Making Automotive Radar Sensor Validation Measurements Comparable
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "Making Automotive Radar Sensor Validation Measurements Comparable" is well written by the authors. However, here are few comments:
1. No. of keywords can be increased.
2. Improve the resolution of Figures 6 and 7.
3. The authors are suggested to give a comparison table of all techniques with examined parameters.
4. Include more recent relevant references and include citations in appropriate section.
Can improve English quality
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your feedback and the valuable comments you provided. You may find our responses in the attached Word document.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper introduces an innovative methodology that leverages empirical cumulative distribution functions (EDFs) and the Double Validation Metric (DVM) to quantify discrepancies in radar sensor measurements. This approach significantly advances the assessment of radar sensor capabilities. Furthermore, the methodology enables a comparative analysis of radar measurements, evaluating their consistency, reproducibility, and repeatability. It also sheds light on the sensor's performance under various conditions, notably during different rain intensities. While the topic is captivating, there are certain technical nuances that need further elucidation:
Comments:
1. How does the use of empirical cumulative distribution functions (EDFs) enhance the accuracy and relevance of the Double Validation Metric (DVM) in this context?
2. In what specific ways does the Double Validation Metric (DVM) differ or improve upon existing validation metrics in the field of radar sensor models?
3. How do you define and differentiate between consistency, reproducibility, and repeatability in the context of radar sensor measurements?
4. Are there specific threshold values or criteria set for these metrics (consistency, reproducibility, repeatability) that determine the reliability of a radar sensor?
5. How were the different rain intensities simulated or sourced during the testing phase?
6. Are there considerations or plans to expand the study to evaluate the impact of other environmental factors, such as snow, fog, or dust, on radar measurements?
7. Can you provide details or examples of the different objects used during real-world experiments to compare radar signals?
8. How were these objects chosen, and do they cover a comprehensive range of potential real-world scenarios?
9. How does the methodology align with current industry standards and requirements for the safety validation of automated driving functions (ADFs)?
10. Given the emphasis on scenario-based testing in ADFs, how adaptable is the methodology to various driving scenarios, especially unpredictable or rare ones?
11. How does this research contribute to the broader goals of ensuring the safety and reliability of automated vehicles on the road?
12. Considering the highlighted importance of environmental influences, are there recommendations for radar sensor manufacturers on enhancing the detectability and resilience of their products against such influences?
13. In what ways does this research influence or guide the development and refinement of radar simulation models for industry applications?
14. It would be beneficial for the authors to explore how radar sensor measurements can be applied to cruise guidance and vehicle resource management in the related works section. The provided reference could serve as an initial resource for understanding cruise guidance and vehicle resource management.
· Intelligent Cruise Guidance and Vehicle Resource Management With Deep Reinforcement Learning," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 3574-3585
There are a few mistakes in the manuscript. The authors should proofread the manuscript to correct all mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We extend our gratitude for your feedback and the insightful remarks you have shared. Please refer to the attached Word document for our notes and responses.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction section of the paper "Making Automotive Radar Sensor Validation Measurements Comparable" is well-written and effectively sets the stage for the research. It clearly outlines the importance of virtual validation for radar sensor models in the context of automated driving functions (ADFs). However, the research questions presented in this section seem to lean towards practical applications rather than addressing scientific inquiries. The questions focus on reproducibility, the effect of different objects and environmental conditions on radar measurements, which may not be aligned with scientific research objectives.
The second section, "Evaluation Methodology," provides a structured scheme for analyzing radar parameters and comparing various radar types.
The third section deals with the experimental setup, detailing the types of environments and conditions under which the experiments were conducted. While this section is necessary to understand the context of the experiments, it does not seem to introduce any novel scientific contributions.
The fourth section presents the experimental results, which involve comparing various types of radars in different climate conditions. The comparisons involve the CCR and XC90, XC90 and rotated XC90, as well as Volvo XC90 and Mercedes Vito with two types: whole radar cuboid and ROI radar cuboid. This section provides practical insights into radar performance under different conditions. However, it lacks the scientific novelty and mathematical descriptions that one might expect in a research paper. It predominantly focuses on practical comparisons without introducing new scientific concepts.
The conclusion section summarizes the findings of the study and discusses the practical implications of the radar sensor comparisons. However, it falls short of presenting scientific novelty or new mathematical descriptions. The conclusion seems to echo the practical nature of the paper, highlighting the value of the radar sensor comparisons but lacking in terms of scientific innovation.
Based on the review of the paper, it appears that the paper "Making Automotive Radar Sensor Validation Measurements Comparable" is more inclined toward practical comparisons and lacks the scientific novelty expected in a research paper. The research questions, while important for practical applications, may not align with the expectations of a scientific journal. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest rejecting the paper in its current form, unless it can be revised to include more scientific rigor, novel mathematical descriptions, or innovative approaches that contribute to the field beyond practical comparisons.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We want to express our sincere appreciation for your feedback and the valuable comments you've provided. You will find our notes and responses in the attached Word document.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have diligently addressed all the comments and feedback provided by the reviewers. Their revisions reflect a thorough understanding and consideration of the points raised.
Before final submission, it would be beneficial for the manuscript to undergo proofreading to ensure clarity, coherence, and the elimination of any grammatical or typographical errors.
