Manuscript Under Review

DexCompose: Reusing Dexterous Policies for Multi-Task Manipulation with a Single Hand

Policy reuse · Dexterous manipulation

DexCompose in Three Minutes

From frozen single-task policies to 16 compositions, three-skill sequences, and Franka–LEAP deployment.

Three-minute overview with English narration and captions.

DexCompose composes dexterous skills through role-aware finger ownership

DexCompose separates grasp preservation from downstream interaction through explicit finger ownership and dual residual stabilizers, reducing destructive interference when two pretrained full-hand policies share one dexterous hand.

Abstract

Dexterous manipulation policies can solve individual skills, but composing them to perform multiple tasks with a single hand remains difficult. Different tasks often compete over the same action dimensions, causing destructive interference between preserving an existing manipulation outcome and executing a new one. We propose DexCompose, a role-aware residual composition framework that enables the reuse of pretrained dexterous policies through explicit finger-level action ownership.

Given two pretrained full-hand policies, DexCompose first collects successful post-task states from the first skill and performs release tests over candidate finger masks to estimate which fingers are necessary for maintaining the established held state. It then trains a bounded residual stabilizer for task preservation and a context-aware residual that adapts the frozen downstream policy only within the action subspace assigned to the new task.

We evaluate the framework on 16 composite dexterous manipulation tasks spanning four object-retention skills and four downstream interactions. Our method achieves 77.4% average composite success, and ablation studies confirm that structural action ownership combined with dual asymmetric residuals is more effective than conventional policy chaining or unmasked residual correction.

Method

DexCompose treats policy composition as an action allocation problem at the embodiment level. The framework discovers which fingers must preserve Task A, releases redundant fingers for Task B, and composes the two frozen policies using residual modules that are restricted to their assigned action subspaces.

DexCompose pipeline: finger attribution, action masks, and dual residual stabilizers
Given two frozen single-task policies, DexCompose attributes fingers through release tests, expands the selected finger mask into action-space ownership masks, and executes the composed policy with a Task-A preservation residual and a Task-B adaptation residual.

Finger Attribution

Successful Task-A hold states are replayed while candidate finger subsets are released. A task-aware LLM selector balances retention, clean release, and residual dexterity to assign fingers for the downstream interaction.

Action Ownership

The selected finger mask defines disjoint action subspaces: Task A controls preserved fingers, while Task B controls the wrist and released fingers.

Dual Residual Stabilizer

A bounded Task-A residual preserves the held state, and a Task-B residual adapts the downstream policy under the constraints imposed by the maintained grasp.

Video Demos

Demos are grouped by the behavior they illustrate: competent single-task base policies, release-test diagnostics for finger ownership, successful composite rollouts across all task pairs, and representative failure or ablation cases.

Primitive Skills

Base Policy Primitives

The primitive policies solve their own tasks before composition, so the challenge is controlled reuse under one shared hand action space.

Retention

GraspBall

Retention

PickStick

Retention

PickCan

Retention

PourMug

Downstream

OpenDoor

Downstream

PushButton

Downstream

OpenMicrowave

Downstream

TurnOnSwitch

Simulation Results

77.43%Mean composite success
13 × 32Seeds × rollouts per task
+15.83 ppOver Residual Learning
+8.20 ppOver Ours-ZS

We evaluate 16 task pairs in Isaac Lab with a Shadow Hand: four object-retention skills (GraspBall, PourMug, PickCan, PickStick) and four downstream interactions (OpenDoor, PushButton, OpenMicrowave, TurnOnSwitch). A rollout succeeds only if Task A is preserved and Task B is completed.

Each method is evaluated over 13 random seeds × 32 rollouts per task (416 per task; 6,656 across all 16 pairs). We report mean ± sample standard deviation across seeds. For overall means, we first average all 16 tasks within each seed, then aggregate across seeds.

