Systematic review evaluates co-simulation methods and localization strategies for ADAS development, suggesting new techniques and challenges.
Testing advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) under rare or safety-critical conditions is impractical at full scale: track campaigns are expensive, time-intensive, and cannot easily reproduce low-probability events. Scaled cyber–physical testbeds offer a more accessible path by coupling miniature vehicle platforms with virtual simulation environments, but the field has no unified review that covers co-simulation architectures, indoor localization, and ground truth strategies in a single treatment. This paper addresses that gap with a PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review of 92 primary sources selected from 984 records identified across IEEE Xplore and Scopus. Three topic areas are examined: real-time co-simulation architectures built on AirSim, CARLA, Gazebo, and LGSVL, compared for ROS 2 integration, synchronisation model, and edge hardware suitability; three indoor localization methods, namely AprilTag fiducial tracking, Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (VSLAM), and Ultra-Wideband (UWB) radio positioning, evaluated against shared accuracy, latency, infrastructure, and robustness criteria; and existing ground truth strategies for indoor localization benchmarking. A consistent finding across the corpus is that no controlled cross-method localization comparison exists for scaled testbeds. To address this, we introduce the Programmable Ground Truth Reference System (PGTRS), which renders spatial references on a programmable LED floor panel at a pixel pitch of approximately 3.9 mm, targeting sub-centimetre ground truth accuracy without dedicated motion-capture infrastructure. The concept is demonstrated within a 1:14 scale Digital Driving Twin (DDT) testbed built at the University of Applied Sciences Wildau at a hardware cost of approximately 6576. Design guidelines and open research challenges are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lutz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: