Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Diffgrasp: Whole-Body Grasping Synthesis Guided by Object Motion Using a Diffusion Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DiffGrasp claims that whole-body grasping sequences with realistic finger-object contact can be synthesized by a single conditional diffusion model that jointly predicts body pose, hand pose, and wrist offsets relative to a moving object…

desk verdict A solid, clearly written method for whole-body grasping sequences, but the contact metrics are partially self-referential via the shared 5mm threshold—worth reviewing, not a breakthrough. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20657 v1 pith:LTTSIVR2 submitted 2024-12-30 cs.CV

Yonghao Zhang , Qiang He , Yanguang Wan , Yinda Zhang , Xiaoming Deng , Cuixia Ma , Hongan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelwhole-bodymotionsynthesishand-objectcontactgraspgenerationobject-motionconditioningcontact-awarelossesinference-timeguidance
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 claims that whole-body grasping sequences with realistic finger-object contact can be produced by a single conditional diffusion model that jointly predicts body pose, hand pose, and wrist offsets relative to a moving object. This matters because prior whole-body interaction generators largely ignored detailed hand poses, while fine-grained grasp generators produced only static single frames without temporal continuity. DiffGrasp conditions on object shape, object motion, and human identity, and uses contact-aware losses plus inference-time guidance to keep the generated hands near the object without penetration. On the GRAB and ARCTIC benchmarks it reports higher hand-contact F1 and lower joint errors than three versions of the OMOMO baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the binary contact label $\tau \in \{0,1\}^{T\times 2}$, a per-frame, per-hand indicator computed by thresholding the minimum hand-to-object mesh distance at 5 mm. That label does triple duty: it gates the contact-aware reconstruction loss so only the contacting hand is pulled toward ground-truth joints and wrist positions; it weights the contact-aware interaction loss through exponentially decaying distance terms so the network becomes sensitive to how close each hand joint is to the object centroid; and at inference it selects which hand the guidance gradients optimize. The conditional diffusion model is a transformer encoder–decoder that emits clean SMPL-X poses plus wrist translations relative to the object centroid, and the guidance stage refines those predictions with a data-driven grasp-stabilization correction, an SDF-based hand-object contact term, and a feet-penetration term.

