RoboSpan: Learning Modular Coordination Policies for High-DoF Whole-Body Mobile Manipulation with Teleoperation
Authors: Keqiang Ren, Xuecheng Ye, Hanyu Liu, Zhihua Wang, Tao Jian, Yunsheng Ma, Jiayi Wen, Xinran Li, Zhigong Song
Organizations: Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Advanced Food Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Engineering, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China.
Whole-body mobile manipulation suffers from two fundamental challenges: inherent motion heterogeneity across locomotion, arm, and hand modules, and progressive error accumulation over long-horizon multi-stage tasks. Existing teleoperation platforms also lack integrated dexterous tactile sensing to support coordinated whole-body decision-making. This paper presents RoboSpan, a high-DoF whole-body teleoperation and demonstration platform, and the Hierarchical Modular Framework (HMF) for learning modular coordination policies. HMF functionally decouples the 29-DoF action space into fine hand manipulation, arm pose adjustment, and mobile-base spatial configuration branches, and introduces the Coordinated Modular Embodied Transformer (COMET) with inter-modular cross-attention to enable dynamic information exchange and action coordination. Vision-language model driven hierarchical task decomposition structurally suppresses temporal error propagation, while a full-palm 2D tactile representation encodes distributed contact signals for cross-module tactile empowerment. Experiments on a physical 29-DoF robot demonstrate that the proposed method achieves over 20% higher task success rate than mainstream baselines across a range of long-horizon whole-body tasks, markedly improving stability and robustness in contact-rich manipulation.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the RoboSpan framework for high-DoF whole-body mobile manipulation. RoboSpan integrates whole-body teleoperation, multimodal perception, and modular policy learning, enabling VLM-guided hierarchical task decomposition and coordinated Hand–Arm–Mobile execution for long-horizon manipulation.
Teleop System
Interaction Interface
Bimanual
D-Handl
Elevation
Whole-Body Teleop
Wild
AnyTeleop [ 22 ]
Vision-based teleoperation
×
✓
×
×
×
Open-TeleVision [ 18 ]
VR Arm-Hand Teleop
✓
✓
×
×
×
OPEN TEACH [ 19 ]
VR Arm-Hand Teleop
✓
✓
×
×
×
Mobile ALOHA [ 20 ]
Leader arms + backdrivable base
✓
×
✓
✓
×
BEHAVIOR Robot Suite [ 21 ]
Twin arms + controllers
✓
×
×
✓
×
Dexora [ 23 ]
VR Hand Teleop + Exo-Teleop
✓
✓
×
×
×
TABLE I: COMPARISON OF EXISTING ROBOT TELEOPERATION SYSTEMS
Fig. 2: RoboSpan teleoperation demonstration.
Fig. 3: The dexterous hand and full-palm distributed tactile sensing across diverse objects (I–VIII), together with the corresponding tactile maps.
Fig. 4: Overall network architecture of HMF, which consists of three core modules—Hand, Arm, and Mobile—each with a dedicated encoder/decoder and coupled through cross-policy context fusion (IMCA) under VLM-driven multi-stage decomposition.
Method
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Average
ACT
48
40
36
41.3
DP U-Net
40
28
26
31.3
Modular ACT
42
33
30
34.1
COMET
52
46
42
46.7
HMF (Ours)
60
54
50
54.7
TABLE II: Ablation study of task decomposition and modular strategy in the HMF framework (%)
Method
Desktop Organization (3000 time steps)
Trash Cleaning (3000 time steps)
Forward
Grasp Tape
Grasp Bowl
Put
Close
Back
Grasp Cup
Grasp Paper
Move
Lift
Put
ACT [ 33 ]
100%
54%
36%
18%
6%
4%
56%
44%
26%
24%
10%
DP U-Net [ 34 ]
100%
32%
18%
6%
0%
0%
30%
14%
0%
0%
0%
HMF(Ours)
100%
76%
68%
60%
48%
46%
72%
68%
54%
52%
50%
TABLE III: Stage-wise success rate on whole-body mobile manipulation tasks
Fig. 5: Qualitative comparison between ACT (top row) and the proposed HMF (bottom row) on real whole-body mobile manipulation tasks; HMF improves performance by referencing the tactile module for perceptual coordination.
Method
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Average
ACT w/o t
40
66
48
51.3
ACT + t
44
70
50
54.7
Modular ACT + t
36
60
44
46.7
COMET (Ours)
48
76
60
61.3
TABLE IV: Ablation of distributed tactile sensing and modular coordination in contact-rich manipulation tasks(%)
Fig. 6: Impact of RoboSpan on task performance. (a) Success rate vs. task duration during data collection. (b) Average success rate at the data-collection and robot-inference stages.