Self-Driving Cars Learn to Take Turns at Intersections by Sharing Intent, Not Just Perception

When2Go moves cooperative driving from 'I see this' to 'I plan this,' using route-time conflict maps to eliminate deadlocks and collisions at intersections across three CARLA benchmarks.

Imagine two people approaching a narrow doorway from opposite sides. Today's cooperative self-driving systems are like two polite strangers who can see each other but never speak — both freeze, or both lunge, because neither knows the other's plan. When2Go is the equivalent of one person calling out 'after you' and both understanding the rule. That vocal signal — shared intent, not just shared perception — is the core mechanism. The committed claim: When2Go is the first cooperative end-to-end driving system that learns when to go by broadcasting planned trajectories (SAE CDA Class B) rather than just sensor data (Class A), and it resolves conflicts via a shared precedence rule so both vehicles independently reach the same decision about who yields. This is not a perception fusion paper. It is a coordination paper. The architecture works in three stages. Each vehicle broadcasts LiDAR detections with forecasted motion as instance tokens, plus its own planned trajectory. The receiving vehicle fuses everything into a route-time conflict map — essentially a 2D occupancy grid where one axis is distance along the vehicle's own route and the other is time over the planning horizon. A planner scores candidate speed profiles against this map. When two intended trajectories conflict in the same space-time cell, an order gate — a small precedence network distilled from right-of-way rules — decides who goes first. Critically, both vehicles evaluate the same gate on the same messages, so they converge on the same ordering without negotiation rounds. The training pipeline is shrewd about a subtle problem. When2Go imitates a rule-based expert from V2Xverse that has access to simulator ground truth — perfect information the real system will never have. Stops that fall outside the 2-second planning horizon are relabelled so the network doesn't learn to wait for ghosts it cannot observe. This kind of careful supervision design matters more than most architectural novelty. Results are strong across three closed-loop CARLA benchmarks. On InterDrive without traffic: 97.8 driving score vs. 90.1 best published. With traffic: 90.7 vs. 78.9. On the V2Xverse protocol: 70.0 vs. 59.1 (best of sixteen rerun methods). On MDrive: 88.2 vs. 85.1. The collision-free rate climbs from 87.7% to 95.0%. These are not marginal improvements — the InterDrive-with-traffic jump of +11.8 points is substantial. One model handles all three benchmarks. The integrity picture has a clear shape: all benchmarks are community-standard CARLA scenarios, and the authors reran sixteen competing methods on V2Xverse for an apples-to-apples comparison rather than citing stale numbers. But everything lives inside simulation. No real-vehicle experiment, no hardware-in-the-loop, no domain-gap test. The PID controller modification (steering by When2Go's waypoints, disabling forced push) is disclosed but raises the question of how much the eval protocol itself contributes to the gains. The obvious missing experiment is a real-world or hardware-in-the-loop test with actual V2X communication latency and packet loss. The authors almost certainly didn't run it because the infrastructure doesn't exist at the fidelity needed — V2X-equipped fleets with ground-truth instrumentation are vanishingly rare. The next milestone worth tracking: can route-time conflict maps survive 100ms+ communication latency and 5-10% packet loss without deadlock regression? That's the bridge between simulation SOTA and deployable cooperative driving.