A Universal Raw-IQ Radar Encoder for Cross-Sensor Human Sensing
Authors: Jonas Leo Mueller, Dario Zanca, Sebastian Hoefler, Jan Petermann, Thomas Altstidl, Naga Venkata Sai Jitin Jami, Emmanuelle Salin, Bjoern M. Eskofier
Organizations: Institute for AI in Medicine, LMU Hospital, Munich, Germany · Department Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany · Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML), Munich, Germany · Chair of AI-supported Therapy Decisions, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany · Institute of AI for Health, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany
Radar-based human sensing typically relies on end-to-end task-specific models trained on hand-chosen signal projections, which generalize poorly across unseen users, tasks, and hardware. We argue that the dominant signal processing choice, the micro-Doppler spectrogram, is a poor starting point for transfer because it keeps the Doppler axis, which carrier frequency rescales, and discards the angular axis, which carrier frequency leaves unchanged. We instead pretrain a convolutional beta-VAE without labels on clutter-removed raw radar measurements from four platforms spanning 60 and 77 GHz and 4 to 12 virtual antennas, aligned by a unified spectral interpolation grid. For every downstream benchmark the encoder stays frozen, and only a small supervised temporal classifier is trained on its embeddings. We compare against supervised models trained end to end on each benchmark and a pretrained radar foundation model across ten settings covering activity, gesture, sign-language, and gait recognition. When the test users and the radar are seen during training, our encoder is best on all five benchmarks. For users never seen in training, it leads on three of four benchmarks, by 4.8 to 23.2 points. On subject-disjoint gait recognition, it is best for each of the four held-out subjects and 8.3 points above the strongest baseline on average, even though its pretraining excluded every recording of this radar. Excluding the test radar from pretraining costs at most 5.3 points on any benchmark. Code is available at https://github.com/jonasmueler/UniversalRadarEncoder_WACV.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: One frozen encoder across four radar platforms. A β -VAE is pretrained without labels on raw IQ from four sensors spanning 60 and 77 GHz and 4 to 12 virtual antennas, aligned on a common index grid by spectral interpolation. The encoder is then frozen and reused unchanged, with only a small temporal head trained per benchmark, including under simultaneous shifts in subject, sensor, and task.
Dataset
Platform
Carrier
Nv
Benchmark
Split and evaluation role
mmRadPose
IWR6843AOPEVM
60 GHz
12
12 rehabilitation exercises
participant-disjoint, unseen-subject test
CubeLearn
IWR6843ISK
60 GHz
12
HAR, HGR, AGR
in-set comparison, out-of-set unseen-user test
CI4R-ASL
AWR1642BOOST
77 GHz
8
18 daily-activity and ASL classes
subject-mixed, published-protocol comparison
CI4R-Gait
IWR1443BOOST
77 GHz
4
11 activities and gaits
subject-mixed comparison, leave-one-subject-out test
Table 1: Sensors and downstream benchmarks. HAR, HGR, AGR, and ASL denote human activity recognition, hand gesture recognition, arm gesture recognition, and American Sign Language, respectively. Nv is the number of virtual antenna channels embedded in the common 4×4 grid.
Figure 2: Preprocessing on real recordings from all four sensors. Each block is one frame on the canonical D×A×E×R grid, with six chirp slices, the 4×4 antenna plane as cells, and range across each cell. Real and imaginary parts are shown separately. Outlined cells are zero-filled. The sensors populate 12, 12, 8, and 4 of the 16 antenna cells, respectively, and mmRadPose fills 64 of 256 range samples. The transform chain aligns range and Doppler while retaining each sensor’s fixed antenna pattern.
Cube:HAR
Cube:HGR
Cube:AGR
Model
in-set
out
in-set
out
in-set
out
(a) Accuracy
RDAT (DFT) [ 36 ]
0.992±0.003
0.721±0.080
0.973±0.001
0.491±0.030
0.986±0.011
0.784±0.013
RDAT (CubeLearn) [ 36 ]
0.992±0.006
0.765±0.103
0.969±0.005
0.491±0.043
0.991±0.008
0.847±0.016
RadMamba [ 34 ]
0.930±0.050
0.865±0.097
0.744±0.042
0.629±0.053
0.929±0.009
0.810±0.011
GRT [ 6 ]
0.994±0.006
0.468±0.028
0.969±0.005
0.696±0.009
0.990±0.003
0.964±0.016
Table 2: CubeLearn under the official protocol of [ 36 ] , where in-set = seen users 0–5 and out = unseen users 6–7. Mean ±std over 3 seeds. Bold = best per column and panel.
Model
Accuracy
Macro-F1
RDAT (DFT) [ 36 ]
0.088±0.005
0.013±0.001
RDAT (CubeLearn) [ 36 ]
0.091±0.005
0.014±0.001
RadMamba [ 34 ]
0.484±0.039
0.473±0.045
GRT [ 6 ]
0.648±0.088
0.629±0.101
Spectrogram CNN
0.525±0.005
0.515±0.009
Ours
Table 3: mmRadPose, 12-class participant-disjoint HAR, chance =0.083 . Mean ±std over 3 seeds. Bold = best per column.
CI4R-ASL
CI4R-Gait
Model
Acc.
Macro-F1
Acc.