Main comparison
Method Success (%) ± SD
Frozen-Grasp 3.09 ± 0.62
Decomposed 45.61 ± 1.94
Residual Learning 61.60 ± 2.31
HANDFUL 43.57 ± 1.57
Ours-ZS 69.23 ± 1.60
DexCompose 77.43 ± 2.64
All 16 task pairs · main comparison

Success rates in percent; mean ± sample SD across 13 seeds. Scroll horizontally to compare all methods.

All 16 task pairs · main comparison
Task A + Task B Frozen-Grasp Decomposed Residual Learning HANDFUL Ours-ZS DexCompose
GraspBall + OpenDoor 0.00 ± 0.00 38.94 ± 2.43 66.35 ± 2.60 52.16 ± 6.68 73.56 ± 6.94 82.69 ± 8.33
GraspBall + PushButton 7.69 ± 2.06 42.31 ± 2.06 74.04 ± 1.97 73.56 ± 3.96 76.92 ± 4.69 85.58 ± 7.50
GraspBall + OpenMicrowave 0.00 ± 0.00 34.62 ± 2.69 63.46 ± 2.67 43.51 ± 9.41 64.66 ± 7.70 73.08 ± 9.25
GraspBall + TurnOnSwitch 0.00 ± 0.00 31.73 ± 2.81 55.29 ± 2.96 55.29 ± 8.69 63.94 ± 8.33 71.88 ± 8.93
PourMug + OpenDoor 0.00 ± 0.00 36.54 ± 2.35 58.65 ± 2.90 38.46 ± 9.32 66.59 ± 8.78 75.72 ± 8.08
PourMug + PushButton 9.13 ± 2.00 40.87 ± 2.37 71.63 ± 2.00 55.05 ± 11.66 78.61 ± 6.61 85.58 ± 7.28
PourMug + OpenMicrowave 0.00 ± 0.00 32.21 ± 2.67 54.81 ± 3.02 24.04 ± 7.26 52.40 ± 7.67 62.74 ± 8.21
PourMug + TurnOnSwitch 0.00 ± 0.00 30.29 ± 2.67 50.96 ± 3.22 35.82 ± 9.85 55.29 ± 7.48 64.90 ± 9.89
PickCan + OpenDoor 0.00 ± 0.00 35.58 ± 2.40 56.73 ± 2.81 56.97 ± 6.77 72.84 ± 6.68 79.09 ± 6.04
PickCan + PushButton 8.65 ± 2.27 39.90 ± 2.27 66.83 ± 2.40 75.48 ± 9.19 77.64 ± 5.08 85.34 ± 6.92
PickCan + OpenMicrowave 0.00 ± 0.00 31.25 ± 2.55 53.85 ± 2.90 42.79 ± 9.75 64.42 ± 11.09 72.36 ± 11.82
PickCan + TurnOnSwitch 0.00 ± 0.00 29.81 ± 2.74 55.29 ± 2.67 55.05 ± 10.71 58.41 ± 6.55 65.38 ± 6.81
PickStick + OpenDoor 0.00 ± 0.00 83.17 ± 1.58 71.15 ± 2.27 18.75 ± 8.93 78.37 ± 5.63 86.30 ± 5.78
PickStick + PushButton 21.15 ± 3.16 84.13 ± 1.54 76.44 ± 2.06 34.62 ± 7.60 79.57 ± 5.79 86.54 ± 4.84
PickStick + OpenMicrowave 0.00 ± 0.00 76.92 ± 2.03 61.54 ± 2.96 15.38 ± 6.81 77.88 ± 6.69 87.26 ± 7.81
PickStick + TurnOnSwitch 2.88 ± 1.54 61.54 ± 2.35 48.56 ± 3.28 20.19 ± 6.20 66.59 ± 6.17 74.52 ± 6.10
Download this table (CSV)

Ablations and Diagnostics

Removing the Task-A residual causes the largest drop in success. Task-aware allocation and action masking reduce interference; the Task-B residual and transition stage further improve execution. Stabilization with fixed allocation alone reaches 50.30%, compared with 77.43% for the full method.

