-friction grasp success than nominal epsilon.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-31 challenge →

load-bearing objection Clean CVaR specialization of Ferrari-Canny that actually separates friction-sensitive grasps; math holds, evidence is sim-only and prior-dependent. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25049 v1 pith:EM6JWSDB submitted 2026-07-27 cs.RO math.OC

FIRMGrasp: A Friction-Informed Risk Margin for Robust Grasp Synthesis

Clinton Enwerem , John S. Baras , Calin Belta This is my paper
classification cs.RO math.OC
keywords dexterous graspingforce closureFerrari-Canny metricConditional Value-at-Riskfriction uncertaintygrasp qualityrisk-sensitive robotics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Classical grasp scores treat friction as a single known number, so a grasp that looks force-closed at planning time can slip once the real contact is slipperier. This paper replaces that single number with a distribution and scores each grasp on the Conditional Value-at-Risk of the friction tail: it builds the wrench space at the CVaR-discounted friction and takes the inscribed-ball radius of that body as a risk-adjusted margin ε(β). Whenever that margin is positive, the grasp stays force-closed with probability at least β under the assumed prior. On 1,599 LEAP and Allegro grasps, more than half of the grasps the ordinary Ferrari-Canny margin certifies lose closure in the adverse tail; the new margin also ranks shake and pick success better than the nominal score, and certified-robust grasps hold at 70% under a hard lateral pull at μ=0.2 versus 25% for grasps the nominal margin accepts but the risk margin rejects.

Core claim

The authors show that evaluating the Ferrari-Canny force-closure margin at the CVaR mean of the adverse friction tail yields a single scalar ε(β) that is monotone in the confidence level β, differentiable in the grasp parameters, and carries a probabilistic certificate: ε(β)>0 implies force closure with probability at least β. Under calibrated priors this margin separates friction-sensitive grasps that the nominal epsilon rates as high quality, and it orders realized dynamic retention above both the nominal epsilon and a recent min-weight baseline.

What carries the argument

The risk-adjusted margin ε(β): the inscribed-ball radius of the grasp wrench space assembled at the CVaR-discounted friction v_β = CVaR_β(μ). Positivity of this radius is the closure certificate; the same construction specializes to the classical Ferrari-Canny epsilon under a point-mass prior.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes a calibrated scalar friction distribution really describes execution-time contact, and that quasi-static hard-finger Coulomb friction in simulation is enough for the certificate to predict physical retention.

What would settle it

Run the same certified-versus-rejected split on physical hardware with measured contact friction drawn from the paper’s adverse mixture: if grasps with ε(β)>0 do not retain the object under lateral pull at low friction at a clearly higher rate than grasps with ε_nom>0 but ε(β)≤0, the predictive claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Grasp synthesizers can rank or filter candidate contacts by ε(β) without resimulating every friction sample.
  • A positive risk margin supplies an explicit probability lower bound on force closure under a stated friction prior.
  • Differentiability of the CVaR margin opens gradient-based synthesis that optimizes the adverse tail rather than a nominal coefficient.
  • Object geometry that concentrates friction sensitivity (irregular shapes) can be flagged before execution by the drop of ε(β) below zero.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same CVaR construction could be applied to uncertain contact normals or object pose, giving a family of risk margins beyond friction alone.
  • If the friction prior were estimated online from tactile slip, the certificate could be refreshed during grasp execution rather than fixed at synthesis.
  • Libraries that already expose min-weight or epsilon could add ε(β) as a cheap post-process on stored wrench generators, turning existing grasp pools into friction-robust rankings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces FIRMGrasp, a CVaR-based family of grasp-quality margins for uncertainty in a scalar Coulomb friction coefficient. It defines a risk-adjusted friction v_β=CVaR_β(μ), assembles the grasp wrench space at v_β, and scores a grasp by its signed inscribed-ball radius ε^(β); it also defines Q_β as the lower-tail CVaR of the Ferrari-Canny margin. The paper establishes wrench-space nesting, monotonicity in β, almost-everywhere differentiability, and conditional probabilistic closure certificates. Empirically, it evaluates 1,599 LEAP/Allegro grasps, cross-dataset Shadow Hand grasps, a risk-adjusted synthesis objective, and Drake shake/lift tests. The reported results show substantial nominal-versus-adverse divergence and better ranking of simulated dynamic outcomes than nominal ε and FRoGGeR's min-weight metric.