Macro-F1
GRT [ 6 ]
0.938±0.010
0.899±0.015
0.915±0.023
0.927±0.020
RDAT (DFT) [ 36 ]
0.737±0.036
0.535±0.064
0.675±0.051
0.696±0.060
RDAT (CubeLearn) [ 36 ]
0.679±0.019
0.444±0.031
0.633±0.025
0.632±0.041
RadMamba [ 34 ]
0.934±0.006
0.890±0.010
0.810±0.023
0.815±0.032
Spectrogram CNN
0.951±0.003
0.918±0.004
0.723±0.008
0.716±0.007
Table 4: The two 77 GHz CI4R benchmarks under their releases’ subject-mixed protocols, namely CI4R-ASL [ 9 ] (18 activity and sign classes, chance =0.056 ) and CI4R-Gait [ 3 ] (11 activities and gaits, chance =0.091 ). Mean ±std over 3 seeds. Every row is scored on one identical partition per release, so all rows are directly comparable. Bold = best per column.
Per-fold accuracy
Mean over folds
Model
S1
S2
S3
S4
Accuracy
Macro-F1
116
91
221
214
642
GRT [ 6 ]
0.491±0.026
0.484±0.094
0.549±0.019
0.606±0.010
0.532±0.027
0.488±0.020
RDAT (DFT) [ 36 ]
0.474±0.106
0.509±0.022
0.439±0.012
0.540±0.026
0.490±0.030
0.447±0.026
RDAT (CubeLearn) [ 36 ]
0.368±0.057
0.381±0.017
0.395±0.017
0.422±0.085
0.392±0.012
0.358±0.024
RadMamba [ 34 ]
0.575±0.088
0.593±0.038
0.603±0.025
0.670±0.035
0.610±0.028
0.587±0.026
Table 5: Leave-one-subject-out CI4R-Gait, where each fold holds one subject code out of training, validation, and model selection. Per-fold cells are accuracy with held-out recordings beneath, and the last two columns average over folds. All cells are mean ±std over 3 seeds. Bold = best per column.
Model
Params (M)
GFLOPs
Val./Par.
RDAT
25.252
28.39
0.36
RadMamba
0.048
0.0035
1.04
Spectrogram CNN
0.393
0.25
0.09
GRT
25.886
5,967
1.40
Raw-IQ VAE
41.832
29,534
1.73
Table 6: Parameters (encoder and head, or the end-to-end model), forward GFLOPs (model forward only) per recording on CI4R-ASL, the largest benchmark, with recordings of intermediate length (69 frames on average), and input values per parameter (Val./Par.).
Cameras and LiDAR degrade in rain, fog, and snow, while millimeter-wave radar remains largely unaffected. We align a radar encoder to frozen SigLIP vision embeddings and decode structured scene captions through a frozen vision-language model (VLM) with approximately 7M trainable parameters. On K-RADAR with held-out fog, light snow, and heavy snow sequences, all radar configurations outperform a camera baseline that collapses to over 90% hallucination. We identify a token-norm mismatch as the dominant failure mode when bridging radar to a frozen VLM and show that projector-output LayerNorm resolves it. Analysis of encoder complexity, caption format, and pooling strategy reveals tradeoffs that inform future radar-VLM pipeline design.
Kali Hamilton, Christoffer Heckman
Autonomous Robotics and Perception Group at the University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.
Millimeter-wave (mmWave) radar enables privacy-preserving and illumination-robust human motion reconstruction, but training generalizable models typically requires costly paired radar-motion recordings. Simulation can scale such supervision, yet even physics-based simulators cannot fully reproduce real-world multipath, clutter, hardware-specific response statistics, or distance-dependent resolution degradation, leaving a sim-to-real gap. We present mmSimPrior, a simulation-pretrained framework that factorizes transferable knowledge into signal, motion, and radar-to-motion mapping priors. To learn transferable signal and motion priors, we pretrain a multimodal radar encoder with a physics-informed domain-randomization curriculum designed to mitigate the sim-to-real gap by approximating real-world propagation- and acquisition-level variations, while a joint-temporal tokenizer learns a discrete prior over plausible human motion. A dual-mode mapping module predicts either motion-code distributions for structurally constrained zero-shot reconstruction or continuous motion parameters for flexible adaptation from limited real data. We further construct a 4.2M-frame, 31K-sequence dataset suite and introduce a No-Overlap Setting that prevents any exact subject-environment-location-motion tuple from appearing in both the adaptation and test sets. Experiments on mmSimPrior-Real and RT-Pose demonstrate consistent gains: with only 24 paired real sequences, mmSimPrior-Reg reduces MPJPE by 24.7-39.0% over the strongest baseline across the three environments, while mmSimPrior-Cls reduces zero-shot MPJPE by 8.5% without fine-tuning.
Cheng Guo, Qiming Cao, Shengkai Xu +4
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA · Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Millimetre-wave (mmWave) radar offers a more privacy-preserving alternative to RGB-based human pose estimation. However, existing methods typically rely on pre-extracted intermediate representations such as sparse point clouds or spectrogram images, where the rich spatiotemporal information naturally present in radar video streams is discarded for model learning, while such signal processing adds system complexity. In addition, existing solutions are mainly conducted in an end-to-end supervised manner without leveraging unlabelled raw video streams to learn generalized representations. In this study, we present MAEPose, a masked autoencoding-based human pose estimation approach that operates directly on mmWave spectrogram videos. MAEPose learns spatiotemporal motion-aware generalized representations from unlabelled radar video, and leverages its heatmap decoder for multi-frame pose estimation predictions. We evaluate it across three datasets based on leave-one-person-out cross-validation with rigorous statistical testing. MAEPose consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by up to 22.1% in MPJPE p<0.05, and maintains robust accuracy under zero-shot bystander interference with only a 6.5% error increase. Ablation studies confirm that both the pre-training and the heatmap decoder contribute substantially, while modality analysis indicates that leveraging Range-Doppler video as input achieves better pose estimation performance than Range-Azimuth or their fusion, with lower computational cost.