Sensors 22 05693 v3
Sensors 22 05693 v3
Sensors 22 05693 v3
Review
A Survey on Modelling of Automotive Radar Sensors for
Virtual Test and Validation of Automated Driving
Zoltan Ferenc Magosi 1, * , Hexuan Li 1 , Philipp Rosenberger 2 , Li Wan 3 and Arno Eichberger 1
Abstract: Radar sensors were among the first perceptual sensors used for automated driving. Al-
though several other technologies such as lidar, camera, and ultrasonic sensors are available, radar
sensors have maintained and will continue to maintain their importance due to their reliability in
adverse weather conditions. Virtual methods are being developed for verification and validation
of automated driving functions to reduce the time and cost of testing. Due to the complexity of
modelling high-frequency wave propagation and signal processing and perception algorithms, sensor
models that seek a high degree of accuracy are challenging to simulate. Therefore, a variety of
different modelling approaches have been presented in the last two decades. This paper compre-
hensively summarises the heterogeneous state of the art in radar sensor modelling. Instead of a
technology-oriented classification as introduced in previous review articles, we present a classifi-
cation of how these models can be used in vehicle development by using the V-model originating
from software development. Sensor models are divided into operational, functional, technical, and
Citation: Magosi, Z.F.; Li, H.; individual models. The application and usability of these models along the development process are
Rosenberger, P.; Wan, L.; Eichberger, summarised in a comprehensive tabular overview, which is intended to support future research and
A. A Survey on Modelling of development at the vehicle level and will be continuously updated.
Automotive Radar Sensors for Virtual
Test and Validation of Automated Keywords: radar sensor; machine perception; radar sensor model; automated driving; virtual testing
Driving. Sensors 2022, 22, 5693.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155693
The methodology currently used in the automotive industry follows the V-model
development process. In this approach, system requirements are defined in parallel with
their verification and validation (V&V) activities throughout the development process. The
concept of V&V is to find an appropriate way to determine whether a product, function,
system, or subsystem meets or complies with safety requirements, specifications, and
regulations. A comprehensive V&V methodology is required to ensure that the complex
vehicle system will operate safely in an unsafe traffic environment. As system complexity
increases, traditional V&V methodologies, including on-road and test-bed testing, are no
longer sufficient to meet safety requirements through meaningful coverage of test cases
and scenarios. To close this gap, simulation must go beyond development support and
become a credible test tool for virtual approval and homologation of safety-critical ADS.
DAS/ADS systems combine capabilities that fit into one of the three segments of
the sense-plan-act model adopted from the robotics and automation literature, and this
model provides a high-level, implementation-independent view of a complex automated
vehicle system.
The testing and validation activities of the automotive industry are closely linked to
the regulatory framework. Product validation and quality assessment are continuously
performed according to industry-specific standards. Following the ISO-26262 standard (ISO-
International Organization for Standardization), one of the most important safety standards
in the automotive industry, conformity assessment is carried out through comprehensive
test procedures. The traditional test procedures of model-in-the-loop (MiL), software-in-
the-loop (SiL), processor-in-the-loop (PiL), hardware-in-the-loop (HiL), driver-in-the-loop
(DiL), and vehicle-in-the-loop (ViL), also referred to as X-in-the-loop, have led to detailed
testing and modelling of the integrated vehicle dynamics as well as the entire vehicle
system, providing well-developed models for testing the plan and act capabilities in the
framework. Sensor models have also been developed to improve DAS/ADS capabilities
and are used in state-of-the-art (SOA) environmental simulation software. However, there
is still a significant discrepancy between the results of real sensors and the results of most
sensor models in terms of all possible effects that occur during signal propagation and
processing, such as due to tire spray or multipath propagation. However, it should be
noted at this point that in order to perform simulations efficiently, models with varying
degrees of realistic representation must be used, depending on the stage of development
and the specific scenario.
In our review, we focus on radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor models because
they have special characteristics due to the complexity of radar wave propagation. This
complexity has led to a variety of proposed simulation approaches.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 summarises challenges
in automotive testing procedures, Section 3 presents the vehicle development process
and the usage of sensor models, Section 4 gives an overview of previous survey in radar
sensor modelling, Section 5 introduces a new classification approach that is more useful for
selection of the appropriate modelling approach, and Section 6 discusses the findings of
the paper.
modelling approaches for radar sensors must differ in the different product development
phases.
validation processes, which represent the right side of the V-model, the verified system is
tested using well-defined test methods in an ascending direction to confirm that the system
meets all safety design requirements and behaves as intended and specified.
Perception Technology
Knowledge Knowledge GAP
Physical Sensor
Overlap Sense
Behaviour
Plan
Act
Supplier
In order to validate the safety of the intended functions and systems, the vehicles are
tested in all phases of development using a variety of predefined realistic test scenarios in
virtual and real traffic. A number of validation tools are already defined in the standards
mentioned above, such as SiL and HiL. At the level of the complete vehicle, real test drives
are performed on the proving ground, but also on public roads, to ensure that the systems
function properly in road traffic. Combining simulations in the above context with tests
at the vehicle level is intended to establish statistical confidence in operational safety. As
specified in the ISO/PAS-21448 Safety of the Intended Functionality [16] and ISO-26262
Functional Safety standards, once the ADS is on the market, the safety of the system will be
continuously monitored through field operational test (FOT) by collecting and analysing
anonymous data from the field during on-road testing.
Figure 2 also illustrates that there is a knowledge gap in V&V of automotive radar
sensor based systems in the phase where there is a hand-over from the system supplier to
the vehicle’s original equipment manufacturer (OEM). It also includes a proposal of which
overall modelling approaches are appropriate in the different phases. These approaches
will be explained in Section 5.
properties, weather conditions, etc.) is required to accurately model the physics of the
sensor. The simulated output data from these models can be a raw analog signal comparable
to that of the real sensor. As suggested in [20,21], the use of probabilistic sensor models
can provide a reasonable trade-off between complexity and computational efficiency. The
simplified parameter set and reduced model complexity allow simulation tests to be
performed faster than real time. The output of these models can be set up to provide object
lists or even raw data. Even though the output data is less realistic compared to the real
sensor, phenomenological models can be used at most levels of the development process to
test and validate the safety of the ADS.
Rosenberger et al. in [22] distinguish between ground truth models that neglect any
operation on the GT object list except for the transformation from world to sensor origin
coordinates, idealised models that additionally cut out the FOV of the sensor from the
object list, and phenomenological models that consist of stochastic and physical model
parts. In radar modelling, this could mean that a ray tracing approach to physical modelling
of signal propagation is accompanied by a stochastic Gaussian noise model. While pure
stochastic modelling is often applied in sensor models for high-level object list output, pure
physical modelling is almost completely avoided in scenario-based simulation due to the
computational time required for such finite element method (FEM) simulation or the like.
In [23], the author categorises sensor models into three groups, defined as ideal,
physical, and functional. Ideal sensor models directly read any measurable objects or GT
information provided in the virtual environment without including any real sensor-related
uncertainty. In contrast, physical models or white-box models implement the real physical
sensor properties, but at the expense of real-time simulation performance. The functional
model ignores the sensor hardware architecture and signal processing process. Such a
black-box model focuses only on the detection result of the measured object. This type of
sensor model can be implemented by combining certain geometric and selected physical
properties. This improves the real-time performance of the sensor simulation without
completely ignoring the detection limits and characteristics of the real sensor.