Significance. If the claims are appropriately scoped, the work provides a useful and computationally attractive robustness axis for grasp evaluation. Once β and a friction prior are chosen, the metric introduces no fitted predictive parameters, requires essentially one LP per stored grasp, and comes with a non-circular conditional closure certificate. The held-out shake and lift studies test outcomes never used to fit the metric, and the cross-hand, cross-dataset, and synthesis experiments make the value of the new axis plausible. Its practical importance nevertheless depends on obtaining realistic friction priors and contact models; the present dynamic discrimination is comparative and moderate rather than a validated physical coverage guarantee.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §IX-D; Theorem 1 and Corollary 2; §X-E] The closure certificate is mathematically valid only conditionally on the stipulated scalar, contact-shared friction prior and the quasi-static linearized Coulomb model. Neither N(0.7,0.1²) nor 0.5U(0.7,1.0)+0.5U(0.1,0.3) is calibrated from measurements, and the adverse choice gives v_0.9≈0.12. The dynamic studies use fixed simulated μ∈{0.2,0.3,0.4}, welded pads, and the same Coulomb-style simulator family, so they test ranking—not realized ≥β execution coverage under an independently estimated friction law. The abstract's “calibrated friction distribution” and the certificate claims should be qualified accordingly, prior sensitivity or measured calibration reported, and force closure clearly distinguished from dynamic retention.
  2. [§X-E, Figures 12–13 and Tables VIII–IX] The empirical superiority claim rests on modest AUC differences over highly clustered data: 302 established grasps span only seven objects, with repeated friction/direction outcomes, while the reported bootstrap is grasp-level. The shake gap is 0.629 versus 0.578 (ℓ*) and 0.534 (εnom), and the pick gap over ℓ* is 0.78 versus 0.75 and acknowledged as nonsignificant. Please define the AUC observation unit, report object-cluster paired bootstrap intervals, and preferably include an intention-to-treat analysis counting contact-transfer failures. Wording such as “decisive” and the abstract's success-ordering claim should be tempered until this is done.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§X-B, Table V] Both objectives leave the median adverse-prior ε^(β) negative (−0.00119 versus −0.00322), so the study demonstrates reduced friction sensitivity rather than predominantly adverse-tail-certified synthesis. Please give confidence intervals for 72/125 versus 86/127 and explain “matched budget” alongside solve times of 19.3 s and 14.9 s.
  2. [§VII, Theorem 3] The claim of a.e. differentiability of ε(g,μ) alone is not quite enough to interchange differentiation with the tail expectation in Eq. (13). Please state the needed integrability/Lipschitz or finite-sample regularity conditions, or formulate the result through the sample-average subgradient.
  3. [§IX-F and Table VI] εnom is sometimes evaluated with normalized cone edges while ε^(β) uses unit normal forces. This explains why entries such as ε_N^(0.5) can exceed εnom in Table VI, but the convention should be repeated in the table/figure captions or a common scale used for direct comparison.
  4. [§X-D, Table VII] For DexGraspNet, fingertip forward kinematics followed by projection onto scaled meshes can change contact locations and normals. Given that only 33.2% certify even under the nominal prior, please add a reconstruction sanity check and avoid interpreting cross-dataset fractions as directly comparable across hands and contact conventions.
  5. [§IX-E] v_β is estimated from 2×10^5 samples even though the chosen Gaussian and mixture-uniform priors admit closed-form tail means. Supplying those formulas would strengthen the “closed-form analytic” description and improve reproducibility.
  6. [§IX-G, Table III, §X-E] Please explain why the per-object median split produces group sizes 109 and 44, and specify pad dimensions/materials, force limits, shake amplitude/duration, and the precise binary adverse-outcome threshold used for AUC.
  7. [§VI and §IX-D] The friction ranges are motivated primarily by a commercial reference chart [41]. A measured tribology reference, or explicit presentation of the priors as illustrative stress tests, would be preferable.
  8. [§VIII] Algorithm 1 does not use Theorem 3's gradient; the text should consistently present differentiability as enabling future gradient-based synthesis rather than as a capability exercised by the present pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: ε^(β) is a definitional CVaR-at-friction Ferrari-Canny radius, certificates follow from nesting/CVaR tail bounds, and predictive AUCs are on held-out dynamics the metric never fits.

