BREAKING-NEWS

Research / Hands and handling objects

How well can humanoid robots pick up and handle objects?

Updated November 13, 2026 · 3 papers · How we rate evidence

Where things stand

Grasping is getting good in controlled tests; fine finger work is still early. A UC San Diego system picked 10 household objects off a multi-level shelf with a Unitree G1 in 87.5% of 40 real trials, trained with no real demonstrations at all. Whole-body work is advancing too: a G1 pushed a cart carrying 30 kg. Long-duration reliability, tool use and in-hand manipulation on humanoids remain largely unproven.

The big shift is where the training data comes from. Teams are replacing hours of human teleoperation with synthetic data generated in simulation, and in at least one November test the simulation-trained robot beat robots trained on real demonstrations.

Humanoids are starting to use the whole body to grasp: moving the head to look, stepping closer and bending, not just reaching with an arm from a fixed spot.

Test objects are usually standard lab sets on clean shelves and tables. Results on cluttered, real-world shelves, soft or deformable items, and thousands of repetitions are still missing.

The papers

Moderate evidencePhysical robot and simulationUnitree G1

ForPC: pushing a 30 kg cart with no force sensors

ForPC: Force-Aware Whole-Body Control for Precise Humanoid Cart Pushing · ZhenYu Zou et al. · arXiv 2611.08664 · Nov 5, 2026 · Preprint

What they did
Pushes a loaded cart along a route with both hands, estimating the forces from the robot's own joint readings instead of using force sensors.
Result
On a real G1, it pushed a cart carrying up to 30 kg at 0.5 m/s without extra tuning. In simulation it cut speed-tracking error by up to 68.2% and path error by up to 74.2% against a walking-only baseline.
Caveat
The baseline comparison is simulation-only; the real-robot test reports no success rate.

Checked against: Abstract. Results as reported by the authors; not peer-reviewed unless noted.

Strong evidencePhysical robot and simulationUnitree G1 with Inspire hands

HuG: shelf grasping trained with zero real demonstrations

HuG: Learning Humanoid Whole-Body Affordance-Aware Grasping with Active Perception · Xuanbin Peng et al. (UC San Diego) · arXiv 2611.01659 · Nov 1, 2026 · Preprint

What they did
Teaches a humanoid to find an object on a shelf, turn its head to see it better, step and bend into position, and grasp it with dexterous hands. Trained only in simulation, with no real demonstrations.
Result
87.5% success over 40 real trials with 10 household objects on a multi-level shelf, and 85% on objects it had not seen in training. The best baseline reached 52.5%; baselines trained on 70 human demonstrations per object and shelf level reached 32.5% to 50%.
Caveat
Lab test with standard benchmark objects. The model ran on an external desktop GPU connected by cable, not on the robot.

Checked against: Abstract and paper text. Results as reported by the authors; not peer-reviewed unless noted.

Moderate evidencePhysical robot and simulationNot named in the abstract

Anchor 1: more precise whole-body copying for teleoperation

Anchor 1: Precise and Stable Humanoid Control for Whole-Body Manipulation · Archon Robotics, Caojun Wang et al. · arXiv 2611.00193 · Oct 30, 2026 · Preprint

What they did
A whole-body controller that copies a human operator's motion precisely and stably, to make teleoperated data collection faster.
Result
30% to 80% lower tracking error than existing controllers in the authors' strictest real-world scoring, using fewer look-ahead inputs.
Caveat
The comparison controllers and the robot are not named in the abstract. This is teleoperation, not autonomy.

Checked against: Abstract. Results as reported by the authors; not peer-reviewed unless noted.

More research

How we pick and rate papers

  • We cover primary research that tests AI, perception, planning or control on a humanoid robot, or reports a distinct humanoid experiment. Product launches, funding news and promotional videos without a paper are left out.
  • Every paper links to its primary source. Most are arXiv preprints, which are not peer-reviewed; we say so, and add the journal or conference version when one is confirmed.
  • We check the numbers against the paper itself, and say whether we read the abstract or the paper text.
  • We separate physical-robot results from simulation, and note when a robot was teleoperated rather than acting on its own.
  • Strong means quantified tests on a physical humanoid with defined tasks and real comparisons. Moderate means limited hardware results or partial evidence. Preliminary means simulation-only or exploratory work.

Spotted an error, or a paper we should cover? Tell us, with a link to the paper.