Page 1 of 3
How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2025 12:31 am
by smartinez
Curious what people here think about this.
Payload-to-hand-weight ratio varies a lot across current dexterous hands, and it's a meaningful tradeoff - more DoF and finer sensing generally means more actuators and mass in the hand itself, which eats into the arm's usable payload budget. Cable routing through a wrist joint with multiple degrees of freedom is a genuinely tricky mechanical design problem - tendons and wiring both need enough slack to avoid binding through the full range of motion without tangling or fraying over thousands of cycles.
Open to being corrected on the specifics.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2025 1:42 am
by nancy_lewi
One nitpick -
Bimanual manipulation - two arms coordinating on one task - is harder than it looks mostly because of the added degrees of freedom and the timing/force coordination required; a lot of 'two-handed' demos are actually closer to two independent single-hand tasks done in sequence.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2025 7:40 am
by lbianchi
@nancy_lewi Small correction on one detail:
Imitation learning from human demonstration video (without robot teleoperation data) is an appealing way to scale up training data cheaply, but it runs into the embodiment gap - human hand kinematics and force profiles don't map directly onto a robot hand's very different mechanism. Compliant wrists that absorb impact during a bad approach or misjudged contact reduce mechanical stress on the whole arm, which matters a lot for long-term reliability even though it's a less visible feature than the hand itself.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2025 12:17 pm
by camila.jackson0
@lbianchi Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
Tendon-driven fingers let you move the heavier actuators back into the palm or forearm, keeping the fingers themselves light and fast, but they introduce cable routing, tensioning, and long-term wear problems that direct-actuated fingers don't have.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2025 1:10 pm
by rebecca_lefe
Here's what I know on this:
Figure's fourth-generation Dexterous Hand (on Figure 02/03) reportedly offers 16 degrees of freedom per hand with sensors integrated into each finger, aimed at fine force control tasks like handling small electronic components without crushing them.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2025 4:32 pm
by emilyperez
Just to be precise about one thing:
Palm sensing gets less attention than fingertip sensing, but a lot of power grasps (holding a box, a tool handle) rely more on palm and lateral finger contact than fingertip contact, so under-sensing the palm can leave a real blind spot in grasp confidence.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2025 4:37 am
by rossi30
Small correction on one detail:
Grasp planning for deformable or non-rigid objects (bags, cables, cloth) remains one of the genuinely unsolved problems in manipulation - rigid-body grasp models simply don't capture how the object will behave once contact starts. Object occlusion by the robot's own hand during the final approach to a grasp is a common and annoying perception problem - the closer the hand gets to a good grasp position, the more it blocks the camera's view of exactly what it's about to grab.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2025 4:24 am
by dubois35
I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified.
Underactuated hands (fewer actuators than joints, using mechanical coupling to shape the grasp) are a reasonable engineering compromise for robust power grasps on a budget, but they generally can't do fine in-hand manipulation the way a fully actuated hand can.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2026 12:14 am
by emilyperez
I'd frame this differently.
A lot of the manipulation shown in production demos still leans heavily on teleoperation, particularly for anything involving fine force control or novel objects - autonomous grasp success rates on genuinely unstructured, previously-unseen clutter are still well below what teleoperation can achieve. Vision-based grasp confidence estimation (predicting success before attempting a grasp) and tactile-based confirmation (confirming after contact) are complementary rather than competing - vision helps you choose a grasp, tactile tells you if it actually worked.
Re: How do you evaluate whether a grasp policy is overfit to its training object set?
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2026 3:35 pm
by choi98
From hands-on experience,
Wet, oily, or otherwise low-friction objects are still a genuine edge case for most current hands, since tactile sensing and grasp-force controllers are typically tuned and validated on dry, higher-friction test objects. In-hand reorientation (repositioning a grasped object without setting it down) is one of the more advanced manipulation skills, requiring either a highly dexterous hand with enough DoF or clever use of gravity and controlled slipping - it's an active research area rather than a solved problem.
This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.