full rationale

The central construction is Definition 7: ε^(β)(g) := ε(g, v_β) with v_β = CVaR_β(μ). That is a deliberate reparameterization of the classical Ferrari-Canny radius at a risk-adjusted friction, not a fit to shake/pick labels. Theorem 1 is the standard lower-tail CVaR implication (CVaR_β(Z)>0 ⇒ Pr[Z>0]≥β) applied to Z=ε(g,μ); Corollary 2 follows from GWS nesting in μ (Lemma 1) plus v_β ≤ VaR_β(μ). Monotonicity and differentiability are likewise standard CVaR/envelope facts. Empirical claims (53% adverse-tail loss; AUC 0.63/0.78) evaluate this fixed analytic functional on stored grasp maps and on dynamic Drake outcomes the metric does not see at construction time; priors are stipulated, not fitted to those outcomes. Baselines (nominal ε, FRoGGeR ℓ*, DexGraspNet) are external. Author self-citations ([8],[10]–[12],[32]) appear only as related-work motivation for risk-sensitive control and do not underwrite the theorems or the ranking experiments. No equation forces success ranking by construction. Score 1 only for ordinary non-load-bearing self-citation presence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central certificate rests on standard convex-analysis/CVaR facts plus classical grasping modeling choices, plus hand-specified friction priors and confidence level. No new physical entity is postulated; the invented objects are definitional risk-adjusted sets and margins built from existing GWS geometry.

free parameters (4)
  • confidence level β = 0.9 (primary)
    User-chosen risk aversion; main results report β=0.9 (and sweeps). Changes v_β and the certificate level.
  • nominal friction prior N(0.7, 0.1²) = mean 0.7, std 0.1
    Hand-specified tight Gaussian centered on a typical rubber-on-plastic coefficient; not fit to the dynamic success labels but chosen to represent mild uncertainty.
  • adverse friction mixture 0.5U(0.7,1.0)+0.5U(0.1,0.3) = equal 0.5/0.5 mixture on stated intervals
    Hand-specified bimodal prior that places half mass in a slippery tail; drives the main divergence and predictive studies.
  • friction-cone linearization (n_s generators) and unit-normal-force GWS convention
    Discretization and normalization choices that affect numerical margins (global rescaling noted as rank-preserving at fixed μ).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Hard-finger Coulomb friction with polyhedral cone linearization; admissible contact forces lie in C^(i) with ||f_t||=μ f_n on generators.
    Sec. III and Definition 3; standard grasping model underlying all wrench constructions.
  • domain assumption Grasp wrench space nests in friction: W(μ') ⊆ W(μ) for 0 ≤ μ' ≤ μ, and primitive wrenches are affine in μ.
    Lemma 1 and surrounding text; load-bearing for reducing CVaR on the set to evaluation at v_β and for Corollary 2.
  • standard math Lower-tail CVaR properties: CVaR_β(Z)>0 ⇒ VaR_β(Z)>0 ⇒ Pr[Z>0]≥β; CVaR is monotone in β and admits Danskin/envelope gradients under stated conditions.
    Eq. (1), Theorem 1, Theorems 2–3; Rockafellar–Uryasev framework as cited.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static force closure at the grasp instant (not finite-horizon closed-loop execution) is the right robustness property to certify.
    Sec. VI explicitly scopes out dynamic execution-time control; predictive studies still use dynamic shake/lift as external validators.
  • ad hoc to paper Stored analytical grasp maps plus Drake replay with welded fingertip pads faithfully test friction sensitivity of certified contacts.
    Sec. IX-G and X-E; pad transfer and gravity-off shake are experimental design choices that define what 'realized robustness' means here.
invented entities (3)
  • Risk-adjusted friction v_β := CVaR_β(μ) and risk-adjusted wrench body W^(β):=W(v_β) no independent evidence
    purpose: Collapse the friction distribution into one adverse coefficient and one polytope on which classical margins are evaluated.
    Definition 4; definitional construction from standard CVaR and GWS, not a new physical object.
  • Risk-adjusted margin ε^(β) and CVaR margin Q_β independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar grasp quality that encodes friction-tail force-closure margin and supports ranking/synthesis.
    Definition 7 and Eq. (12); the paper's named metric family.
  • Risk-adjusted min-weight ℓ*(β) independent evidence
    purpose: Differentiable synthesis surrogate evaluating FRoGGeR min-weight on W^(β).
    Table I and Sec. X-B; extension of an existing LP to the risk-adjusted body.

reviewed 2026-07-31 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FIRMGrasp: A Friction-Informed Risk Margin for Robust Grasp Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EM6JWSDB

