Gating Before Commitment: Anticipating Intent Divergence to Prevent Post-Interaction Decision Failures in Autonomous Driving

Interactive driving exposes a failure mode that is easy to miss in rule-aware autonomous-driving stacks: a hard-rule margin can be negative for an ego candidate even though a small lawful accommodation by a non-priority agent would restore feasibility. Existing rulebooks, shields, and reachability filters are strong at vetoing unsafe actions, while prediction-based planners model likely responses. Neither returns a runtime proof object that states which bounded multi-agent edit repairs the maneuver, who owns the edit, whether the request is right-of-way affordable, and what ego fallback remains if the request is not observed. We formulate this missing object as interactive repair certification and introduce CARVE, a prediction-free certificate layer over a finite lattice of ego-owned and agent-owned tactical operators. Agent-owned requests are admissible only inside $B_j(s) = β(π_j)α_j^{\max}(s)$, a cooperation envelope that separates kinematic reachability from normative priority. The resulting certificate records the binding rule, repair category, repair set, responsibility-weighted cost split, and fallback. On 589 Lanelet2-geometry-grounded INTERACTION replay episodes, CARVE-Greedy accepts 98.64% of initially vetoed maneuvers and recovers 370/378 human-resolved false vetoes, while preserving 589/589 right-of-way respect, zero priority-agent false positives, and 400/400 negative-stress vetoes. We prove certificate soundness, structural right-of-way respect, exact finite-lattice minimality, fallback contingency, and blame-consistency conditions. CARVE does not predict or require another driver's compliance; it certifies whether a proposed interaction is bounded, attributable, and normatively admissible under declared assumptions.

Driving in dense urban traffic is interactive: whether a merge or an unprotected turn succeeds depends on how surrounding agents respond to the ego vehicle. Conventional planners predict first and plan second and, therefore, cannot account for this dependency. Methods that integrate prediction and planning either train both jointly, which introduces task interference, or keep them separate and are restricted to a predefined set of proposals. We present INTERACT: Interactive Planning for Autonomous Driving via Anchor-Conditioned Prediction and Trust-Region Refinement. Our key insight is that surrounding agents react to the intent a trajectory expresses rather than to its exact realization, so a single reactive prediction stays valid across an entire family of plans. INTERACT therefore decomposes interactive planning into prediction across driving intents and optimization within each intent. We derive a small set of diverse intents, which we call anchors, from map geometry, query a dedicated ego-conditioned prediction model once per anchor, and refine every anchor with the Cross-Entropy Method under a trust-region penalty that keeps the refined plan close enough to its anchor for the conditioned reaction to still apply. Prediction thus remains a separate model, avoiding task interference, while conditioning on anchors preserves the dependency. Because each anchor is refined continuously, the final plan is not restricted to the anchor set, yet INTERACT requires only one predictor query per anchor rather than one per candidate plan, with all anchors processed in parallel. On the nuPlan and interPlan closed-loop benchmarks, INTERACT sets a new state of the art, with the largest gains precisely in the interactive scenarios that motivate the method. The code will be released upon acceptance.

Driving models increasingly ground reasoning in causal relations, spatial structure, perceptual evidence, and predicted futures. These advances make reasoning more faithful to the driving scene, but leave a fundamental question unresolved: what should groundedness mean when the model ultimately outputs an action? Correctly grounded reasoning does not, by itself, ensure desirable driving outcomes. We introduce GroundAct, which starts from a simple premise: driving unfolds through physical entities and their interactions. Entities therefore become the unit of grounding; a lightweight reference token keeps each selected entity's continuous state addressable through symbolic reasoning; and only the referenced entities' interactions with the evolving proposal correct the plan. The result is an explicit path from what reasoning grounds to what the plan does, which we call grounded planning. To assess its practical value, we evaluate GroundAct in both open- and closed-loop settings. GroundAct shows strong open-loop planning across normal, out-of-distribution, and safety-critical scenarios, with closed-loop results extending this evidence to driving in simulation.