What would settle it

Recompute contact F1 after relabeling both generated and ground-truth sequences with a stricter physical contact criterion, such as finger-pad alignment within 2 mm or a force-closure check, and see whether DiffGrasp's margin over the OMOMO variants survives; if the margin collapses, the reported contact realism is an artifact of the shared 5 mm threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DiffGrasp's central claim is that the difficult part of whole-body grasping synthesis—coordinating a moving body with two hands that must keep stable, non-penetrating contact with an object—can be handled in one diffusion pass rather than by chaining separate body and hand models. The network's denoiser outputs both SMPL-X whole-body pose parameters and the translations of both wrists relative to the object centroid, so the model is explicitly aware of where the object is in Euclidean space. Two contact-aware losses, gated by a binary per-hand contact label, teach the model to reproduce ground-truth hand joints during contact and to weight joint distances near the object more strongly. At sampling time, three reconstruction-guiding gradients stabilize the wrist against object sliding, push hand vertices out of the object and toward its surface, and pull feet to the floor. On GRAB and ARCTIC the paper reports F1 contact scores around 0.78–0.81, compared with 0.10–0.33 for the best OMOMO variants, together with lower hand and full-body position errors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a fixed 5 mm hand-to-object distance is a faithful proxy for grasping contact, since the same threshold generates the training labels, the inference labels, and the evaluation F1 labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whole-body grasping can be treated as a single sequence-to-sequence diffusion task, so hand-then-body staged pipelines are not required for object-motion-conditioned synthesis.
  • The contact-aware reconstruction and interaction losses are complementary: the interaction loss gives the network spatial awareness of the object, the reconstruction loss keeps hand poses natural, and removing either one degrades the results.
  • Inference-time reconstruction guidance improves contact and penetration behavior without retraining, and it can be applied only to the upper body and hands.
  • The model generalizes to unseen objects better than to unseen human identities, with F1 of 0.92 on held-out objects versus 0.78 on held-out subjects on GRAB.
  • Sparse keyframe inputs are sufficient: interpolating between as few as six object keyframes still yields natural whole-body grasping sequences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the 5 mm contact threshold couples training, inference, and evaluation; replacing it with a physical criterion such as finger-pad alignment or force closure would require re-deriving all three and could change the reported margins.
  • The data-driven grasp-stabilization correction could be extracted as a general post-processing module for other grasp-generation methods, since it only needs a wrist trajectory relative to the object and a contact segment.
  • Because the conditioning signal is object motion, the framework fits robotics and VR authoring workflows where object trajectories are given as keyframes; a natural test is to feed the generated poses into a physics simulator to measure grasp stability under perturbation.
  • The stated inability to walk while grasping points to a direct extension: retraining on locomotion-capable interaction data or adding an explicit root-velocity prior, neither of which the current architecture constrains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. DiffGrasp proposes a conditional diffusion model that generates a whole-body SMPL-X motion sequence, including both hands, from a condition describing an object's shape (via Basis Point Sets), its per-frame rigid motion, and the human identity. The denoiser outputs the body pose sequence plus wrist translations relative to the object centroid. Training combines the standard diffusion loss with two contact-aware losses, a reconstruction loss and a distance-weighted interaction loss, gated by a binary contact label computed by thresholding hand-object distance at 5 mm. At inference, three reconstruction-guidance terms stabilize the grasp relative to the object, reduce hand-object penetration and encourage contact, and prevent foot-floor penetration. Experiments on GRAB and ARCTIC compare with three OMOMO variants and include ablations, a human perceptual study, and an unseen-object evaluation. The authors report lower joint and vertex errors, much higher contact F1, and lower contact distance than the OMOMO baselines.