@misc{pith2026260725049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FIRMGrasp: A Friction-Informed Risk Margin for Robust Grasp Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EM6JWSDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25049}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Classical grasp quality metrics assume a single deterministic friction coefficient, so they cannot predict whether a grasp retains force closure across the range of friction values the contacting surfaces may exhibit. To predict these failures, we present FIRMGrasp, a family of friction-volatility-aware grasp quality metrics grounded in the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) risk measure. Unlike standard grasp quality assessors that assume a single friction realization, our metric evaluates the force-closure margin at the CVaR-discounted mean of the adverse friction tail, yielding a risk-adjusted margin $\varepsilon^{(\beta)}$, the inscribed-ball radius of the risk-adjusted wrench space. We establish its monotonicity in the confidence level $\beta$, its differentiability in the grasp parameters, and a probabilistic closure certificate that guarantees force closure with probability at least $\beta$ whenever $\varepsilon^{(\beta)}$ is positive. Under a calibrated friction distribution, analytic evaluation shows our $\varepsilon^{(\beta)}$ metric identifies friction-sensitive grasps that the nominal Ferrari-Canny epsilon rates as high-quality, and we compare against the nominal epsilon and recent differentiable baselines. Across 1,599 LEAP Hand and Allegro Hand grasps, 53% of the grasps the nominal Ferrari-Canny margin certifies lose force closure in the adverse friction tail. On the same set, the nominal margin separates realized shake and pick success with probabilities of only 0.53 and 0.67, near chance on shake success, whereas $\varepsilon^{(\beta)}$ orders the pair correctly with probabilities of 0.63 and 0.78, respectively. In simulated lift trials with gravity enabled at an adverse friction coefficient of 0.2, grasps $\varepsilon^{(\beta)}$ certifies reach a 70% success rate under lateral pull, against 25% for grasps the nominal margin certifies but $\varepsilon^{(\beta)}$ rejects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25049 by Calin Belta, Clinton Enwerem, John S. Baras.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Predicting Lift Success under Adverse Friction. Two Allegro Hand grasps of the same object that the nominal Ferrari-Canny margin certifies almost identically (εnom = +0.008 and +0.013) part ways once friction uncertainty is introduced. Our risk-adjusted grasp quality margin ε (β) (Definition 7) rejects the first (ε (β) < 0) and certifies the second (ε (β) > 0) under the adverse friction prior 0.5 U(0.7, 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Grasping Frames. Contact, object, and hand coordinate frames used in our uncertainty-aware grasp planning framework. These include the hand base frame, {FH}, the object frame, {FO}, and the i th contact frame, {FCi } attached to contact point i at p (i) ∈ R3 . Admissible contact forces at a contact point are expressed in {FCi }, their corresponding positions are expressed in {FO}, and we assume knowledge o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Constructing the Risk-Adjusted Margin. From a contact set and friction prior p(µ), the risk-adjusted grasp wrench space W(β) = Wn + vβWt scales the tangential wrench body by the friction CVaR vβ; a single linear program inscribes the largest ball of radius ε (β) in W(β) (Equation (11)), whose positivity certifies force closure with probability at least β (Theorem 1). TABLE I COMMON GRASP QUALITY FUNCTIONS … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation Degradation and Object Stratification. Left: the Pearson correlation of ε (β) with εnom as the confidence β rises, holding near 0.95 under the nominal prior and falling toward 0.30 under the adverse prior. Right: the per-object fraction of nominally force-closed grasps that lose closure in the adverse tail, from the rounded sphere to the irregular mustard bottle. TABLE V SYNTHESIS UNDER THE RIS… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Aggregate Divergence Under the Adverse Prior. Risk metric ε (β) under the adverse friction prior against the nominal Ferrari-Canny εnom, one point per grasp over the combined 1,599-grasp dataset. Every grasp is force￾closed at nominal friction, so all points sit at positive εnom, yet the shaded population falls below the closure boundary in the adverse tail. The nominal margin overrates these grasps. holdi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Synthesis Under the Risk Objective. Left: the fraction of synthesized grasps that are friction-sensitive under the adverse prior, lower for the risk objective than for the min-weight objective at matched budget. Right: the distribution of ε (β) under the adverse prior, with the risk objective shifted toward the closure boundary. Cube Box Cylinder Potted Meat Can Mustard Bottle Tomato Soup Can Tennis Ball -… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-Object Quality Comparison. Nominal Ferrari-Canny εnom, our risk metric ε (β) under the nominal prior, and ε (β) under the adverse prior at β = 0.9, for each RealHand L6 grasp. The nominal prior tracks the friction-unaware margin, while the adverse prior collapses toward and below the closure boundary, sharply for the mustard bottle. shapes, and rounded objects, each force-closed (ℓ ∗ > 0) and satisfyin… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-Grasp Quality Curve. The Ferrari-Canny margin ε(g, µ) of the mustard-bottle and tennis-ball grasps of Table VI, swept over the friction coefficient. The curve is piecewise linear (Remark 2) and comes from the stored grasp maps in the unit-normal-force convention of ε (β) , with no sampling. The zero crossing marks the critical friction µ ∗ below which closure is lost. The mustard bottle’s µ ∗ sits abov… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cross-Dataset Distribution of ε (β) . Per-grasp histograms of our risk metric ε (β) at β=0.9 under the nominal prior N (0.7, 0.1 2 ) (blue) and the adverse prior 0.5 U(0.7, 1.0) + 0.5 U(0.1, 0.3) (green), for each dataset. The nominal distribution sits above the closure boundary while the adverse distribution shifts across it. The title reports the certified-robust fraction (ε (β) > 0) under the nominal a… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Friction-Error Robust Grasps on the RealHand L6. Twelve penetration-free, friction-uncertainty-aware grasps span household items (meat and soup cans, mustard and bleach bottles, foam brick), primitive shapes (box, cube, cylinder, sphere), and rounded objects (tennis ball, apple, strawberry), and exercise enveloping, tripod, and pinch closures on the RealHand L6 (rendered in Drake). Every rendered grasp is… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Predictive Validity Under Dynamic Perturbation. Realized robustness of 302 established-contact grasps under a gravity-off six-axis shake over a friction sweep µ ∈ {0.2, 0.3, 0.4}, pooled across the seven objects, at each object’s mesh-and-density mass and moment of inertia. Left: the mean fraction of shake directions that retain the object, binned by predictor quartile, rises with the risk margin ε (β) bu… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Pick Companion Under a Gravity-On Lift. Realized weight￾bearing retention of 51 established-contact grasps under a gravity-on pris￾matic lift with a graded lateral pull at 1, 3, 6 times object weight, over the friction sweep µ ∈ {0.2, 0.3, 0.4}. Left: the success rate binned by predictor quartile climbs with ε (β) and saturates under the nominal Ferrari￾Canny margin εnom. Right: the pooled area under the … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Friction-Uncertainty-Aware Grasp Synthesis on the LEAP Hand. Twenty-four friction-uncertainty-aware grasps synthesized by the retargeted pipeline for the LEAP hand attached to a 6-DoF FAIR Innovation FR3 cobot, spanning EGAD! shapes (top row and left half of the middle row), household objects, and fruit-scale items (bottom row), rendered in Drake at the stored arm configuration. Every rendered grasp is fo… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Grasp Execution Without a Planner: Configuration-Space Grasp Distance Fields with Certified Safety & Guaranteed Quality

