Journals / International Journal of Automotive Science and Technology / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 3

Scenario Selection and Prioritization for ADAS Hardware-in-the-Loop Validation: A Structured Critical Review

Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The review highlights the need for future studies that experimentally evaluate adaptive scenario-selection strategies under realistic HIL timing, sensor-fidelity, initialization, and resource constraints.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) validation is an important component of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) verification, enabling production-intent hardware and embedded software to be evaluated under controlled and repeatable conditions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This review critically examines scenario selection and prioritization approaches relevant to ADAS HIL validation, based primarily on literature published between 2021 and 2026 while retaining foundational earlier studies where necessary.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The review highlights the need for future studies that experimentally evaluate adaptive scenario-selection strategies under realistic HIL timing, sensor-fidelity, initialization, and resource constraints.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Advanced Driver Assistance Systems · Continuous testing · Hardware-in-the-Loop

Abstract

Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) validation is an important component of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) verification, enabling production-intent hardware and embedded software to be evaluated under controlled and repeatable conditions. However, the high dimensionality of driving scenarios, combined with limited HIL execution time and real-time test-bench constraints, makes exhaustive scenario execution impractical. This review critically examines scenario selection and prioritization approaches relevant to ADAS HIL validation, based primarily on literature published between 2021 and 2026 while retaining foundational earlier studies where necessary. The reviewed approaches are organized into four complementary families: risk-based, coverage-based, history/data-driven, and optimization-based methods. They are compared in terms of their underlying objectives, data requirements, computational characteristics, advantages, limitations, and applicability to HIL environments. The literature indicates that risk-based approaches provide safety traceability, coverage-based methods help prevent systematic gaps in the scenario space, history/data-driven techniques enable adaptive regression testing, and optimization-based methods provide mechanisms for balancing multiple validation objectives under resource constraints. However, an important evidence gap remains: recent scenario-selection and prioritization studies are predominantly evaluated using simulation or recorded datasets, whereas direct HIL studies primarily address test infrastructure, sensor stimulation, real-time execution, and fault injection. Consequently, the effectiveness of advanced selection strategies under physical HIL constraints remains insufficiently demonstrated. To provide a common basis for discussing these approaches, recurring elements identified in the literature are consolidated into an illustrative conceptual reference formulation combining safety relevance, coverage, historical evidence, and execution cost. This formulation is presented as a synthesis of existing concepts rather than as a novel or empirically validated optimization method. The review highlights the need for future studies that experimentally evaluate adaptive scenario-selection strategies under realistic HIL timing, sensor-fidelity, initialization, and resource constraints.

🔖

Cite This Article

Alkın, M., Süpürtülü, M. (2026). Scenario Selection and Prioritization for ADAS Hardware-in-the-Loop Validation: A Structured Critical Review. International Journal of Automotive Science and Technology, Volume: 10 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech..2015760