Similarly, in [24], sensor models are classified as function-based, physics-based, or a
combination of both. For simplicity and real-time capability, the function-based modelling
approach includes geometric models and models dealing with scattering centres. The
physics-based approach has been divided into two classes, one dealing with modelling the
electronic components of the radar sensor, including the propagation channel modelled
by ray-tracing techniques. The other approach considers radar and clutter echoes as well
as noise. Another approach is presented that distinguishes between a radar model and
a radar system model, where the radar system model includes the environment and the
target vehicle model in addition to the radar model.
Holder et al., in [25], distinguish three groups of sensor models and define them
as follows. The ideal sensor models generally generate a list of perfectly sensed objects
from the simulation environment, that is, they do not model sensing errors. These are
followed by phenomenological sensor models that already take into account additional
sensor properties such as the FOV of the sensor, limited resolution, and measurement
uncertainties [26,27]. Finally, physical sensor models aim to reproduce the raw sensor data
by modelling the physical phenomena specific to the sensor being modelled. The authors
in [28–30] provide an assessment of radar sensor models in the literature, based on some
predefined modelling criteria, with the goal of helping the modeller estimate the effort
required to create such models. Based on their defined criteria, radar sensor models can be
classified into three categories. In the physical sensor model, called the white-box model, all
physical aspects of the radar are considered and calculated based on a detailed description
of the environment [24,31,32]. The scattering centre sensor models exploit the property,
known from radar cross-section (RCS) studies, that electromagnetic scattering from an
electrically large target can be approximated by a sparse set of points at a fixed position
on the target, called scattering centres (SC) [33–35]. Data-driven or black-box models do
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 7 of 22
not require information about the behaviour of the radar and can only learn its operation
based on recorded data from real experiments [29,36,37].
Schlager et al. [19] determine the accuracy of a sensor model based on its inputs,
outputs, and modelling principle. Low-fidelity sensor models are based on geometric
aspects such as the sensor-specific FOV and object occlusion. The input data format is
object lists with ground truth information, and the output data format is also object lists
but with filtered GT information [38]. Medium-fidelity sensor models take into account
some physical aspects of the real sensor and material properties of the objects, as well as
the sensor’s field of view and detection probability. The input for medium-fidelity sensor
models are object lists corresponding to ground truth. The output data formats are object
lists or raw data processed, according to the modelled perceptual effects [39]. High-fidelity
sensor models are the most accurate representations of real-world sensors. They incorporate
rendering methods such as rasterisation or ray tracing. They combine environmental
parameters and material properties as well as physical effects such as diffraction and
interference. High-fidelity sensor models use the entire 3D virtual environment, a mesh
grid describing objects and their surfaces, as input and produce sensor-specific raw data
as output [40].
Cao et al. [41] introduced the white-box, grey-box, and black-box classifications
for sensor models. Black-box models can be used for system function verification but
not for validation. White-box modelling is the simulation of electromagnetic (EM) wave
propagation by solving Maxwell’s equations, simulating semiconductor components and
the propagation channel. Grey-box modelling is an effective combination of the above
models in terms of complexity and real-time capability.
Ngo et al. [42] distinguish time-domain electromagnetic simulation techniques, ray
tracing, data-driven, and idealised modelling approaches. They describe a method for
evaluating a radar sensor model by comparing the results of clustering algorithms with
real and synthetic radar data and provide a sensitivity analysis for the various parameters
of their radar sensor model.
In a later publication, Ngo et al. [43] describe common sensor model categorisation
into physics-based, probabilistic, and phenomenological. They also describe the expansion
stages of their radar models, which are later used to demonstrate their multilayer model
validation study: ideal radar model (IRM), data-driven model (DDM), and ray-tracing-
based model (RTM).
Holder in [44] classifies sensor models according to the information flow in the simu-
lation, the model input (I) and output (O), and the error modelling in between. Six levels
are distinguished along this path. The model input can be vectorised information such
as an object list (O) or rendering (R). The output is distinguished between object list (O),
detections (D), or raw data (R). With these abbreviations, a naming scheme is provided
from a combination of them: for example, object in object out (OIOO) or rendering in
detection out (RIDO), and so on.
A new area of research in the modelling community combines the virtual world with
real-world hardware components to drive a dedicated HiL testbed for radar sensor stimu-
lation, because they provide the ability to thoroughly test radar sensors under laboratory
conditions [45]. With advances in analog and/or digital millimetre-wave signal processing
technology, powerful real-time radar target stimulators have emerged that can accurately
stimulate the radar signature of real targets represented by point scatterers. The general
operating principle is that the receiver mixes the received radar signal into the baseband,
digitises the baseband signal, modifies the waveform on one or more FPGAs, and converts
it into an analog signal. Possible signal modifications include amplitude and phase changes,
time delays, and frequency shifts. Finally, the mixed radar echo is transmitted back over
the air at the transmitter end. In [46], an HiL approach is used that emulates a virtual
radar environment corresponding to a defined test scenario. The relevant test scenarios are
parameterised and then mapped to the antennas of the target stimulator. A radar HiL test
approach based on OTA stimulation can be found in [47,48]. In [47], a simulation platform
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 8 of 22
is developed using multi-body simulation (MBS) software to combine traffic and scenario
simulations. The radar echoes are mixed with Gaussian noise to improve the realism
of the test. Based on the flexibility and scalability of available high-frequency hardware
components combined with MBS, the authors presented a whole-vehicle-level DAS/ADS
testbed based on OTA radar target stimulation in [49–51]. In [52], a dynamic OTA radar
stimulator is demonstrated. The system provides the illuminated antennas with three
degrees of freedom of motion to simulate more complex scenarios with different angular
positions of the target vehicle. The authors in [53] calculate the radar characteristics using
theoretical formulations and implement them in FPGA hardware components to produce
even more realistic radar echoes. Another ViL test method based on the OTA radar target
stimulation approach is presented in [54]. The ambient perception simulation is based on
statistical distributions and the radar signature of the target is estimated as a function of
the target vehicle dynamics. In addition to the aforementioned development and research
systems, radar target stimulators are also used in series production as end-of-line (EOL)
test equipment.
The open integration and test platform CarMaker of IPG Automotive GmbH classifies
sensor models into three groups: Ideal, High Fidelity (HiFi) and Raw Signal Interface
(RSI) [55]. Ideal sensor models represent a generic interface. Object information can be
accessed within the defined sensor range, and the model is technology-independent. High-
fidelity models correspond to phenomenological sensor models and provide a higher level
of detail than ideal models. They use ideal environmental information and overlay it with
technology-dependent effects known from theory and measurements. Physical models
with an RSI account for actual signal propagation. This includes the main physical effects
involving the interaction of the signal with objects in the simulation and the transmission
media along the propagation path.