    cs.RO 2026-08 reject novelty 6.0

    A softmin distance field over grasp candidates, followed by a CBF-CLF filtered feedback law, executes reach-grasp-lift without a planner and retains most of the synthesized grasp quality.

  2. Grasp Execution Without a Planner: Configuration-Space Grasp Distance Fields with Certified Safety & Guaranteed Quality

    cs.RO 2026-08 reject novelty 6.0

    Grasp execution via a softmin field over grasp configurations with CBF-QP safety filtering, eliminating trajectory replanning, with a force-closure margin guarantee that fails in one reported trial.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Planning Optimal Grasps,

    C. Ferrari and J. Canny, “Planning Optimal Grasps,” inProceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2290–2295 vol.3, 1992

    1992

  2. [2]

    Task-Oriented Optimal Grasping by Multi- fingered Robot Hands,

    Z. Li and S. S. Sastry, “Task-Oriented Optimal Grasping by Multi- fingered Robot Hands,”IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 32–44, 1988

    1988

  3. [3]

    Articulated Hands: Force Control and Kinematic Issues,

    J. K. Salisbury and J. J. Craig, “Articulated Hands: Force Control and Kinematic Issues,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–17, 1982

    1982

  4. [4]

    Optimal Grasping Based on Non-Dimensionalized Performance Indices,

    B.-H. Kim, S.-R. Oh, B.-J. Yi, and I. H. Suh, “Optimal Grasping Based on Non-Dimensionalized Performance Indices,” inProceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 2, pp. 949–956, IEEE, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Rimon and J

    E. Rimon and J. Burdick,The Mechanics of Robot Grasping. Cam- bridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    FRoGGeR: Fast Robust Grasp Generation via the Min-Weight Metric,

    A. H. Li, P. Culbertson, J. W. Burdick, and A. D. Ames, “FRoGGeR: Fast Robust Grasp Generation via the Min-Weight Metric,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 6809–6816, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Toward an Analytic Theory of Intrinsic Robustness for Dexterous Grasping,