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper's central contribution—a single diffusion model that jointly synthesizes body and fine-grained hand motion conditioned on object motion—is a useful step for whole-body object-interaction synthesis. The method is clearly specified, the ablations isolate the contact-aware losses and the guidance terms, and the evaluation uses held-out subjects and held-out objects. The reported gains on contact F1 are large, and the human perceptual study provides supporting evidence. However, the quantitative evidence for "realistic finger-object contact" depends on a single 5 mm distance threshold that is shared between the training losses and the F1 metric, and the comparison set is narrow; these issues need to be addressed before the claim is fully convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 Contact Label and §4 Hand Contact Metrics] The 5 mm threshold is used both to define the training contact labels τ (Eqs. 5–7) and to compute the F1 metric from predicted and ground-truth hand positions. Because the same distance heuristic labels positives in the loss and in the metric, the reported F1 advantage over the baselines may partly reflect how well the model satisfies this particular threshold rather than how functionally correct the grasps are. Table A3 makes the risk concrete: on unseen objects DiffGrasp reaches F1 = 0.9233 while Hands JPE is 155.41 (unit omitted; 15.5 cm if the values are millimeters), i.e., near-perfect contact agreement coexists with large joint-position error. Please report F1 and contact distance at several thresholds (e.g., 2, 5, and 10 mm) and, if possible, evaluate against dataset-derived or functional contact labels rather than the same threshold used for training.
  2. [§4 Tables 1–2 and Table A3] All quantitative comparisons are single-run point estimates without error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests. The headline differences between DiffGrasp and OMOMO-V3 on GRAB are large (F1 0.784 vs. 0.103; Hands JPE 20.99 vs. 32.72 cm), but several ablation differences in Table 2 are small (e.g., Full loss w/o P^E_p vs. Full loss: F1 0.6448 vs. 0.6982; FS 2.51 vs. 2.59) and could be noise. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds or per-subject breakdowns, and provide a paired test for the main metrics (F1, contact distance, Hands JPE) when comparing methods.
  3. [§4 Evaluations/Baselines and Appendix B] The only quantitative baselines are three in-house variants of OMOMO. IMoS is attempted but does not converge, and COOP is shown only qualitatively; recent whole-body interaction methods (e.g., GOAL, InterDiff, CG-HOI) are not quantitatively compared. As presented, the claim to "outperform the state-of-the-art method" is supported only against a single architecture family. Please add at least one outside baseline adapted to this task, or temper the state-of-the-art claim so that it accurately reflects the scope of the comparison.
  4. [§3 Grasp Stabilization Guidance, Eqs. (10)–(12)] G_GS anchors the wrist to the model's own predicted offset κ^i_l at the first contact frame and propagates that offset through the object's subsequent transformations. If κ^i_l is inaccurate, the guidance stabilizes the error over the entire contact segment rather than correcting it. The training loss L_recon should make κ reasonably accurate, but the paper does not quantify this failure mode. Please report the change in wrist-offset error or contact distance before and after G_GS, or add an ablation that perturbs κ^i_l to show robustness.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix F, Table A3] The units in Table A3 are missing. The Hands JPE/MPJPE/MPVPE values appear to be in millimeters, while Tables 1–2 state these metrics in centimeters; please add units to the column headings and reconcile the presentation to avoid the apparent inconsistency with Table 1.
  2. [§3, Eq. (8)] The text refers to λcontact, but the two weights in Eq. (8) are λrecon and λinter; align the notation in the sentence following Eq. (8).
  3. [§4 Hand Collision Metrics] The definition of collision percentage counts vertices whose distance to the surface is below a 5 mm threshold while inside the mesh; please clarify whether this is a penetration margin and why a nonzero threshold is used instead of counting all penetrating vertices.
  4. [Appendix C] There is a typo in the hyperparameter sentence: "λdif f= 1" should read "λdiff = 1"; also, the Greek-letter spacing is inconsistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the core is a supervised generative model validated on held-out benchmarks. The only mild caveat is that the 5 mm contact threshold is shared between the training contact labels and the F1 metric, which couples the headline contact score to the training objective without making the central claim circular.