Furthermore, most simulation tools provide different interfaces for sensor modelling
with varying complexity [55]. We used the definition given in [56], which describes the
complexity of the model as follows:
The ground truth model contains all information about all objects within the search
radius. The geometric models take into account some basic information from the sensor’s
data sheet and map the detection area and field of view. The stochastic models assume some
uncertainty in the detection probability and provide parallel measurements with artificially
generated noise. The most complex models for perceptual sensors are physics-based
models that use the physical properties of the object, wave propagation, and reflections.
From the point of view of computational requirements and reduced parameter space,
phenomenological models are a good alternative since mathematical methods can be used
to simulate a sensor-specific phenomenon. This classification, presented in Figure 3, serves
as the basis for a classification more focused on vehicle development applications, as
described below.
Target
Search Radius Search Radius
EGO EGO
5.1.2. Application
The automotive industry has a wide range of simulation tools to support the devel-
opment process and to accelerate V&V test activities. In the concept phase, simplified
sensor models can be used to specify the perception concept of the automated driving
system. For example, it must be determined which areas of the vehicle environment are
to be perceived and at what distance objects must be detected. In the further course of
development, sensor models can support the selection of the sensor technology to be used
for the automated driving system (radar, lidar, camera, etc.). For this purpose, typical
sensor characteristics such as sensor FOV, detection range, and so on can be modelled. With
the ability to generate the GT for each simulation step, all of these modern simulation tools
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 10 of 22
5.2.2. Application
The output of a functional model usually does not deal with the internal processes or
algorithms of the real sensor, but focuses on reproducing the effects that distinguish the
sensor output from the reference data. Unlike operational models, functional models already
contain more information and details about the real sensor properties. The authors in [27,36]
illustrate this point that a non-parametric modelling approach is able to model sensor range,
occlusion, latency, ghost objects, and object loss without explicit programming, and can
be used efficiently in real-time simulation. The same concept is developed in [26,65],
where the geometric information of the target is transformed into the sensor model, and
then the signal noise and statistically based signal loss are superimposed on the original
signal. The method described above has provided good estimation and modelling of
relative distance, velocity, and other sensor-specific information. The data-driven approach
requires a large number of experiments to obtain a statistical distribution that can be applied
by the model. However, in the real world, there are often crucial parameters that affect
the detection results, and a given statistical distribution may not do justice to the sensor’s
detection performance. Therefore, a data-driven approach based on machine learning (ML)
is introduced. In the work of [64], different ML methods are investigated and used to
build RCS models, demonstrating that better prediction accuracy can be achieved with
ML models. In addition to data-driven methods, geometric-based approaches are also
commonly used for radar feature modelling. The geometric approach focuses more on the
specific details of the target and models according to the statistics of the reflection points at
different locations on the surface of the target to create the sensor-specific object list.
In vehicle development, functional models are used in the descending branch of the
V-model after the use of operational models, but can also be reused in the ascending branch
after the use of technical models. For more detailed logical scenarios, functional models can
be used at the subsystem level in the design phase to produce sensor-technology-specific
outputs that are used as inputs to a sensor fusion algorithm. In addition, the models can
be used to verify that real sensors meet the requirements of the system specifications. In
this regard, see also Figure 2. The figure shows that functional models can be used not
only for verification purposes in the design phase, but also in the ascending branch of the
V-model in the integration phase for testing. Since functional models are expected to perform
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 11 of 22
their task in real time or even faster than real time, they can replace the real sensors for
functional testing of the vehicle’s HMI in DiL testing or for testing some vehicle functions
at the system level in ViL testing methods.
5.3.2. Application
Technical models provide object lists with reduced content to represent a radar signature,
usually in the form of a point target. The model output is the input data for a particular
radar target stimulator high-frequency HiL testbed. A typical radar signature consists
of: Doppler shift f d due to relative velocity, range in the form of propagation delay ∆t,
spatial direction (azimuth Φ, elevation Θ), and RCS σ describing the effective area of the
identified objects. Once the concept of the perceptual sensor system is fully defined, the
integration phase begins (right side of the V-model). For the integration of initial hardware
prototypes with mostly limited functionality, technical sensor models provide input signals to
validate the intended functionality on HiL, DiL, or even ViL test benches. Due to the lack of
detailed technological knowledge of the subcomponents and the complex high frequency
technology, the focus is on quantitative rather than qualitative or performance analysis.
Although OTA radar sensor simulation is widely used in co-simulation for HiL and
ViL, the huge investment in hardware equipment is still a challenge. In addition, due to
the high computational requirements of the real-time system, the effects of environmental
conditions on the radar echo are often ignored or reduced to a probability distribution.
Furthermore, the number of objects to be simulated is also limited.
In vehicle development, technical models are used in the ascending branch of the V-
model, after the usage of individual models. The test cases are defined in concrete scenarios
with well-defined requirements. Technical models support X-in-the-Loop on vehicle level,
see also Figure 2.
5.4.2. Application
Under the individual model, physical models are considered, provided the sensor
supplier has all the technology and hardware-specific parameters to perform a reliable
performance evaluation. The application is in the lower part of the V-model, at the com-
ponent or subsystem level, where performance verification can only be performed by the
supplier. Models that provide raw data, reflection points and target lists belong to this
class of models because the data processing algorithms for clustering and tracking are not
known to the vehicle integrator. Individual models can be used effectively by system suppli-
ers who have the technological knowledge to perform simulations of everything down to
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 12 of 22
Table 1. Classification of radar sensor model approaches and relation to previous reviews.
[23] [25] [71] [30] [19] [41] [43] [42] [44] [67] [18] Sum:
[72] x x 2
[38] x x 2
OPERATIONAL
[73] x x x 3
[18] x 1
[74] x x 2
[75] x 1
[28] x 1
[76] 0
[77] x 1
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 13 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
[23] [25] [71] [30] [19] [41] [43] [42] [44] [67] [18] Sum:
[27] x x x x 4
[36] x 1
[26] x x x x 4
[41]
x x x x x 5
[39]
[65] 0
[78] x x x 3
[79] 0
[33] x x 2
[64] 0
[80] 0
[81] x 1
[82] 0
[83] x 1
[29] x x x x x x 6
[84] 0
[24] x x 2
FUNCTIONAL
[71] x 1
[85] 0
[86] 0
[87] 0
[37] x x 2
[30] 0
[88] x 1
[89] x 1
[90] x 1
[91] x 1
[57] x 1
[92] x 1
[93] x 1
[94] x 1
[95] x 1
[96] 0
[97] 0
[98] x 1
[99] x x 2
[45] 0
[46] 0
[47] 0
[48] 0
[49] 0
TECHNICAL
[50] x 1
[100] 0
[51] 0
[52] 0
[53] x 1
[101] x 1
[102] x 1
[103] 0
[54] x x 2
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 14 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
[23] [25] [71] [30] [19] [41] [43] [42] [44] [67] [18] Sum:
[69] x 1
[32] x x x x x 5
[68] 0
[67] x 1
[70] 0
[104] x 1
[105] 0
[35] x x x x 4
[106] x x 2
[40] x x 2
[107] 0
[108] 0
[109] x 1
[110] x x 2
[111] x 1
[112] x 1
[31] x 1
[34] x 1
[113] x 1
[114] x x 2
[115] x 1
FUNCTIONAL
[116] x 1
[117] x 1
[118] x x 2
[119] x 1
[120] x 1
[121] x 1
[122] x 1
[123] x 1
[124] x x 2
[125] x 1
[126] x 1
[127] x 1
[128] x 1
[129] x 1
[130] x 1
[55] x 1
[131] x 1
[132] x 1
[133] 0
[134] 0
[135] 0
[136] x 1
6. Discussion
As complexity increases, the verification and validation (V&V) of automated driv-
ing systems (ADS) becomes exponentially more inefficient in terms of time-to-market
and cost when the focus is on on-road testing. A variety of X-in-the-loop methods have
been introduced to support efficient V&V of the safe performance of ADS. However, the
quality of the predictions depends mainly on the ability of the V&V method to replicate
the performance of real machine perception. Automotive radar sensors are superior in
certain characteristics, such as performance in adverse weather conditions and precision in
measuring the relative speed and distance of objects, especially moving objects. However,
radar sensors are difficult to model due to the complex physical relationships between mul-
tipath propagation and electromagnetic wave reflection. In previous research, numerous
attempts have been made to develop models using very different modelling techniques.