    A. H. Li, P. Culbertson, and A. D. Ames, “Toward an Analytic Theory of Intrinsic Robustness for Dexterous Grasping,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2992–2999, 2024. ISSN: 2153-0866

    2024

  8. [8]

    Variational Neural Belief Parameterizations for Robust Dexterous Grasping under Multimodal Uncertainty,

    C. Enwerem, S. Kalyanaraman, J. S. Baras, and C. Belta, “Variational Neural Belief Parameterizations for Robust Dexterous Grasping under Multimodal Uncertainty,” 2026. arXiv:2604.25897

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Pose Error Robust Grasping from Contact Wrench Space Metrics,

    J. Weisz and P. K. Allen, “Pose Error Robust Grasping from Contact Wrench Space Metrics,” in2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 557–562, 2012

    2012

  10. [10]

    Robust Stochastic Shortest-Path Planning via Risk-Sensitive Incremental Sam- pling,

    C. Enwerem, E. Noorani, J. S. Baras, and B. M. Sadler, “Robust Stochastic Shortest-Path Planning via Risk-Sensitive Incremental Sam- pling,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1087–1094, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Safety-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Control via Risk-Sensitive Action-Value Iteration and Quantile Regression,

    C. Enwerem, A. G. Puranic, J. S. Baras, and C. Belta, “Safety-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Control via Risk-Sensitive Action-Value Iteration and Quantile Regression,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4890–4895, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Risk-Constrained Belief- Space Optimization for Safe Control under Latent Uncertainty,

    C. Enwerem, J. S. Baras, and C. Belta, “Risk-Constrained Belief- Space Optimization for Safe Control under Latent Uncertainty,” 2026. arXiv:2604.03868

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    DexGraspNet: A Large-Scale Robotic Dexterous Grasp Dataset for General Objects Based on Simulation,

    R. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Chen, Y . Xu, P. Li, T. Liu, and H. Wang, “DexGraspNet: A Large-Scale Robotic Dexterous Grasp Dataset for General Objects Based on Simulation,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 11359–11366, IEEE, 2023. arXiv:2210.02697

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Dexterous Contact- Rich Manipulation via the Contact Trust Region,

    H. J. T. Suh, T. Pang, T. Zhao, and R. Tedrake, “Dexterous Contact- Rich Manipulation via the Contact Trust Region,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2026. Advance online publication

    2026

  15. [15]

    DROP: Dexter- ous Reorientation via Online Planning,

    A. H. Li, P. Culbertson, V . Kurtz, and A. D. Ames, “DROP: Dexter- ous Reorientation via Online Planning,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 14299–14306, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    PONG: Probabilistic Object Normals for Grasping via Analytic Bounds on Force Closure Probability,

    A. H. Li, P. Culbertson, and A. D. Ames, “PONG: Probabilistic Object Normals for Grasping via Analytic Bounds on Force Closure Probability,” 2023. arXiv:2309.16930

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    GP-GPIS-OPT: Grasp Planning with Shape Uncertainty Using Gaussian Process Implicit Surfaces and Sequential Convex Programming,

    J. Mahler, S. Patil, B. Kehoe, J. van den Berg, M. T. Ciocarlie, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg, “GP-GPIS-OPT: Grasp Planning with Shape Uncertainty Using Gaussian Process Implicit Surfaces and Sequential Convex Programming,” in2015 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4919–4926, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  18. [18]

    Constraining Gaus- sian Process Implicit Surfaces for Robot Manipulation via Dataset Refinement,

    A. Kumar, P. Mitrano, and D. Berenson, “Constraining Gaus- sian Process Implicit Surfaces for Robot Manipulation via Dataset Refinement,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024. arXiv:2410.00157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Deep Differ- entiable Grasp Planner for High-DOF Grippers,

    M. Liu, Z. Pan, K. Xu, K. Ganguly, and D. Manocha, “Deep Differ- entiable Grasp Planner for High-DOF Grippers,” inRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2020

    2020

  20. [20]

    Grasp’D: Differentiable Contact-rich Grasp Synthesis for Multi-fingered Hands,

    D. Turpin, L. Wang, E. Heiden, Y .-C. Chen, M. Macklin, S. Tsogkas, S. Dickinson, and A. Garg, “Grasp’D: Differentiable Contact-rich Grasp Synthesis for Multi-fingered Hands,” inComputer Vision – ECCV 2022, pp. 201–221, 2022

    2022

  21. [21]

    Fast-Grasp’D: Dexterous Multi-finger Grasp Generation Through Differentiable Simulation,

