MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413146191 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.01623

LatentHOI: On the Generalizable Hand Object Motion Generation with Latent Hand Diffusion

2025· article· en· W4413146191 on OpenAlexaff
Muchen Li, Sammy Christen, Chengde Wan, Yujun Cai, Renjie Liao, Leonid Sigal, Shugao Ma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMotion (physics)Object (grammar)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research on generating 3D hand-object interaction motion primarily focuses on in-domain objects. Generalization to unseen objects is essential for practical applications, yet it remains both challenging and largely unexplored. In this paper, we propose LatentHOI, a novel approach designed to tackle the challenges of generalizing hand-object interaction synthesis to unseen objects. Our main insight lies in decoupling high-level temporal motion from fine-grained spatial hand-object interactions via a latent diffusion model coupled with a Grasping Variational Autoencoder (Grasp-VAE). This configuration introduces regularization by enforcing a conditional dependency between spatial grasping and temporal motion, as well as through the regularized latent space for better generalization ability. We conducted extensive experiments in an unseen-object setting on both single-hand grasping and bi-manual motion datasets, including GRAB, DexYCB<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">†</sup>, and OakInk. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrate that our method significantly enhances the realism and physical plausibility of generated motions for unseen objects, both in single and bimanual manipulations, compared to the state-of-the-art.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207