In previous literature reviews, different classifications were established to structure the
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 15 of 22
large amount of available research. This paper summarises the methods described in the
literature, but also introduces a new perspective. Since X-in-the-loop-based approaches
ultimately support the goal of whole-vehicle-level development, we have classified the
available approaches in a perspective of how they are used in the development process and
have introduced—in increasing order of complexity and use along the V-model integration
approach— operational models, functional models, technical models, and individual models.
We summarised the different approaches and classifications and provided a com-
prehensive table that combines previous classifications with our new approach. Thus,
the reader is able to quickly get an overview and select a suitable modelling method for
further use. Finally, we provide a link to a dynamic spreadsheet that is publicly available
at: https://doi.org/10.3217/kgg17-wq710. (accessed on 24 June 2022) This spreadsheet is
being continuously enhanced as more progress in radar sensor modelling is achieved and
will include comments of researchers and readers in that tabular overview in future.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization , Z.F.M., H.L., and A.E.; methodology, Z.F.M., H.L., and
A.E.; investigation, Z.F.M., H.L., and A.E.; resources, Z.F.M., H.L., and A.E.; writing—original draft
preparation, Z.F.M., H.L., A.E., P.R., and L.W.; writing—review and editing, Z.F.M., H.L., and A.E.;
visualization, Z.F.M.; supervision, A.E.; project administration, A.E. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Open Access Funding by the Graz University of Technology. This activity is part of the
research project InVADE (FFG nr. 889349) and has received funding from the program Mobility
of the Future, operated by the Austrian research funding agency FFG. Mobility of the Future is
a mission-oriented research and development program to help Austria create a transport system
designed to meet future mobility and social challenges.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The full classification data, presented in a comprehensive tabular
format can be found at: the link has been changed to the same link as in the discussion section
https://doi.org/10.3217/kgg17-wq710 (accessed on 24 June 2022). In addition, the literature cited in
this table is provided in END-NOTE format.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
References
1. Szalay, Z. Next Generation X-in-the-Loop Validation Methodology for Automated Vehicle Systems. IEEE Access 2021, 9,
35616–35632. [CrossRef]
2. Doms, T.; Rauch, B.; Schrammel, B.; Schwald, C.; Spahovic, E.; Schwarzl, C. Highly Automated Driving-The New Challenges for
Functional Safety and Cyber Security: White Paper;TÜV Austria Holding AG and Virtual Vehicle: Vienna, Austria, 2018.
3. ISO 26262; Part 1-12: Road Vehicles—Functional Safety. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011 .
4. ISO 15622:2018; Intelligent Transport Systems—Adaptive Cruise Control Systems—Performance Requirements and Test Proce-
dures. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland . 2019.
5. ISO 22733-1:2021; Road Vehicles—Test Method to Evaluate the Performance of Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems—Part
1: Car-to-Car. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland , 2021.
6. ISO 17361:2017; Intelligent Transport Systems—Lane Departure Warning Systems—Performance Requirements and Test
Procedures. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland , 2017.
7. ISO 17387:2008; Intelligent Transport Systems—Lane Change Decision Aid Systems (LCDAS)—Performance Requirements and
Test Procedures. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland , 2018.
8. ISO 21202:2020; Intelligent Transport Systems—Partially Automated Lane Change Systems (PALS)—Functional/Operational
Requirements and Test Procedures. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland , 2020.
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 17 of 22
9. ISO 11270:2014; Intelligent Transport Systems—Lane Keeping Assistance Systems (LKAS)—Performance Requirements and Test
Procedures. International Standard of Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland , 2012.
10. United Regulation No 131 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE)-Uniform Provisions Concerning the
Approval of Motor Vehicles with Regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS); Nations Economic Commission for
Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 47–62.
11. UN Regulation No. 157—Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS); Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland,
2021; pp. 75–137.
12. Hutchinson, A.C. (Ed.) Cryptocurrencies and the Regulatory Challenge; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [CrossRef]
13. Wishart, J.; Como, S.; Forgione, U.; Weast, J.; Weston, L.; Smart, A.; Nicols, G.; S, R. Literature Review of Verification and
Validation Activities of Automated Driving Systems. SAE Int. J. Connect. Autom. Veh. 2020, 3, 267–323. [CrossRef]
14. Dahmen, U.; Roßmann, J. Simulation-based Verification with Experimentable Digital Twins in Virtual Testbeds. In Tagungsband
des 3. Kongresses Montage Handhabung Industrieroboter; Schüppstuhl, T., Tracht, K., Franke, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2018; pp. 139–147.
15. Schmidt, S.; Schlager, B.; Muckenhuber, S.; Stark, R. Configurable Sensor Model Architecture for the Development of Automated
Driving Systems. Sensors 2021, 21, 4687. [CrossRef]
16. ISO/PAS 21448:2019; Road Vehicles—Safety of the Intended Functionality. International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
17. Lipa, B.J.; Barrick, D.E. FMCW Signal Processing. 1990. Available online: http://www.codar.com/images/about/1990LipaBarr_
FMCW.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2022).
18. Muckenhuber, S.; Holzer, H.; Rubsam, J.; Stettinger, G. Object-based sensor model for virtual testing of ADAS/AD functions. In
Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), Graz, Austria, 4–8 November
2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
19. Schlager, B.; Muckenhuber, S.; Schmidt, S.; Holzer, H.; Rott, R.; Maier, F.M.; Saad, K.; Kirchengast, M.; Stettinger, G.; Watzenig, D.;
et al. State-of-the-Art Sensor Models for Virtual Testing of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems/Autonomous Driving Functions.
SAE Int. J. Connect. Autom. Veh. 2020, 3, 233–261. [CrossRef]
20. Safety First for Automated Driving. Available online: https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/87622238/FRAV-01-11.
pdf?api=v2 (accessed on 24 June 2022).
21. Schnelle, S.C.; Salaani, M.K.; Rao, S.J.; Barickman, F.S.; Elsasser, D. Review of Simulation Frameworks and Standards Related to Driving
Scenarios; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
22. Rosenberger, P.; Wendler, J.T.; Holder, M.; Linnhoff, C.; Berghöfer, M.; Winner, H.; Maurer, M. Towards a generally accepted
validation methodology for sensor models-challenges, metrics, and first results. In Proceedings of the 2019 Graz Symposium
Virtual Vehicle, Graz, Austria, 7–8 May 2019; pp. 1–13.