    D. Turpin, T. Zhong, S. Zhang, G. Zhu, E. Heiden, M. Macklin, S. Tsogkas, S. Dickinson, and A. Garg, “Fast-Grasp’D: Dexterous Multi-finger Grasp Generation Through Differentiable Simulation,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 8082–8089, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Synthesizing Diverse and Physically Stable Grasps with Arbitrary Hand Structures Using Differentiable Force Closure Estimator,

    T. Liu, Z. Liu, Z. Jiao, Y . Zhu, and S.-C. Zhu, “Synthesizing Diverse and Physically Stable Grasps with Arbitrary Hand Structures Using Differentiable Force Closure Estimator,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 470–477, 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    Learning Diverse and Physically Feasible Dexterous Grasps with Generative Model and Bilevel Optimization,

    A. Wu, M. Guo, and K. Liu, “Learning Diverse and Physically Feasible Dexterous Grasps with Generative Model and Bilevel Optimization,” inProceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, vol. 205 of PMLR, pp. 1938–1948, PMLR, 2023

    1938

  24. [24]

    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,” in2019 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 2901–2910, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  25. [25]

    GanHand: Predicting Human Grasp Affordances in Multi-Object Scenes,

    E. Corona, A. Pumarola, G. Aleny `a, F. Moreno-Noguer, and G. Rogez, “GanHand: Predicting Human Grasp Affordances in Multi-Object Scenes,” in2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 5031–5041, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    Multi-FinGAN: Generative Coarse- to-Fine Sampling of Multi-Finger Grasps,

    J. Lundell, E. Corona, T. N. Le, F. Verdoja, P. Weinzaepfel, G. Rogez, F. Moreno-Noguer, and V . Kyrki, “Multi-FinGAN: Generative Coarse- to-Fine Sampling of Multi-Finger Grasps,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4495–4501, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    DDGC: Generative Deep Dex- terous Grasping in Clutter,

    J. Lundell, F. Verdoja, and V . Kyrki, “DDGC: Generative Deep Dex- terous Grasping in Clutter,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6899–6906, 2021

    2021

  28. [28]

    FFHNet: Generating Multi-Fingered Robotic Grasps for Unknown Objects in Real-time,

    V . Mayer, Q. Feng, J. Deng, Y . Shi, Z. Chen, and A. Knoll, “FFHNet: Generating Multi-Fingered Robotic Grasps for Unknown Objects in Real-time,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 762–769, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    UGG: Unified Generative Grasping,

    J. Lu, H. Kang, H. Li, B. Liu, Y . Yang, Q. Huang, and G. Hua, “UGG: Unified Generative Grasping,” inComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pp. 414–433, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    DexDiffuser: Gener- ating Dexterous Grasps with Diffusion Models,

    Z. Weng, H. Lu, D. Kragic, and J. Lundell, “DexDiffuser: Gener- ating Dexterous Grasps with Diffusion Models,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 11834–11840, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    SE(3)- DiffusionFields: Learning Smooth Cost Functions for Joint Grasp and Motion Optimization through Diffusion,

    J. Urain, N. Funk, J. Peters, and G. Chalvatzaki, “SE(3)- DiffusionFields: Learning Smooth Cost Functions for Joint Grasp and Motion Optimization through Diffusion,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5923–5930, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    EquiDexFlow: Contact- Grounded SE(3)-Equivariant Dexterous Grasp Generative Flows,

    C. Enwerem, J. S. Baras, and C. Belta, “EquiDexFlow: Contact- Grounded SE(3)-Equivariant Dexterous Grasp Generative Flows,”

  33. [33]

    Generating Multi-Fingered Robotic Grasps via Deep Learning,

    J. Varley, J. Weisz, J. Weiss, and P. Allen, “Generating Multi-Fingered Robotic Grasps via Deep Learning,” in2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4415–4420, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  34. [34]

    Grasping of Unknown Objects Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Based on Depth Images,

    P. Schmidt, N. Vahrenkamp, M. W ¨achter, and T. Asfour, “Grasping of Unknown Objects Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Based on Depth Images,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6831–6838, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  35. [35]

    ContactGrasp: Func- tional Multi-Finger Grasp Synthesis from Contact,

    S. Brahmbhatt, A. Handa, J. Hays, and D. Fox, “ContactGrasp: Func- tional Multi-Finger Grasp Synthesis from Contact,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2386–2393, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  36. [36]

    UniGrasp: Learning a Unified Model to Grasp with Multifingered Robotic Hands,

    L. Shao, F. Ferreira, M. Jorda, V . Nambiar, J. Luo, E. Solowjow, J. A. Ojea, O. Khatib, and J. Bohg, “UniGrasp: Learning a Unified Model to Grasp with Multifingered Robotic Hands,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2286–2293, 2020