full rationale

DiffGrasp is a supervised generative model rather than a first-principles derivation, so the validity of its central claim rests on held-out evaluation against GRAB and ARCTIC ground truth. The diffusion objective (Eq. 4), contact-aware losses (Eqs. 5-7), and inference guidance (Eqs. 10-18) are all explicit functions of ground-truth human poses, object meshes, and object motion; no test-set quantity is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The only evaluation-training coupling I find is the 5 mm threshold: the contact label tau in Section 3 and the F1 metric in Section 4 both define "contact" by the same 5 mm distance criterion, so a model trained to minimize hand-object distances under tau can score well on F1 even when the articulated hand pose is poor (Appendix Table A3 shows F1=0.9233 with Hands JPE=155.41 cm on unseen objects). This is a metric-validity caveat, not a circular derivation: F1 still requires agreement with ground-truth contact labels, and the paper's main comparisons are also supported by Hand JPE, MPJPE, MPVPE, contact distance, collision metrics, and a human perceptual study, none of which share the threshold construction. The grasp-stabilization guidance G_GS uses the model's own predicted wrist offset as its target; this is an explicit self-referential optimization for temporal consistency, not a hidden equivalence, and its effect is isolated by ablation. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The paper also discloses limitations (self-penetration, unrealistic hand poses without physical constraints), which further confirms that the contact metrics are not being presented as a complete proof of functional grasping. Overall, the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard DDPM and SMPL-X machinery, two public datasets, and several hand-chosen hyperparameters. The most notable free parameters are the loss weights, the 5mm contact threshold, the distance-decay weight alpha in Eq. 6, and the guidance learning rates and iteration counts. The 5mm threshold is particularly consequential because it defines both the training labels and the evaluation metric, creating a partial overlap between what the model is optimized for and how it is judged. No new physical entities are introduced; the only new construct is the binary contact label, a data-derived mask used for conditioning and evaluation.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights lambda_recon and lambda_inter = lambda_recon=2, lambda_inter=1 (with lambda_diff=1)
    Hand-chosen in Eq. 8; balance the diffusion loss, contact-aware reconstruction loss, and interaction loss; directly affect all reported metrics.
  • Contact threshold for hand-object labels and F1 metric = 5 mm
    Used to compute binary contact labels tau for training losses (Section 3.2) and to compute the F1 and contact-distance evaluation metrics (Section 4); the same value is both a training target and an evaluation criterion.
  • Distance-decay weight alpha in interaction loss = not specified in main text
    In Eq. 6, alpha controls how sharply hand-joint proximity to the object center is weighted; the value is not listed in the main text or Appendix C, so the exact setting is unclear.
  • Guidance hyperparameters (learning rates and iteration counts) = G_GS: lr 1e-4, 300 iters; G_HO: lr 1e-4, 100 iters; G_Feet: lr 1e-3, 50 iters; scale eta
    Appendix C.2 specifies per-term learning rates and iteration counts for inference-time guidance; these choices change the final output and are selected by hand.
  • Number of basis points in BPS object representation = 1024 x 3
    Object shape is encoded with 1024 basis points per frame; this resolution is a hand-chosen hyperparameter of the conditioning representation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard DDPM forward and reverse diffusion processes (Ho et al. 2020) are valid for motion sequence denoising
    The conditional diffusion objective in Eq. 4 relies on the standard DDPM formulation and the cited work.
  • domain assumption SMPL-X with 6D rotation representation maps pose parameters to anatomically plausible joint positions and meshes
    The method reconstructs hand joints and body meshes from SMPL-X parameters; errors or limitations of SMPL-X transfer to the generated results.
  • standard math Basis Point Set representation of the object provides sufficient geometric conditioning each frame
    BPS (Prokudin et al. 2019) is a standard point-cloud representation; the paper uses 1024 basis points without evaluating sensitivity to this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper A 5mm threshold on hand-object distance is a valid proxy for functional grasping contact
    Defines contact labels in training (Section 3.2) and the F1/contact metrics (Section 4); this heuristic threshold is specific to the paper and not justified by data or physics.
  • domain assumption During a successful grasp the hand should not slide relative to the object
    Motivates Grasp Stabilization Guidance G_GS in Eqs. 10-12; holds for firm grasps but not for in-hand manipulation, regrasping, or sliding interactions.
  • domain assumption GRAB and ARCTIC datasets, split by subject, are representative of whole-body grasping with object motion
    All training and evaluation use these two datasets; conclusions about generalization are limited to their object and subject distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffgrasp: Whole-Body Grasping Synthesis Guided by Object Motion Using a Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTTSIVR2

@misc{pith2026241220657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffgrasp: Whole-Body Grasping Synthesis Guided by Object Motion Using a Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTTSIVR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20657}
}
read the original abstract

Generating high-quality whole-body human object interaction motion sequences is becoming increasingly important in various fields such as animation, VR/AR, and robotics. The main challenge of this task lies in determining the level of involvement of each hand given the complex shapes of objects in different sizes and their different motion trajectories, while ensuring strong grasping realism and guaranteeing the coordination of movement in all body parts. Contrasting with existing work, which either generates human interaction motion sequences without detailed hand grasping poses or only models a static grasping pose, we propose a simple yet effective framework that jointly models the relationship between the body, hands, and the given object motion sequences within a single diffusion model. To guide our network in perceiving the object's spatial position and learning more natural grasping poses, we introduce novel contact-aware losses and incorporate a data-driven, carefully designed guidance. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art method and generates plausible whole-body motion sequences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DiffGrasp generates whole-body human grasp se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of DiffGrasp Framework. In our conditional diffusion model, we use the given sequence of object motion, object shape and the SMPL-X identity as conditions. After specially designed positional encodings, these embedded conditions are inputted into a transformer-encoder-based condition encoder. Then, a transformer decoder as denoising network predicts a sequence of clean whole-body pose of SMPL-X as well as t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of Grasp Stabilization Guidance GGS. ’Handshaking’ object movement example: Initially, the gen￾erated hand-object relative distance κ and the reconstructed hand do not follow the object’s (yellow hand) shaking well. We stabilized the hand-object relative distance according to Eq. (10) to obtain the wrist position that follows the object’s shaking, and then guided the reconstructed wrist position to succ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Results of Comparison Experiments. Our model (DiffGrasp) generates more realistic results, with more hand-object contact and less penetration. Effect of Contact-aware Losses. Ablation studies on the contact-aware reconstruction loss show that starting from …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Limitations. Our method may generate self￾penetration (a) or unrealistic poses (b) in some cases. 5 Conclusion In this paper, we propose the first framework to generate re￾alistic whole-body human motion sequence with fine finger￾object grasp, conditioned on a 3D objec…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. GraspGen: A Diffusion-based Framework for 6-DOF Grasping with On-Generator Training