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Stellet JE, Zofka MR, Schumacher J, Schamm T, Niewels F, Zöllner JM. Testing of advanced driver assistance towards automated driving: a survey and taxonomy on existing approaches and open questions. In: 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC); 2015 Sep 15–18; Gran Canaria, Spain. IEEE; 2015. p. 1455–1462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2015.236
  2. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 26262-3:2018. Road vehicles—Functional safety—Part 3: Concept phase. Geneva: ISO; 2018.
  3. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 21448:2022. Road vehicles—Safety of the intended functionality. Geneva: ISO; 2022.
  4. Khan F, Falco M, Anwar H, Pfahl D. Safety testing of automated driving systems: a literature review. IEEE Access. 2023;11:120049–120072. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3327918
  5. European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). Test protocol—AEB Car-to-Car systems. Version 4.2 [Internet]. Leuven: Euro NCAP; 2023. Available from: https://cdn.euroncap.com/cars/assets/euro_ncap_aeb_c2c_test_protocol_v42_af2bd7186c.pdf
  6. Donà R, Ciuffo B. Virtual testing of automated driving systems: a survey on validation methods. IEEE Access. 2022;10:24349–24367. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3153722
  7. Diewald A, Kurz C, Kannan PV, Gießler M, Pauli M, Göttel B, et al. Radar target simulation for vehicle-in-the-loop testing. Vehicles. 2021;3(2):257–271. https://doi.org/10.3390/vehicles3020016
  8. Asghar ME, Buddappagari S, Baumgärtner F, Graf S, Kreutz F, Löffler A, et al. Radar target simulator and antenna positioner for real-time over-the-air stimulation of automotive radar systems. In: 2020 17th European Radar Conference (EuRAD); 2021. p. 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuRAD48048.2021.00035
  9. Li H, Makkapati VP, Wan L, Tomasch E, Hoschopf H, Eichberger A. Validation of automated driving function based on the Apollo platform: a milestone for simulation with vehicle-in-the-loop testbed. Vehicles. 2023;5(2):718–731. https://doi.org/10.3390/vehicles5020039
  10. Abboush M, Bamal D, Knieke C, Rausch A. Hardware-in-the-loop-based real-time fault injection framework for dynamic behavior analysis of automotive software systems. Sensors. 2022;22(4):1360. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22041360
  11. Abboush M, Knieke C, Rausch A. A virtual testing framework for real-time validation of automotive software systems based on hardware in the loop and fault injection. Sensors. 2024;24(12):3733. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24123733
  12. Amyan A, Abboush M, Knieke C, Rausch A. Automating fault test cases generation and execution for automotive safety validation via NLP and HIL simulation. Sensors. 2024;24(10):3145. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24103145
  13. Wang J, Zhu Y. A hardware-in-the-loop V2X simulation framework: CarTest. Sensors. 2022;22(13):5019. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22135019
  14. Mihalič F, Truntič M, Hren A. Hardware-in-the-loop simulations: a historical overview of engineering challenges. Electronics. 2022;11(15):2462. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11152462
  15. Menzel T, Bagschik G, Maurer M. Scenarios for development, test and validation of automated vehicles. In: 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV); 2018. p. 1821–1827. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2018.8500406
  16. Bagschik G, Menzel T, Maurer M. Ontology based scene creation for the development of automated vehicles. In: 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV); 2018. p. 1813–1820. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2018.8500632
  17. Riedmaier S, Ponn T, Ludwig D, Schick B, Diermeyer F. Survey on scenario-based safety assessment of automated vehicles. IEEE Access. 2020;8:87456–87477. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2993730
  18. Amersbach C, Winner H. Functional decomposition—a contribution to overcome the parameter space explosion during validation of highly automated driving. Traffic Inj Prev. 2019;20(sup1):S52–S57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1624732
  19. de Gelder E, Buermann M, op den Camp O. Coverage metrics for a scenario database for the scenario-based assessment of automated driving systems. In: 2024 IEEE International Automated Vehicle Validation Conference (IAVVC); 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAVVC63304.2024.10786405
  20. Min H, Zhang Z, Fan T, Zhang P, Zhang C, Qu G. Full coverage testing method for automated driving system in logical scenario parameters space. Sensors. 2025;25(18):5764. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25185764
  21. Qian C, Xu J, Xing X, Guo F. Test case sampling optimization for safety validation of automated driving systems. Nat Commun. 2026;17:3114. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69675-8
  22. Neurohr C, Westhofen L, Butz M, Bollmann M, Eberle U, Galbas R. Criticality analysis for the verification and validation of automated vehicles. IEEE Access. 2021;9:18016–18041. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3053159
  23. Westhofen L, Neurohr C, Koopmann T, Butz M, Schütt B, Utesch F, et al. Criticality metrics for automated driving: a review and suitability analysis of the state of the art. Arch Comput Methods Eng. 2023;30(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09788-7
  24. Klück F, Zimmermann M, Wotawa F, Nica M. Genetic algorithm-based test parameter optimization for ADAS system testing. In: 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS); 2019. p. 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS.2019.00058
  25. Birchler C, Khatiri S, Derakhshanfar P, Panichella S, Panichella A. Single and multi-objective test cases prioritization for self-driving cars in virtual environments. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol. 2023;32(2):Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533818
  26. Lu C, Zhang H, Yue T, Ali S. Search-based selection and prioritization of test scenarios for autonomous driving systems. In: Search-Based Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12914. Cham: Springer; 2021. p. 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88106-1_4
  27. Spieker H, Gotlieb A, Marijan D, Mossige M. Reinforcement learning for automatic test case prioritization and selection in continuous integration. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA); 2017. p. 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3092703.3092709
  28. Birchler C, Khatiri S, Bosshard B, Gambi A, Panichella S. Machine learning-based test selection for simulation-based testing of self-driving cars software. Empir Softw Eng. 2023;28:71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10286-y
  29. Pan R, Bagherzadeh M, Ghaleb TA, Briand LC. Test case selection and prioritization using machine learning: a systematic literature review. Empir Softw Eng. 2022;27(2):29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10066-6
  30. Marijan D. Comparative study of machine learning test case prioritization for continuous integration testing. Softw Qual J. 2023;31(4):1415–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-023-09646-0
  31. Schuldt F, Reschka A, Maurer M. A method for an efficient, systematic test case generation for advanced driver assistance systems in virtual environments. In: Automotive Systems Engineering II. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 147–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61607-0_7
  32. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 19206-1:2018. Road vehicles—Test devices for target vehicles, vulnerable road users and other objects, for assessment of active safety functions—Part 1: Requirements for passenger vehicle rear-end targets. Geneva: ISO; 2018.
  33. Association for Standardization of Automation and Measuring Systems (ASAM). ASAM OpenSCENARIO, version 2.0.0 [Internet]. Munich: ASAM; 2022. Available from: https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/openscenario/v200/
  34. Kellerer H, Pferschy U, Pisinger D. Knapsack problems. Berlin: Springer; 2004.
  35. Neukart F, Compostella G, Seidel C, von Dollen D, Yarkoni S, Parney B. Traffic flow optimization using a quantum annealer. Front ICT. 2017;4:29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2017.00029
  36. Rózsás Z, Lakatos I, Péter T. Building a training dataset for machine learning, radar-based pedestrian detection. Int J Automot Sci Technol. 2025;9(1st Future of Vehicles Conf.):72–76. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1756258
  37. Dikmen İC. A review on fundamentals, applications, challenges and current status of spiking automotive electronics. Int J Automot Sci Technol. 2026;10(2):281–305. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1845650
  38. Rózsás Z, Lakatos I, Péter T. Building a training dataset for machine learning, radar-based pedestrian detection. Int J Automot Sci Technol. 2025;9(1st Future of Vehicles Conf.):72–76. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1756258
  39. Dikmen İC. A review on fundamentals, applications, challenges and current status of spiking automotive electronics. Int J Automot Sci Technol. 2026;10(2):281–305. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1845650