Robotics

GALATEA Turns Generated Hand Videos Into Real Grasps

Robb Harlan 5 min read

Generated videos are cheap. Executable finger contact is not. GALATEA, from UC Berkeley, Sharpa Robotics, and the University of Hong Kong (arXiv September 9), is a pipeline that reconstructs hand–object trajectories from prompted clips, trains tracking experts in Isaac Gym, and deploys a distilled controller on a Sharpa Wave hand on a Franka Research 3.

They start from a real first-frame RGB plus language, then generate with Seedance 2.0. Three motion types: grasp-and-move, push-and-pull, pose-adjust. Of 2,500 generated clips, 83% pass reconstruction, about 2,000 usable references. More than 1,500 of those get grounded in simulation by expert controllers.

Sharpa Wave hand on a Franka arm grasping, pushing, and reorienting yellow, red, and green objects
Real-world grasp-and-move, push-and-pull, and pose-adjust. Source: GALATEA paper.
GALATEA pipeline from generated videos through HOI reconstruction and RL grounding to a tracking controller
Generate, reconstruct, ground in sim, distill one tracker. Source: GALATEA paper.

Reconstruct, then track

Reconstruction is not a single network guess. Stereo depth from the first frame metric-aligns MoGe-2 depth. SAM2 masks, FoundationPose object motion, and WiLoR MANO hands go into a joint optimizer with contact frames from HOI-DETR. Human raters put this method first in 417 of 480 judgments (87%), mean rank 1.17.

Simulation uses PhysX. The actor is a 29-D MLP (7 arm + 22 hand) at 30 Hz PD. SAPG splits parallel rollouts across PPO agents with different exploration. Expert policies on 42 training objects hit a 78.6% macro mean. On a 10-object benchmark, experts lead at 77.4% mean, more than 25 points over the paper’s tracking baselines during that training comparison. Distillation to one controller costs about 4.2 points on the training set and still does 54.2% mean on five novel objects without retraining.

Side-by-side human and Sharpa Wave grasps: jar neck, top-down pinch, mug rim push, mug handle
Unseen video plans vs real execution: neck grasp, pinch, rim push, handle. Source: GALATEA paper.

27 out of 40 on the bench

Closed-loop real eval: 40 unseen video plans, four tasks, 10 trials each. Overall 27/40. The paper’s Table III flags pose-adjust at 6/10 in the excerpted row; the qualitative point is grasp choice. A jar-neck power grasp leaves the opening free. A top-down pinch grabs the rim. That distinction lives in the video plan, which is why they keep both hand and object motion instead of object-only tracks.

Failures they name: palm-friction lifts that a robot hand cannot copy, thin objects near the table, and contact transitions that dump the tracker off the reference. In-hand manipulation is mostly absent.

A Human’s Take

I will take 27/40 on unseen generated plans over another “the video model is the policy” demo that never closes the gripper. The useful engineering is the reconstruction yield: 83% usable versus the 4% reconstructable rate they cite from in-the-wild 100 Days of Hands. Prompted generation is a filter. It is still not a shift. When the reference is a little wrong, this controller does not magically recover. That is the next paper.

Sources