Component ablation
Variant Success (%) ± SD
DexCompose 77.43 ± 2.64
Ours-ZS 69.23 ± 1.60
Stabilizer-only 50.30 ± 2.80
w/o Allocation 54.52 ± 2.09
w/o Task-A Residual 8.77 ± 1.29
w/o Mask 59.13 ± 1.75
w/o Transition 69.02 ± 2.07
All 16 task pairs · component ablation

Success rates in percent; mean ± sample SD across 13 seeds. Scroll horizontally to compare all methods.

All 16 task pairs · component ablation
Task A + Task B DexCompose Ours-ZS Stabilizer-only w/o Allocation w/o Task-A Residual w/o Mask w/o Transition
GraspBall + OpenDoor 82.69 ± 8.33 73.56 ± 6.94 70.91 ± 7.37 73.80 ± 7.16 3.85 ± 3.86 67.07 ± 8.23 75.00 ± 7.97
GraspBall + PushButton 85.58 ± 7.50 76.92 ± 4.69 65.38 ± 8.51 70.43 ± 9.43 3.37 ± 3.71 68.75 ± 8.37 79.33 ± 7.61
GraspBall + OpenMicrowave 73.08 ± 9.25 64.66 ± 7.70 41.11 ± 5.96 43.51 ± 13.29 0.96 ± 1.50 56.73 ± 10.66 64.90 ± 9.73
GraspBall + TurnOnSwitch 71.88 ± 8.93 63.94 ± 8.33 48.56 ± 8.43 54.33 ± 8.80 0.96 ± 1.97 53.37 ± 7.49 63.22 ± 7.56
PourMug + OpenDoor 75.72 ± 8.08 66.59 ± 8.78 58.17 ± 6.32 62.02 ± 8.64 15.38 ± 5.48 56.97 ± 6.65 64.90 ± 7.88
PourMug + PushButton 85.58 ± 7.28 78.61 ± 6.61 56.97 ± 12.83 62.74 ± 8.70 17.79 ± 6.55 67.55 ± 6.82 76.68 ± 6.07
PourMug + OpenMicrowave 62.74 ± 8.21 52.40 ± 7.67 32.45 ± 8.22 37.02 ± 6.85 13.46 ± 5.62 45.43 ± 6.58 55.05 ± 7.71
PourMug + TurnOnSwitch 64.90 ± 9.89 55.29 ± 7.48 37.26 ± 6.69 40.62 ± 9.29 12.02 ± 5.54 44.23 ± 7.09 55.77 ± 8.54
PickCan + OpenDoor 79.09 ± 6.04 72.84 ± 6.68 54.81 ± 10.72 57.21 ± 11.30 14.66 ± 5.32 60.82 ± 8.43 70.43 ± 6.82
PickCan + PushButton 85.34 ± 6.92 77.64 ± 5.08 50.96 ± 8.69 56.49 ± 10.56 16.59 ± 6.55 62.26 ± 10.48 77.64 ± 7.20
PickCan + OpenMicrowave 72.36 ± 11.82 64.42 ± 11.09 25.96 ± 7.59 30.29 ± 10.16 11.78 ± 5.87 51.68 ± 10.49 62.02 ± 9.95
PickCan + TurnOnSwitch 65.38 ± 6.81 58.41 ± 6.55 29.33 ± 8.98 32.21 ± 6.55 11.54 ± 4.84 45.43 ± 7.72 57.93 ± 6.20
PickStick + OpenDoor 86.30 ± 5.78 78.37 ± 5.63 69.95 ± 8.80 73.32 ± 8.52 5.53 ± 5.13 71.88 ± 6.38 77.40 ± 4.45
PickStick + PushButton 86.54 ± 4.84 79.57 ± 5.79 65.87 ± 7.04 70.91 ± 9.23 6.25 ± 4.23 68.27 ± 7.95 78.12 ± 4.94
PickStick + OpenMicrowave 87.26 ± 7.81 77.88 ± 6.69 49.04 ± 7.26 54.33 ± 8.61 3.37 ± 2.98 68.27 ± 6.73 77.64 ± 8.45
PickStick + TurnOnSwitch 74.52 ± 6.10 66.59 ± 6.17 48.08 ± 7.50 53.12 ± 10.36 2.88 ± 4.13 57.45 ± 7.71 68.27 ± 7.09
Download this table (CSV)
Task-A and Task-B preservation, preservation versus success, and failure stages for 16 task pairs.
Policy-preservation and failure analysis. DexCompose reaches 0.811 Task-A and 0.893 Task-B preservation, measured relative to standalone success. Failure shares use all rollouts as the denominator: Init (initial grasp), Trans. (transition), Drop (object loss during Task B), and B-fail (Task B fails with Task A preserved). OpenMicrowave has the highest transition-failure share; TurnOnSwitch has the highest Drop and B-fail shares. Select the figure to view it at full resolution.