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GraspGen shows that training a grasp-scoring discriminator on the generator's own simulated outputs, plus a large new multi-gripper dataset, improves 6-DOF grasping across simulation and a real robot.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ao, T.; Zhang, Z.; and Liu, L. 2023. GestureDiffuCLIP: Gesture diffusion model with CLIP latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14613

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Braun, J.; Christen, S.; Kocabas, M.; Aksan, E.; and Hilliges, O. 2024. Physically Plausible Full-Body Hand-Object Interaction Synthesis. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Cen, Z.; Pi, H.; Peng, S.; Shen, Z.; Yang, M.; Shuai, Z.; Bao, H.; and Zhou, X. 2024. Generating Human Motion in 3D Scenes from Text Descriptions. In CVPR

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    S.; and Baek, S

    Cha, J.; Kim, J.; Yoon, J. S.; and Baek, S. 2024. Text2HOI: Text-guided 3D Motion Generation for Hand-Object Interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1577--1585

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Chen, X.; Jiang, B.; Liu, W.; Huang, Z.; Fu, B.; Chen, T.; and Yu, G. 2023. Executing your Commands via Motion Diffusion in Latent Space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18000--18010

    2023

  6. [6]

    Christen, S.; Kocabas, M.; Aksan, E.; Hwangbo, J.; Song, J.; and Hilliges, O. 2022. D-Grasp: Physically Plausible Dynamic Grasp Synthesis for Hand-Object Interactions. arXiv:2112.03028

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Diller, C.; and Dai, A. 2024. Cg-hoi: Contact-guided 3d human-object interaction generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19888--19901

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    J.; and Hilliges, O

    Fan, Z.; Taheri, O.; Tzionas, D.; Kocabas, M.; Kaufmann, M.; Black, M. J.; and Hilliges, O. 2023. ARCTIC : A Dataset for Dexterous Bimanual Hand-Object Manipulation. In Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2023

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Ghosh, A.; Dabral, R.; Golyanik, V.; Theobalt, C.; and Slusallek, P. 2023 a . IMoS: Intent-Driven Full-Body Motion Synthesis for Human-Object Interactions. In Eurographics

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ghosh, A.; Dabral, R.; Golyanik, V.; Theobalt, C.; and Slusallek, P. 2023 b . ReMoS: Reactive 3D Motion Synthesis for Two-Person Interactions. arXiv:2311.17057

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Guo, C.; Zuo, X.; Wang, S.; and Cheng, L. 2022. Tm2t: Stochastic and tokenized modeling for the reciprocal generation of 3d human motions and texts. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 580--597. Springer

    2022

  4. [12]

    J.; Laptev, I.; and Schmid, C

    Hasson, Y.; Varol, G.; Tzionas, D.; Kalevatykh, I.; Black, M. J.; Laptev, I.; and Schmid, C. 2019. Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated objects. arXiv:1904.05767

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    He, C.; Saito, J.; Zachary, J.; Rushmeier, H.; and Zhou, Y. 2022. Nemf: Neural motion fields for kinematic animation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 4244--4256

    2022

  6. [14]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. arXiv:2006.11239

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ho, J.; Salimans, T.; Gritsenko, A.; Chan, W.; Norouzi, M.; and Fleet, D. J. 2022. Video diffusion models. arXiv:2204.03458

