  Benchmarks offer a scientific way to compare algorithms using objective
performance metrics. Good benchmarks have two features: (a) they should be
widely useful for many research groups; (b) and they should produce
reproducible findings. In robotic manipulation research, there is a trade-off
between reproducibility and broad accessibility. If the benchmark is kept
restrictive (fixed hardware, objects), the numbers are reproducible but the
setup becomes less general. On the other hand, a benchmark could be a loose set
of protocols (e.g. object sets) but the underlying variation in setups make the
results non-reproducible. In this paper, we re-imagine benchmarking for robotic
manipulation as state-of-the-art algorithmic implementations, alongside the
usual set of tasks and experimental protocols. The added baseline
implementations will provide a way to easily recreate SOTA numbers in a new
local robotic setup, thus providing credible relative rankings between existing
approaches and new work. However, these local rankings could vary between
different setups. To resolve this issue, we build a mechanism for pooling
experimental data between labs, and thus we establish a single global ranking
for existing (and proposed) SOTA algorithms. Our benchmark, called
Ranking-Based Robotics Benchmark (RB2), is evaluated on tasks that are inspired
from clinically validated Southampton Hand Assessment Procedures. Our benchmark
was run across two different labs and reveals several surprising findings. For
example, extremely simple baselines like open-loop behavior cloning, outperform
more complicated models (e.g. closed loop, RNN, Offline-RL, etc.) that are
preferred by the field. We hope our fellow researchers will use RB2 to improve
their research's quality and rigor.