23. Jun, Z.; Kai, Y.; Xuecai, D.; Zhangu, W.; Huainan, Z.; Chunguang, D. New modeling method of millimeter-wave radar considering
target radar echo intensity. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D J. Automob. Eng. 2021, 235, 2857–2870. [CrossRef]
24. Guo, J.; Deng, W.; Zhang, S.; Qi, S.; Li, X.; Wang, C.; Wang, J. A Novel Method of Radar Modeling for Vehicle Intelligence. SAE
Int. J. Passeng.-Cars-Electron. Electr. Syst. 2017, 10, 50–56. [CrossRef]
25. Holder, M.; Rosenberger, P.; Bert, F.; Winner, H. Data-driven Derivation of Requirements for a Lidar Sensor Model. In Graz
Symposium Virtual Vehicle 2018; Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, Darmstadt, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–10.
26. Bernsteiner, S.; Magosi, Z.; Lindvai-Soos, D.; Eichberger, A. Radar Sensor Model for the Virtual Development Process. Atzelektronik
Worldw. 2015, 10, 46–52. [CrossRef]
27. Hirsenkorn, N.; Hanke, T.; Rauch, A.; Dehlink, B.; Rasshofer, R.; Biebl, E. A non-parametric approach for modeling sensor
behavior. In Proceedings of the 2015 16th International Radar Symposium (IRS), Dresden, Germany, 24–26 June 2015; pp. 131–136.
[CrossRef]
28. Gschwandtner, M.; Kwitt, R.; Uhl, A.; Pree, W. BlenSor: Blender Sensor Simulation Toolbox. In Advances in Visual Computing,
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium, ISVC 2011, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 26–28 September 2011; Bebis, G., Boyle, R., Parvin, B.,
Koracin, D., Wang, S., Kyungnam, K., Benes, B., Moreland, K., Borst, C., DiVerdi, S., et al., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2011; pp. 199–208. [CrossRef]
29. Wheeler, T.A.; Holder, M.; Winner, H.; Kochenderfer, M.J. Deep stochastic radar models. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11–14. June 2017; pp. 47–53. [CrossRef]
30. Jasinski, M. A Generic Validation Scheme for Real-Time Capable Automotive Radar Sensor Models integrated into an Autonomous
Driving Simulator. In Proceedings of the 2019 24th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics
(MMAR), Miedzyzdroje, Poland, 26–29 August 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
31. Ling, H.; Chou, R.C.; Lee, S.W. Shooting and bouncing rays: calculating the RCS of an arbitrarily shaped cavity. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 1989, 37, 194–205. [CrossRef]
32. Hirsenkorn, N.; Subkowski, P.; Hanke, T.; Schaermann, A.; Rauch, A.; Rasshofer, R.; Biebl, E. A ray launching approach for
modeling an FMCW radar system. In Proceedings of the 18th International Radar Symposium IRS 2017, Prague, Czech Republic,
28–30 June 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017.
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 18 of 22
33. Martowicz, A.; Gallina, A.; Karpiel, G. Uncertainty propagation for vehicle detections in experimentally validated radar model
for automotive application. In Proceedings of the 2019 24th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and
Robotics (MMAR), Mi˛edzyzdroje, Poland, 26–29 August 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
34. Bhalla, R.; Ling, H. Three-dimensional scattering center extraction using the shooting and bouncing ray technique. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 1996, 44, 1445–1453. [CrossRef]
35. Schuler, K.; Becker, D.; Wiesbeck, W. Extraction of Virtual Scattering Centers of Vehicles by Ray-Tracing Simulations. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 2008, 56, 3543–3551. [CrossRef]
36. Hirsenkorn, N.; Hanke, T.; Rauch, A.; Dehlink, B.; Rasshofer, R.; Biebl, E. Virtual sensor models for real-time applications. Adv.
Radio Sci. 2016, 14, 31–37. [CrossRef]
37. Scheel, A.; Dietmayer, K. Tracking Multiple Vehicles Using a Variational Radar Model. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2019,
20, 3721–3736. [CrossRef]
38. Hanke, T.; Hirsenkorn, N.; Dehlink, B.; Rauch, A.; Rasshofer, R.; Biebl, E. Generic architecture for simulation of ADAS sensors.
In Proceedings of the Generic Architecture for Simulation of ADAS Sensors, Dresden, Germany, 24–26 June 2015; pp. 125–130.
[CrossRef]
39. Cao, P. Modeling Active Perception Sensors for Real-Time Virtual Validation of Automated Driving Systems. Ph.D. Thesis,
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, 2017.
40. Holder, M.; Linnhoff, C.; Rosenberger, P.; Winner, H. The Fourier Tracing Approach for Modeling Automotive Radar Sensors. In
Proceedings of the 20th International Radar Symposium (IRS), Ulm, Germany, 26–28 June 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
41. Cao, P.; Wachenfeld, W.; Winner, H. Perception sensor modeling for virtual validation of automated driving. Inf. Technol. 2015,
57, 243–251. [CrossRef]
42. Ngo, A.; Bauer, M.P.; Resch, M. A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Evaluating a Radar Simulation for Virtual Testing of
Autonomous Driving Functions. In Proceedings of the 2020 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (ACIRS),
Singapore, 17–19 July 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
43. Ngo, A.; Bauer, M.P.; Resch, M. A Multi-Layered Approach for Measuring the Simulation-to-Reality Gap of Radar Perception
for Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC),
Indianapolis, IN, USA, 19–22 September 2021; pp. 4008–4014.
44. Holder, M.F. Synthetic Generation of Radar Sensor Data for Virtual Validation of Autonomous Driving. Ph.D. Thesis, TU
Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, 2021. [CrossRef]
45. Dallmann, T.; Mende, J.K.; Wald, S. A Radar Target Simulator for Complex Traffic Scenarios ATRIUM. In Proceedings of the 2018
IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Microwaves for Intelligent Mobility (ICMIM), Munich, Germany, 16–17 April 2018;
IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
46. Gowdu, S.B.J.; Asghar, M.E.; Stephan, R.; Hein, M.A.; Nagel, J.; Baumgartner, F. System architecture for installed-performance
testing of automotive radars over-the-air. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Microwaves for
Intelligent Mobility (ICMIM), Munich, Germany, 15–17 April 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
47. Zhu, B.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, P.; Song, D. Millimeter-Wave Radar in-the-Loop Testing for Intelligent Vehicles. IEEE
Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 1–11. [CrossRef]
48. Sobotka, J.; Novak, J. Digital Vehicle Radar Sensor Target Simulation. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Instrumenta-
tion and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 25–29 May 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020.