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Huang, S.; Wang, Z.; Li, P.; Jia, B.; Liu, T.; Zhu, Y.; Liang, W.; and Zhu, S.-C. 2023. Diffusion-based Generation, Optimization, and Planning in 3D Scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Jiang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; and Wang, X. 2021. Hand-Object Contact Consistency Reasoning for Human Grasps Generation. arXiv:2104.03304

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kulkarni, N.; Rempe, D.; Genova, K.; Kundu, A.; Johnson, J.; Fouhey, D.; and Guibas, L. 2023. NIFTY: Neural Object Interaction Fields for Guided Human Motion Synthesis. arXiv:2307.07511

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kwon, T.; Tekin, B.; St\"uhmer, J.; Bogo, F.; and Pollefeys, M. 2021. H2O: Two Hands Manipulating Objects for First Person Interaction Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 10138--10148

    2021

  12. [20]

    Lee, T.; Moon, G.; and Lee, K. M. 2023. MultiAct: Long-term 3D human motion generation from multiple action labels. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37-1, 1231--1239

    2023

  13. [21]

    Li, H.; Lin, X.; Zhou, Y.; Li, X.; Huo, Y.; Chen, J.; and Ye, Q. 2023 a . Contact2Grasp: 3D Grasp Synthesis via Hand-Object Contact Constraint. arXiv:2210.09245

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Li, J.; Clegg, A.; Mottaghi, R.; Wu, J.; Puig, X.; and Liu, C. K. 2023 b . Controllable human-object interaction synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03913

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Li, J.; Wu, J.; and Liu, C. K. 2023. Object motion guided human motion synthesis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(6): 1--11

    2023

  16. [24]

    C.; and Dai, B

    Li, Q.; Wang, J.; Loy, C. C.; and Dai, B. 2024. Task-Oriented Human-Object Interactions Generation With Implicit Neural Representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 3035--3044

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li, R.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Su, M.; Ren, Z.; Zhang, H.; Tang, Y.; and Li, X. 2023 c . FineDance: A Fine-grained Choreography Dataset for 3D Full Body Dance Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 10234--10243

    2023

  18. [26]

    Liu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, J.; Gupta, S.; and Wang, S. 2023. ContactGen: Generative Contact Modeling for Grasp Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    2023

  19. [27]

    Liu, X.; and Yi, L. 2024. GeneOH Diffusion: Towards Generalizable Hand-Object Interaction Denoising via Denoising Diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14810

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Liu, Y.; Cao, Q.; Wen, Y.; Jiang, H.; and Ding, C. 2024. Towards Variable and Coordinated Holistic Co-Speech Motion Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1566--1576

    2024

  21. [29]

    Lu, S.; Chen, L.-H.; Zeng, A.; Lin, J.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, L.; and Shum, H.-Y. 2023. Humantomato: Text-aligned whole-body motion generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12978

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lucas, T.; Baradel, F.; Weinzaepfel, P.; and Rogez, G. 2022. Posegpt: Quantization-based 3d human motion generation and forecasting. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 417--435. Springer

    2022

  23. [31]

    Luo, H.; Liu, Y.; and Yi, L. 2024. Physics-aware Hand-object Interaction Denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2341--2350

    2024

  24. [32]

    Pavlakos, G.; Choutas, V.; Ghorbani, N.; Bolkart, T.; Osman, A. A. A.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M. J. 2019. Expressive Body Capture: 3D Hands, Face, and Body from a Single Image. In Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Peng, X.; Xie, Y.; Wu, Z.; Jampani, V.; Sun, D.; and Jiang, H. 2023. HOI-Diff: Text-Driven Synthesis of 3D Human-Object Interactions using Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06553

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J.; and Varol, G

    Petrovich, M.; Black, M. J.; and Varol, G. 2022. TEMOS: Generating diverse human motions from textual descriptions. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 480--497. Springer

    2022

  27. [35]

    Pinyoanuntapong, E.; Wang, P.; Lee, M.; and Chen, C. 2024. Mmm: Generative masked motion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1546--1555

    2024

  28. [36]

    Prokudin, S.; Lassner, C.; and Romero, J. 2019. Efficient Learning on Point Clouds With Basis Point Sets. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 4332--4341

    2019

  29. [37]