    2020

  37. [37]

    EfficientGrasp: A Uni- fied Data-Efficient Learning to Grasp Method for Multi-Fingered Robot Hands,

    K. Li, N. Baron, X. Zhang, and N. Rojas, “EfficientGrasp: A Uni- fied Data-Efficient Learning to Grasp Method for Multi-Fingered Robot Hands,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 8619–8626, 2022

    2022

  38. [38]

    AdaGrasp: Learning an Adaptive Gripper-Aware Grasping Policy,

    Z. Xu, B. Qi, S. Agrawal, and S. Song, “AdaGrasp: Learning an Adaptive Gripper-Aware Grasping Policy,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2021

    2021

  39. [39]

    Optimization of Conditional Value- at-Risk,

    R. T. Rockafellar and S. Uryasev, “Optimization of Conditional Value- at-Risk,”The Journal of Risk, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 21–41, 2000

    2000

  40. [40]

    R. M. Murray, Z. Li, and S. S. Sastry,A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation. CRC Press, 1 ed., 2017

    2017

  41. [41]

    Coefficient of Friction Reference Chart,

    Schneider & Company, “Coefficient of Friction Reference Chart,”

  42. [42]

    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

    2015

  43. [43]

    LEAP Hand: Low-Cost, Effi- cient, and Anthropomorphic Hand for Robot Learning,

    K. Shaw, A. Agarwal, and D. Pathak, “LEAP Hand: Low-Cost, Effi- cient, and Anthropomorphic Hand for Robot Learning,” inRobotics: Science and Systems XIX, 2023

    2023

  44. [44]

    GenDexGrasp: Generalizable Dexterous Grasping,

    P. Li, T. Liu, Y . Li, Y . Geng, Y . Zhu, Y . Yang, and S. Huang, “GenDexGrasp: Generalizable Dexterous Grasping,” in2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 8068– 8074, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    GAGrasp: Geometric Algebra Diffusion for Dexterous Grasping,

    T. Zhong and C. Allen-Blanchette, “GAGrasp: Geometric Algebra Diffusion for Dexterous Grasping,” in2025 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6771–6778, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    The YCB Object and Model Set: Towards Common Bench- marks for Manipulation Research,

    B. Calli, A. Singh, A. Walsman, S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “The YCB Object and Model Set: Towards Common Bench- marks for Manipulation Research,” in2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR), pp. 510–517, 2015

    2015

  47. [47]

    The Columbia Grasp Database,

    C. Goldfeder, M. Ciocarlie, H. Dang, and P. K. Allen, “The Columbia Grasp Database,” in2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1710–1716, IEEE, 2009

    2009

  48. [48]

    GraspIt! A Versatile Simulator for Robotic Grasping,

    A. T. Miller and P. K. Allen, “GraspIt! A Versatile Simulator for Robotic Grasping,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 110–122, 2004

    2004

  49. [49]

    Yale-CMU-Berkeley Dataset for Robotic Manipulation Research,

    B. Calli, A. Singh, J. Bruce, A. Walsman, K. Konolige, S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “Yale-CMU-Berkeley Dataset for Robotic Manipulation Research,”The International Journal of Robotics Re- search, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 261–268, 2017

    2017

  50. [50]

    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,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, 2021

    2021

  51. [51]

    GRAB: A Dataset of Whole-Body Human Grasping of Objects,

    O. Taheri, N. Ghorbani, M. J. Black, and D. Tzionas, “GRAB: A Dataset of Whole-Body Human Grasping of Objects,” inComputer Vision – ECCV 2020, pp. 581–600, 2020

    2020

  52. [52]

    The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types,

    T. Feix, J. Romero, H.-B. Schmiedmayer, A. M. Dollar, and D. Kragic, “The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types,”IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 66–77, 2016

    2016

  53. [53]

    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 Transactions on Graphics, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1–17, 2017

    2017

  54. [54]

    EGAD! An Evolved Grasping Analysis Dataset for Diversity and Reproducibility in Robotic Manipu- lation,

    D. Morrison, P. Corke, and J. Leitner, “EGAD! An Evolved Grasping Analysis Dataset for Diversity and Reproducibility in Robotic Manipu- lation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4368– 4375, 2020. APPENDIX A. One-Shot Grasp-and-Lift Success in Dynamic Simulation We confirm grasp-and-lift success in the Drake physics- validation syste...

    2020

  55. [2026]

    25, 2026

    Accessed: Feb. 25, 2026

    2026

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 31, 2026.