Task-aware Mask Selection

The LLM selector balances retention, clean release, and downstream finger utility. The heuristic maximizes retention subject to a minimum finger-release constraint. These results cover the four selected task pairs below.

Mask selection · success (%)
Task pair Heuristic LLM selector
GraspBall + OpenDoor 72.1 82.7
GraspBall + TurnOnSwitch 63.5 71.9
PickCan + OpenMicrowave 68.3 72.4
PourMug + TurnOnSwitch 62.0 64.9
Mean (4 selected pairs) 66.5 73.0

Beyond Two Skills

Grasp two objects in succession, then complete an interaction while retaining both. Release tests on both grasping tasks guide disjoint finger allocation across three policies. The three-skill evaluation reaches 62.11% composite success when sufficient finger redundancy remains.

Three-skill simulation

Grasp → grasp → press button

Three-skill simulation

Grasp → grasp → actuate switch

More three-skill demonstrations
Three-skill simulation

Button sequence · side view

Three-skill simulation

Button sequence · alternate rollout

Real-World Evaluation

Franka + LEAPArm and dexterous hand
4 tasks20 physical trials each
59 / 80Successful executions
73.75%Overall composite success

We evaluate GraspBall and GraspCube composed with PushButton and OpenDrawer on a Franka arm equipped with a LEAP hand. The real-to-sim-to-real pipeline reconstructs object geometry from an RGB-D view with SAM 3D, estimates poses with FoundationPose, and instantiates the recovered scene in simulation for composed-policy execution.

Franka–LEAP

GraspBall + PushButton

Franka–LEAP

GraspBall + OpenDrawer

Franka–LEAP

GraspCube + PushButton

Franka–LEAP

GraspCube + OpenDrawer

Rollout sequences
Four Franka–LEAP task sequences from grasp acquisition to button pressing or drawer opening.
Each row follows one task pair from grasp acquisition to the downstream interaction. Select the figure to view it at full resolution.
Physical trial outcomes
Task pair Success / trials Success rate Fail A only Fail B only Fail both
GraspBall + PushButton 16 / 20 80% 2 1 1
GraspBall + OpenDrawer 13 / 20 65% 2 4 1
GraspCube + PushButton 16 / 20 80% 1 3 0
GraspCube + OpenDrawer 14 / 20 70% 1 4 1
Total 59 / 80 73.75% 6 12 3

A trial succeeds only when both tasks succeed. The three failure categories are mutually exclusive and account for the remaining 21 trials.

Real-to-sim-to-real setup
Workspace, recovered geometry and poses, and reconstructed simulator scene.
Real-to-sim-to-real deployment pipeline. Select the figure to view it at full resolution.

BibTeX

@misc{dexcompose2026,
  title={DexCompose: Reusing Dexterous Policies for Multi-Task Manipulation with a Single Hand},
  author={Anonymous Authors},
  year={2026},
  note={Manuscript under review}
}