    Sahbani, A.; El-Khoury, S.; and Bidaud, P. 2012. An overview of 3D object grasp synthesis algorithms. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 60(3): 326--336

    2012

  30. [38]

    Shafir, Y.; Tevet, G.; Kapon, R.; and Bermano, A. H. 2023. Human Motion Diffusion as a Generative Prior. arXiv:2303.01418

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Song, W.; Zhang, X.; Li, S.; Gao, Y.; Hao, A.; Hou, X.; Chen, C.; Li, N.; and Qin, H. 2024. HOIAnimator: Generating Text-prompt Human-object Animations using Novel Perceptive Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2024

  32. [40]

    J.; and Tzionas, D

    Taheri, O.; Choutas, V.; Black, M. J.; and Tzionas, D. 2022. GOAL: Generating 4D whole-body motion for hand-object grasping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13263--13273

    2022

  33. [41]

    J.; and Tzionas, D

    Taheri, O.; Ghorbani, N.; Black, M. J.; and Tzionas, D. 2020. GRAB : A Dataset of Whole-Body Human Grasping of Objects. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Taheri, O.; Zhou, Y.; Tzionas, D.; Zhou, Y.; Ceylan, D.; Pirk, S.; and Black, M. J. 2023. Grip: Generating interaction poses using latent consistency and spatial cues. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11617

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tendulkar, P.; Sur \' s, D.; and Vondrick, C. 2023. Flex: Full-body grasping without full-body grasps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 21179--21189

    2023

  36. [44]

    Tevet, G.; Raab, S.; Gordon, B.; Shafir, Y.; Cohen-or, D.; and Bermano, A. H. 2023. Human Motion Diffusion Model. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  37. [45]

    Tseng, J.; Castellon, R.; and Liu, K. 2023. Edge: Editable dance generation from music. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 448--458

    2023

  38. [46]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  39. [47]

    Wu, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Hilliges, O.; Yu, F.; and Tang, S. 2022. SAGA: Stochastic Whole-Body Grasping with Contact. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Xu, S.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.-X.; and Gui, L.-Y. 2023. InterDiff : Generating 3D Human-Object Interactions with Physics-Informed Diffusion. In ICCV

    2023

  41. [49]

    Zhang, H.; Christen, S.; Fan, Z.; Zheng, L.; Hwangbo, J.; Song, J.; and Hilliges, O. 2024 a . ArtiGrasp : Physically Plausible Synthesis of Bi-Manual Dexterous Grasping and Articulation. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Zhang, H.; Ye, Y.; Shiratori, T.; and Komura, T. 2021. Manipnet: neural manipulation synthesis with a hand-object spatial representation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 40(4): 1--14

    2021

  43. [51]

    Zhang, M.; Cai, Z.; Pan, L.; Hong, F.; Guo, X.; Yang, L.; and Liu, Z. 2024 b . Motiondiffuse: Text-driven human motion generation with diffusion model. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zhao, K.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Beeler, T.; and Tang, S. 2023. Synthesizing diverse human motions in 3d indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14738--14749

    2023

  45. [53]

    Zheng, J.; Zheng, Q.; Fang, L.; Liu, Y.; and Yi, L. 2023 a . Cams: Canonicalized manipulation spaces for category-level functional hand-object manipulation synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 585--594

    2023

  46. [54]

    Zheng, Y.; Shi, Y.; Cui, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Luo, Z.; and Zhou, W. 2023 b . COOP: Decoupling and Coupling of Whole-Body Grasping Pose Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2163--2173

    2023

  47. [55]

    L.; Lenssen, J

    Zhou, K.; Bhatnagar, B. L.; Lenssen, J. E.; and Pons-Moll, G. 2022. TOCH: Spatio-Temporal Object Correspondence to Hand for Motion Refinement. In European Conference on Computer Vision ( ECCV ) . Springer

    2022

  48. [56]

    Zhou, Y.; Barnes, C.; Lu, J.; Yang, J.; and Li, H. 2020. On the Continuity of Rotation Representations in Neural Networks. arXiv:1812.07035

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  50. [58]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.