Learning and executing long-horizon robot manipulation as complete task trajectories raises data-collection costs, lim?its capability reuse, and causes local failures to cascade into later task stages. We introduce manipulation units (MUs) as reusable operations, each defined by a local goal, an initi?ation condition, and observable success and failure criteria. MUs are learned and verified individually. During execution, consecutive MUs remain coupled through shared environ?ment dynamics. We formulate MU-Structured Manipulation (MUSM) and realize it through MU-Centric Orchestration (MUCO). Given language and vision, MUCO constructs an MU sequence, matches each MU to compatible policy models in a frozen capability registry, and dispatches the model with the highest calibrated success rate. Visual verification checks MU outcomes against success and failure criteria and governs transitions, enabling retry or fallback to another model from the current state without re-executing verified MUs. Canonical keys enable checkpoint reuse for equivalent MUs across tasks without new demonstrations or updates. We evaluate MUCO on RLBench, RoboTwin 2.0, and five real-world tasks. MUCO achieves higher complete-task success and verified progress, stronger failure containment, and lower error propagation than baselines. Results demonstrate cross-task MU reuse and het?erogeneous policy composition without joint training, shared backbones, or common action representations.
Figures & tables
Signal
Condition
Transition
continue
any
keep current executor
success
i<K
record boundary; activate i+1
success
i=K
declare task success
failure
retry available
retry current executor
failure
fallback available
dispatch next executor
failure
otherwise
declare task failure
Table 1: Mani-Unit transitions controlled by verification. Recovery never replays an already verified Mani-Unit.
(a) RLBench
Method
Box
Laptop
Toilet
Sweep
Fridge
Phone
Umbrella
Frame
Wine
Water
Mean
OpenVLA
60
35
75
55
85
20
30
15
20
5
40
SpatialVLA
80
70
85
20
80
15
25
40
15
30
46
CogACT
90
80
95
50
85
50
55
45
30
25
61
CoT-VLA
95
75
100
80
65
50
40
50
55
50
66
π0.5
90
95
85
75
100
5
10
80
75
35
65
Table 2: Simulation task success rate (%). (a) RLBench prior values are reported by LaST0 ( Liu et al. 2026b ) and DeepVision-VLA ( Luo et al. 2026 ) . (b) RoboTwin 2.0 results are placeholders. Higher is better.
Method
Short SR
Task-A SR
Task-B SR
General SR
Mean SR
Prog
EPC
FCR
Flat-Same
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Trajectory-E2E
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
MUCO-Same
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Table 3: H1 results. SR is complete-task success, Prog is normalized verified progress, EPC is error propagation, and FCR is failure containment. All entries are placeholders.
Executor
A
B
C
D
E
F
e1
–
–
–
–
–
–
e2
–
–
–
–
–
–
e3
–
–
–
–
–
–
X-VLA
–
–
–
–
–
–
Table 4: Independent Mani-Unit success rate (%).
(a) H3: heterogeneous versus homogeneous execution
Method
Rule
A SR
B SR
Mean
V/R
MUCO- e1
always e1
–
–
–
Yes
MUCO- e2
always e2
–
–
–
Yes
MUCO- e3
always e3
–
–
–
Yes
MUCO-Het
argmaxkqzik
–
–
–
Yes
(b) H2: cross-task Mani-Unit reuse
Table 5: Heterogeneous composition and cross-task reuse. (a) H3 task success rate under different executor rules. (b) H2 reuses the same checkpoint with zero new Mani-Unit demonstrations. All result entries are placeholders.
Agent
Mani-Unit F1
Key acc.
Ver. acc.
Task SR
Proprietary
–
–
–
–
Open-source
–
–
–
–
Table 6: Robustness to the multimodal agent. All entries are placeholders.