arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.05932

Physically-Based Simulation of Automotive LiDAR

L. Dudzik·M. Roschani·A. Sielemann·K. Trampert·J. Ziehn·J. Beyerer·C. Neumann
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present an analytic model for simulating automotive time-of-flight (ToF) LiDAR that includes blooming, echo pulse width, and ambient light, along with steps to determine model parameters systematically through optical laboratory measurements. The model uses physically based rendering (PBR) in the near-infrared domain. It assumes single-bounce reflections and retroreflections over rasterized rendered images from shading or ray tracing, including light emitted from the sensor as well as stray light from other, non-correlated sources such as sunlight. Beams from the sensor and sensitivity of the receiving diodes are modeled with flexible beam steering patterns and with non-vanishing diameter. Different (all non-real time) computational approaches can be chosen based on system properties, computing capabilities, and desired output properties. Model parameters include system-specific properties, namely the physical spread of the LiDAR beam, combined with the sensitivity of the receiving diode; the intensity of the emitted light; the conversion between the intensity of reflected light and the echo pulse width; and scenario parameters such as environment lighting, positioning, and surface properties of the target(s) in the relevant infrared domain. System-specific properties of the model are determined from laboratory measurements of the photometric luminance on different target surfaces aligned with a goniometer at 0.01{\deg} resolution, which marks the best available resolution for measuring the beam pattern. The approach is calibrated for and tested on two automotive LiDAR systems, the Valeo Scala Gen. 2 and the Blickfeld Cube 1. Both systems differ notably in their properties and available interfaces, but the relevant model parameters could be extracted successfully.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.CV

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

L. Dudzik, M. Roschani, A. Sielemann, K. Trampert, J. Ziehn, J. Beyerer, C. Neumann. 2025-12-05. Physically-Based Simulation of Automotive LiDAR. https://doi.org/10.1109/iavvc61942.2025.11219516

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