[CrossRef]
49. Diewald, A.; Kurz, C.; Kannan, P.V.; Gießler, M.; Pauli, M.; Göttel, B.; Kayser, T.; Gauterin, F.; Zwick, T. Radar Target Simulation
for Vehicle-in-the-Loop Testing. Vehicles 2021, 3, 257–271. [CrossRef]
50. Gadringer, M.E.; Schreiber, H.; Gruber, A.; Vorderderfler, M.; Amschl, D.; Bösch, W.; Metzner, S.; Pflügl, H.; Paulweber, M. Virtual
reality for automotive radars. Elektrotechnik Und Informationstechnik 2018, 135, 335–343. [CrossRef]
51. Cheng, J.J.; Xu, Z.G.; Gao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, W.W.; Zhao, X.M. An Indoor Rapid Testing Platform for Autonomous Vehicles
Using Vehicle-in-the-Loop Simulation. In Proceedings of the CICTP 2020, Xi’an, China, 16–19 December 2020; Wei, H., Wang, H.,
Zhang, L., An, Y., Zhao, X., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2020; pp. 411–422. [CrossRef]
52. Asghar, M.E.; Buddappagari, S.; Baumgartner, F.; Graf, S.; Kreutz, F.; Loffler, A.; Nagel, J.; Reichmann, T.; Stephan, R.; Hein,
M.A. Radar Target Simulator and Antenna Positioner for Real-Time Over-the-air Stimulation of Automotive Radar Systems. In
Proceedings of the 2020 17th European Radar Conference (EuRAD), Jaarbeurs Utrecht, Netherlands, 16–18 September 2020; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA,, Jaarbeurs Utrecht, Netherlands, 16-18 Sep. 2020; pp. 95–98. [CrossRef]
53. Lutz, S.; Erhart, C.; Walte, T.; Weigel, R. Target simulator concept for chirp modulated 77 GHz automotive radar sensors. In
Proceedings of the 2014 11th European Radar Conference, Rome, Italy, 8–10 October 2014; pp. 65–68. [CrossRef]
54. Maier, F.M.; Makkapati, V.P.; Horn, M. Environment perception simulation for radar stimulation in automated driving function
testing. Elektrotechnik Und Informationstechnik 2018, 135, 309–315. [CrossRef]
55. Herrmann, M.; Schön, H. Efficient Sensor Development Using Raw Signal Interfaces. In Fahrerassistenzsysteme 2018; Bertram, T.,
Ed.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 30–39. [CrossRef]
56. Schoener, H.P. Automotive Needs and Expectations towards Next Generation Driving Simulation. In Proceedings of the 2018
Driving Simulator Conference, Antibes, France, 5–7 September 2018; pp. 11–16.
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 19 of 22
57. Hartstern, M.; Rack, V.; Kaboli, M.; Stork, W. Simulation-based Evaluation of Automotive Sensor Setups for Environmental
Perception in Early Development Stages. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Las Vegas, NV,
USA, 19 October–13 November 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 858–864. [CrossRef]
58. Gregory, Y. (GRVA) New Assessment/Test Method for Automated Driving (NATM)-Master Document. 2021. Available online:
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/ECE-TRANS-WP29-2021-61e.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2022).
59. Menzel, T.; Bagschik, G.; Maurer, M. Scenarios for Development, Test and Validation of Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of
the 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Changshu, China, 26–30 June 2018 ; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 1821–1827.
60. Bringmann, E.; Kr, A. Model-Based Testing of Automotive Systems. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference
on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation, Lillehammer, Norway, 9–11 April 2008; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008;
pp. 485–493. [CrossRef]
61. Schutt, B.; Steimle, M.; Kramer, B.; Behnecke, D.; Sax, E. A Taxonomy for Quality in Simulation-Based Development and Testing
of Automated Driving Systems. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 18631–18644. [CrossRef]
62. Linnhoff, C.; Rosenberger, P.; Holder, M.F.; Cianciaruso, N.; Winner, H. Highly Parameterizable and Generic Perception Sensor
Model Architecture. In Automatisiertes Fahren 2020; Bertram, T., Ed.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2021; pp. 195–206. [CrossRef]
63. Rosique, F.; Navarro, P.J.; Fernández, C.; Padilla, A. A Systematic Review of Perception System and Simulators for Autonomous
Vehicles Research. Sensors 2019, 19, 648. [CrossRef]
64. Muckenhuber, S.; Museljic, E.; Stettinger, G. Performance evaluation of a state-of-the-art automotive radar and corresponding
modeling approaches based on a large labeled dataset. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 1–20. [CrossRef]
65. Choi, W.Y.; Yang, J.H.; Chung, C.C. Data-Driven Object Vehicle Estimation by Radar Accuracy Modeling with Weighted
Interpolation. Sensors 2021, 21, 2317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Bel Kamel, E.; Peden, A.; Pajusco, P. RCS modeling and measurements for automotive radar applications in the W band. In
Proceedings of the 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP), Paris, France, 19–24 March 2017;
IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017, pp. 2445–2449. [CrossRef]
67. Thieling, J.; Frese, S.; RoBmann, J. Scalable and Physical Radar Sensor Simulation for Interacting Digital Twins. IEEE Sens. J. 2021,
21, 3184–3192. [CrossRef]
68. Schuesler, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Braunig, J.; Ullmann, I.; Ebelt, R.; Vossiek, M. A Realistic Radar Ray Tracing Simulator for Large
MIMO-Arrays in Automotive Environments. IEEE J. Microwaves 2021, 1, 962–974. [CrossRef]
69. Dudek, M.; Wahl, R.; Kissinger, D.; Weigel, R.; Fischer, G. Millimeter wave FMCW radar system simulations including a 3D ray
tracing channel simulator. In Proceedings of the 2010 Asia-Pacific Microwave Conference, Yokohama, Japan, 7–10 December
2010; pp. 1665–1668.
70. Zhu, L.; He, D.; Ai, B.; Zhong, Z.; Zhu, F.; Wang, Z. Measurement and Ray-Tracing Simulation for Millimeter-Wave Automotive
Radar. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on Electronic Information and Communication Technology
(ICEICT), Xi’an, China, 18–20 August 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 582–587. [CrossRef]
71. Li, X.; Deng, W.; Zhang, S.; Li, Y.; Song, S.; Wang, S.; Wang, G. Research on Millimeter Wave Radar Simulation Model for
Intelligent Vehicle. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 2020, 21, 275–284. [CrossRef]
72. Roth, E.; Dirndorfer, T.J.; Knoll, A.; v. Neumann-Cosel, K.; Ganslmeier, T.; Kern, A.; Fischer, M.O. Analysis and validation of
perception sensor models in an integrated vehicle and environment simulation. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on
Enhanced Saferty of Vehicles (ESV 2011), Washington, DC, USA, 13–16 June 2011.
73. Stolz, M.; Nestlinger, G. Fast generic sensor models for testing highly automated vehicles in simulation. Elektrotechnik Und
Informationstechnik 2018, 135, 365–369. [CrossRef]
74. Elgharbawy, M.; Schwarzhaupt, A.; Scheike, G.; Frey, M.; Gauterin, F. A generic architecture of ADAS sensor fault injection
for virtual tests. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications
(AICCSA), Agadir, Morocco, 29 November–2 December 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
75. Velazquez, J.M.R.; Mailly, F.; Nouet, P. A generic model for sensor simulation at system level. In Proceedings of the 2018
Symposium on Design, Test, Integration & Packaging of MEMS and MOEMS (DTIP), Rome, Italy, 22–25 May 2018; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
76. Hanke, T. Virtual Sensorics: Simulated Environmental Perception for Automated Driving Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Germany, 2022.
77. Deng, W.; Dai, J.; Zhao, Q.; Litkouhi, B.; Moshchuk, N.; Nisonger, R. Modeling of range sensing and object detection, for vehicle
active safety. In Proceedings of the 2009 12th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, St. Louis, MO,
USA, 4–7 October 2009; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
78. Holder, M.; Rosenberger, P.; Winner, H.; Dhondt, T.; Makkapati, V.P.; Maier, M.; Schreiber, H.; Magosi, Z.; Slavik, Z.; Bringmann,
O.; et al. Measurements revealing Challenges in Radar Sensor Modeling for Virtual Validation of Autonomous Driving.
In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 November 2018; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 2616–2622. [CrossRef]
79. Slavik, Z.; Mishra, K.V. Phenomenological Modeling of Millimeter-Wave Automotive Radar. In Proceedings of the 2019 URSI
Asia-Pacific Radio Science Conference (AP-RASC), New Delhi, India, 9–15 March 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–4.
[CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 20 of 22
80. Arnelid, H.; Zec, E.L.; Mohammadiha, N. In Proceedings of the Recurrent Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks for
Autonomous Driving Sensor Modelling, Auckland, New Zealand, 27–30 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
81. Zec, E.L.; Mohammadiha, N.; Schliep, A. In Proceedings of the Statistical Sensor Modelling for Autonomous Driving Using
Autoregressive Input-Output HMMs, Maui, Hawaii, 4–7 November 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
82. Song, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y. Radar data simulation using deep generative networks. J. Eng. 2019, 2019, 6699–6702. [CrossRef]
83. Suhre, A.; Malik, W. (Eds.) Simulating Object Lists Using Neural Networks in Automotive Radar . In Proceedings of the 2018
19th International Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and
Microsystems (EuroSimE), Toulouse, France, 15–18 April 2018. [CrossRef]
84. Cao, X.; Lan, J.; Li, X.R.; Liu, Y. Automotive Radar-Based Vehicle Tracking Using Data-Region Association. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 2021, 23, 1–14. [CrossRef]
85. Mishra, K.V.; Shankar M.R., B.; Ottersten, B. Stochastic-Geometry-Based Interference Modeling in Automotive Radars Using
Matérn Hard-Core Process. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf20), lorence, Italy, 21–25 September
2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
86. Choi, W.Y.; Kang, C.M.; Lee, S.H.; Chung, C.C. Radar Accuracy Modeling and Its Application to Object Vehicle Tracking. Int. J.
Control. Autom. Syst. 2020, 18, 3146–3158. [CrossRef]
87. Belyaev, A.A.; Frolov, I.O.; Suanov, T.A.; Trots, D.O. In Proceedings of the Object Detection in an Urban Environment Using
77GHz Radar: Divnomorskoe, Krasnodar Region, Russia, 24–28 June 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
88. Buddendick, H.; Eibert, T.F. Radio channel simulations using multiple scattering center models. In Proceedings of the Radio
Channel Simulations Using Multiple Scattering Center Models, North Charleston, SC, USA, 1–5 June 2009; Buddendick, H.,
Eibert, T.F.., Eds.; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
89. Schubert, R.; Mattern, N.; Bours, R. Simulation of Sensor Models for the Evaluation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.
Atzelektronik Worldw. 2014, 9, 26–29. [CrossRef]
90. Sligar, A.P. Machine Learning-Based Radar Perception for Autonomous Vehicles Using Full Physics Simulation. IEEE Access
2020, 8, 51470–51476. [CrossRef]
91. Buhren, M.; Yang, B. Initialization Procedure for Radar Target Tracking without Object Movement Constraints. In Proceeding s of
the 2007 7th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, Sophia Antipolis, France, 6–8 June 2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2007, pp. 1–6.
92. Ponn, T.; Lanz, T.; Diermeyer, F. Automatic Generation of Road Geometries to Create Challenging Scenarios for Automated
Vehicles Based on the Sensor Setup. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Las Vegas, NV, USA,
23–26 June 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 694–700. [CrossRef]
93. Haider, A.; Kim, J.; Sachse, M.; Zeh, T.; Schneider, S.A.; Thumann, M.; Eryildirim, A.; Ebeling, T. Automotive Radar Sensor
Behavioral Models for Closed Loop Simulations. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Future Active Safety
Technology toward Zero Accidents (FAST-zero’19), Blacksburg, VA, USA, 9–11 September 2019.
94. Dietmayer, K. Predicting of Machine Perception for Automated Driving. In Autonomous Driving; Maurer, M., Gerdes, J.C., Lenz,
B., Winner, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 407–424. [CrossRef]
95. Doerr, D. Using Virtualization to Accelerate the Development of ADAS & Automated Driving Functions: IPG Presentation; IPG
Automotive GmbH: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2017.
96. Gubelli, D.; Krasnov, O.; Yarovyi, O. Ray-tracing simulator for radar signals propagation in radar networks. Eur. Radar Conf.
2013, 2013, 73–76.
97. Schneider, R. Modellierung der Wellenausbreitung für ein Bildgebendes Kfz-Radar. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe,
Karlsruhe, Germany, 1998.
98. Stellet, J.E.; Schumacher, J.; Lange, O.; Branz, W.; Niewels, F.; Zöllner, J.M. Statistical Modelling of Object Detection in Stereo
Vision-Based Driver Assistance. In Intelligent Autonomous Systems 13; Menegatti, E., Michael, N., Berns, K., Yamaguchi, H., Eds.;
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 302,
pp. 749–761. [CrossRef]
99. Deng, W.; Zeng, S.; Zhao, Q.; Dai, J. Modeling and simulation of sensor-guided autonomous driving. Int. J. Veh. Des. 2011,
56, 341. [CrossRef]
100. Gadringer, M.E.; Maier, F.M.; Schreiber, H.; Makkapati, V.P.; Gruber, A.; Vorderderfler, M.; Amschl, D.; Metzner, S.; Pflügl, H.;
Bösch, W.; et al. Radar target stimulation for automotive applications. IET Radar Sonar Navig. 2018, 12, 1096–1103. [CrossRef]
101. van Driesten, C.; Schaller, T. Overall Approach to Standardize AD Sensor Interfaces: Simulation and Real Vehicle. In Fahrerassis-
tenzsysteme 2018; Bertram, T., Ed.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 47–55. [CrossRef]
102. Feilhauer, M.; Häring, J. A real-time capable multi-sensor model to validate ADAS in a virtual environment. In Fahrerassistenzsys-
teme 2017; Isermann, R., Ed.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; pp. 227–256. [CrossRef]
103. Maier, F.M. Radar Perception Simulation for Automated Driving Tests. Phd thesis, Graz University of Technology, Graz, 2022.
