Skip to content

MapBench HD Map Construction Robustness

Last updated: 2026-05-09

MapBench is a NeurIPS 2024 robustness benchmark for HD map construction under camera and LiDAR corruptions. It is important because map constructors often look strong on clean nuScenes validation data, but safety-relevant deployment needs to know how lane-divider, boundary, and crossing maps degrade when sensors face fog, snow, wet ground, motion blur, missing beams, and failures.

Related pages: map construction pipeline, SLAM map benchmark protocol, sensor corruption robustness benchmarks


Scope

ItemMapBench coverage
Primary domainHD map construction from camera and LiDAR inputs
Base datasetnuScenes validation set with controlled corruptions
Corruptions29 total camera/LiDAR corruption cases
Single-sensor corruption groupsCamera and LiDAR exterior, interior/sensor, and failure scenarios
Multi-sensor corruptions13 combined camera/LiDAR sensor-failure cases
Evaluated methods31 HD map constructors across camera-only, LiDAR-only, and fusion configurations

The benchmark is not a map-change dataset. It asks whether a constructor can produce reliable vector map elements when sensor inputs are degraded.


Sensors And Labels

AssetNotes
Camera inputsCorruptions include examples such as brightness, low light, fog, snow, motion blur, and color quantization
LiDAR inputsCorruptions include wet ground, fog, snow, motion blur, beam missing, crosstalk, incomplete echo, and cross-sensor cases
HD map elementsPedestrian crossings, lane dividers, and road boundaries are the headline map classes
Input configurationsCamera-only, LiDAR-only, and camera-LiDAR fusion map construction
SeverityEasy, moderate, and hard severity levels

The practical value is the combination of map-construction outputs with sensor-corruption slices, rather than object-detection-style corruptions alone.


Tasks And Metrics

TaskPractical metric
Clean HD map constructionAP/mAP for divider, boundary, and pedestrian crossing
Corrupted map constructionAP/mAP under each corruption and severity
Robustness rankingRelative drop from clean to corrupted inputs
Modality stressCamera-only, LiDAR-only, and fusion degradation comparison
Release screeningWorst-slice performance and catastrophic topology errors

For production map QA, add geometry checks that MapBench does not fully cover: route graph validity, geofence consistency, localization residuals, and false-free-space hazards.


Best Use

Use MapBench to:

  • screen map construction models for sensor-corruption brittleness;
  • compare camera-only, LiDAR-only, and fusion map constructors;
  • test whether augmentation improves robustness or only clean AP;
  • build a corruption checklist for airport HD-map pipelines;
  • choose which public corruptions should be replayed on private airport data.

It is a good public complement to object-detection corruption suites because map construction has different failure modes: missing dividers, shifted boundaries, broken topology, and false map elements.


Airside Transfer

Airside maps include stand lead-in lines, stop bars, safety envelopes, service roads, geofences, no-go regions, and temporary closures. MapBench helps design airport map robustness tests:

  • wet-ground and fog/snow corruptions for apron markings;
  • camera/LiDAR failure combinations for map-construction fallback;
  • per-element degradation reporting for markings, boundaries, and crossings;
  • severity ladders before moving to real rain, glare, and sensor blockage logs.

Airport-specific acceptance must add classes and constraints that nuScenes does not contain: stand geometry, aircraft safety zones, jet bridge envelopes, blast fences, cones, chocks, FOD/hazard layers, and operational map-publication rules.


Limitations

  • Built on nuScenes road scenes, not airport aprons.
  • Focuses on HD map construction, not runtime localization or map lifecycle approval.
  • Corruptions are controlled benchmark perturbations, not a substitute for real sensor logs.
  • It evaluates common road map elements, not airport stand or ramp semantics.
  • A high corrupted AP does not prove route graph, geofence, or localization safety.

Sources

Public research notes collected from public sources.