104. Buhren, M.; Yang, B. Extension of Automotive Radar Target List Simulation to consider further Physical Aspects. In Proceedings
of the 2007 7th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, Sophia Antipolis, France, 6–8 June 2007; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
105. Prinz, A.; Peters, L.T.; Schwendner, J.; Ayeb, M.; Brabetz, L. Automotive Radar Signal and Interference Simulation for Testing
Autonomous Driving. In Intelligent Transport Systems, from Research and Development to the Market Uptake; Martins, A.L., Ferreira,
J.C., Kocian, A., Costa, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 364, pp. 223–240. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 21 of 22
106. Maier, M.; Makkapati, V.P.; Horn, M. Adapting Phong into a Simulation for Stimulation of Automotive Radar Sensors. In
Proceeding s of the 2018 IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Microwaves for Intelligent Mobility (ICMIM), Munich, Germany,
15–17 April 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
107. Bogdan, T.; Dorina, I. Simulation of Automotive MIMO Radar. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Electronics
and Telecommunications (ISETC), Timisoara, Romania, 5–6 November 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
108. Blasch, E.; Hensel, M. Fusion of Distributions for Radar Clutter Modeling; Defense Technical Information Center: Fort Belvoir, VA,
USA, 2004.
109. Etinger, A.; Litvak, B.; Pinhasi, Y. Multi Ray Model for Near-Ground Millimeter Wave Radar. Sensors 2017, 17, 1983. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
110. Hammarstrand, L.; Lundgren, M.; Svensson, L. Adaptive Radar Sensor Model for Tracking Structured Extended Objects. IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2012, 48, 1975–1995. [CrossRef]
111. Hammarstrand, L.; Svensson, L.; Sandblom, F.; Sorstedt, J. Extended Object Tracking using a Radar Resolution Model. IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2012, 48, 2371–2386. [CrossRef]
112. Hanke, T.; Schaermann, A.; Matthias, G.; Konstantin, W.; Hirsenkorn, N.; Rauch, A.; Stefan-Alexander Schneider. Generation and
validation of virtual point cloud data for automated driving systems. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Mielparque Yokohama in Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan, 16–19 October 2017; IEEE: Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 2017.
113. Peinecke, N.; Döhler, H.U.; Korn, B.R. Simulation of imaging radar using graphics hardware acceleration. In Proceedings of the
Enhanced and Synthetic Vision 2008, Orlando, FL, USA, 20 May 2008; Güell, J.J.; Uijt de Haag, M., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA,
USA , 2008; p. 69570L. [CrossRef]
114. Buhren, M.; Yang, B. Simulation of Automotive Radar Target Lists using a Novel Approach of Object Representation. In
Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Meguro-Ku, Japan, 13–15 June 2006; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2006; pp. 314–319. [CrossRef]
115. Bühren, M.; Yang, B. Simulation of automotive radar target lists considering clutter and limited resolution. In Proceedings of the
International Radar Symposium, Cologne, Germany, 5–7 September 2007; pp. 195–200.
116. Danielsson, L. Tracking and Radar Sensor Modelling for Automotive Safety Systems 2010; Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers
Tekniska Högskola;Chalmers Univercity of Technology: Göteborg, Germany, 2010; Volume 3064.
117. Schuler, K. Intelligente Antennensysteme für Kraftfahrzeug-Nahbereichs-Radar-sensorik. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe,
Zugl.: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2007.
118. Hermann Buddendick.; Thomas Eibert.; Jurgen Hasch. In Proceedings of the Bistatic Scattering Center Models_for_the_simulation_
of_wave_propagation_in_automotive_radar_systems: (GeMiC 2010), Berlin, Germany, 15–17 March 2010; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2010.
119. Harrington, R.F. Field Computation by Moment Methods; Wiley-IEEE Press: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993.
120. Weinmann, F. Ray Tracing With PO/PTD for RCS Modeling of Large Complex Objects. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2006,
54, 1797–1806. [CrossRef]
121. Clemens.; M..; Weiland, T. Discrete Electromagnetism with finite integration technique. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2001, 2001, 65–87.
[CrossRef]
122. Machida, T.; Owaki, T. In Proceedings of the Rapid and Precise Millimeter-wave Radar Simulation for ADAS Virtual Assessment:
Auckland, New Zealand, 27–30 October 2019; IEEE: Auckland, New Zealand, 2019.
123. Yee, K. Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving maxwell’s equations in isotropic media. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 1966, 14, 302–307. [CrossRef]
124. Chipengo, U.; Krenz, P.M.; Carpenter, S. From Antenna Design to High Fidelity, Full Physics Automotive Radar Sensor Corner
Case Simulation. Model. Simul. Eng. 2018, 2018, 4239725. [CrossRef]
125. Owaki, T.; Machida, T. In Proceedings of the Hybrid Physics-Based and Data-Driven Approach to Estimate the Radar Cross-
Section of Vehicles: Auckland, New Zealand, 27–30 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
126. Schäferle, S. How Do I Choose the Correct Sensor Model for My Specific Application? CarMaker Tips & Tricks No. 6-004: Choosing the
Correct Sensor Model for Your Application; IPG Automotive GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2019.
127. Eder, T.; Hachicha, R.; Sellami, H.; van Driesten, C.; Biebl, E. Data Driven Radar Detection Models: A Comparison of Artificial
Neural Networks and Non Parametric Density Estimators on Synthetically Generated Radar Data. In Proceedings of the 2019
Kleinheubach Conference, Miltenberg, Germany, 23–25 September 2019.
128. Koch, W. Verfeinerte Sensormodelle für Tracking-Anwendungen (Advanced Sensor Models for Tracking Applications). Tech.
Mess. 2007, 74, 112–120. [CrossRef]
129. Berthold, P.; Michaelis, M.; Luettel, T.; Meissner, D.; Wuensche, H.J.J. In Proceedings of the An Abstracted Radar Measurement
Model for Extended Object Tracking, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 November 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
130. Felbecker, R.; Raschkowski, L.; Keusgen, W.; Peter, M. Electromagnetic wave propagation in the millimeter wave band using the
NVIDIA OptiX GPU ray tracing engine. In Proceeding s of the 2012 6th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation
(EUCAP), Prague, Czech Republic, 26–30 March 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 488–492. [CrossRef]
131. Yun, Z.; Iskander, M.F. Ray Tracing for Radio Propagation Modeling: Principles and Applications. IEEE Access 2015, 3, 1089–1100.
[CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 5693 22 of 22
132. Topak, A.E.; Hash, J.; Zwick, T. A system simulation of a 77 GHz phased array radar sensor. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Radar Symposium (IRS) 2011, Leipzig, Germany, 7–9 September 2011; pp. 175–180.
133. Eder, T. Simulation of Automotive Radar Point Clouds in Standardized Frameworks; Cuvillier Verlag: Göttingen, Germany, 2021.
134. Hirsenkorn, N.Q. Modellbildung und Simulation der Fahrzeugumfeldsensorik. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München,
München, Germany, 2018.
135. Degen, R.; Ott, H.; Overath, F.; Schyr, C.; Leijon, M.; Ruschitzka, M. Methodical Approach to the Development of a Radar
Sensor Model for the Detection of Urban Traffic Participants Using a Virtual Reality Engine. J. Transp. Technol. 2021, 11, 179–195.
[CrossRef]
136. Kedzia, J.C.; de Souza, P.; Gruyer, D. Advanced RADAR sensors modeling for driving assistance systems testing. In Proceedings
of the 2016 10th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–2.
[CrossRef]