▸ PRODUCT INFORMATION

Sea Lock: A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Framework for Adversarial Naval Blockade Simulation and Predictive Command and Control

An adversarial decision environment: adaptive opponents from self-play, a world model grown from synthetic interaction, and an evaluation that reports which checkpoint a plan was tested against.

▸ ABSTRACT

Simulation-based operational analysis is only as good as the opposition it is tested against, and in most defence studies the adversary is scripted, so a course of action is tested against an assumption rather than an adversary. Faster sensing and faster execution sit upstream of that question; they do not answer it.

We present Sea Lock, a partially observable stochastic game of naval blockade over heterogeneous surface vessels in which manoeuvre, detection under electronic warfare and salvo combat are coupled inside one model, so two-sided interaction and uncertainty are built in rather than added afterwards.

Shared-policy PPO with finite-pool alternating self-play produces adaptive adversaries: across three independent seeds every run passes through an empirical balance window even though aggregate winners differ sharply, and a 7×7 frozen-checkpoint cross-play matrix shows strength is non-monotone in training iteration. A recurrent state-space model trained only on synthetic self-play experience predicts held-out engagement evolution with 4–15× lower open-loop error than persistence, within the recorded policy envelope. A typed event stream, an operator dashboard and a bounded language-shaped reward term are integration demonstrators, not primary claims.

Sea Lock is the maritime rendering of a broader adversarial- simulation engine designed for cross-domain composition. The same engine architecture extends to land logistics, air swarm operations, cyber resilience, and integrated multi-domain C2 — each rendering shares the engine while varying observation and action spaces, reward composition, and domain-specific physics. Digital Twin is one application; predictive wargaming, force structure analysis, doctrine red-teaming, and operator decision support are others.

▸ KEY RESULTS

What we measured.

3 / 3
Seeds with a balance window
Full-run Breakthrough win rates 61% / 19% / 85%, yet every seed passes through a balance window: iterations [34,60], [10,27], [82,100], deviation from parity 4.1% / 3.3% / 3.7%.
6 of 7
Wins for the iteration-34 checkpoint
7×7 frozen-checkpoint cross-play, 49 deterministic pairings. The terminal iteration-100 checkpoint wins 2 and draws 4. Strength is non-monotone in training iteration.
4–15×
Lower prediction error than persistence
Categorical RSSM open-loop MSE over 1–20 steps; 0.057 vs 0.238 at k = 20 on all dimensions. Trained only on synthetic self-play experience.
0.039
Brier score at 75% of an engagement
Outcome head on 13 decided held-out engagements: AUC 0.600 / 0.600 / 1.000 and Brier 0.193 / 0.180 / 0.039 at 25 / 50 / 75% progress. n = 13; the signal is late.
1.84 M
Simulation steps in the corpus
1,500 episodes, median 956.5 steps, hit events on 16.8% of steps; every episode contains combat.
0 / 50
Full-commitment assault
A scripted all-in rush defeats the learned Blockade deterministically, and a 60-iteration targeted adaptation run leaves it at 0/50. Reported as the paper's own negative result.
▸ DASHBOARD

Try it yourself.

The simulator dashboard renders live engagement state, LLM tactical narration, and operator-actionable Course-of-Action recommendations. Open it and explore the system yourself.

▸ INTERACTIVE

Open Sea Lock dashboard

Mapbox tactical map · 3 recorded engagement replays with real qwen2.5:7b narration · LIVE policy playback over WebSocket · operator console (move/fire/jam/withdraw with audit log) · WHAT-IF simulator-clone rollouts comparing up to 3 operator decisions side-by-side · custom-scenario builder.

REPLAYLIVEOPERATORWHAT-IFCUSTOMCOUNTERFACTUAL
Launch dashboard
▸ DECISION BRIEF

Test a course of action against opponents that adapt.

Four standing-order options for the blockade commander, each run against the reference adversary under policy sampling and against seven opponent checkpoints from different stages of the same self-play run. The brief reports mission effect, cost, risk, escalation timing and unit dependencies, then argues against its own recommendation: the review layer can only subtract confidence. Every number traces to a seed, a checkpoint and a replayable episode.

Open the decision brief
▸ INTERACTIVE DEMO

Watch the walkthrough.

Three-minute silent walkthrough of the dashboard in operator mode.

▸ METHODOLOGY

Two training regimes and one diagnostic, one engine.

01

Shared-policy PPO (base)

One network across both roles, factored into five heads; goal-gated reward plus a small shaping term. Under symmetric self-match it settles into a 10,000-step standoff. Against scripted opponents it is favourable in 3 of 4 pairings; the fourth is the full-commitment-assault vulnerability.

02

Finite-pool alternating self-play

FIFO opponent pool of capacity 20, latest-opponent probability 0.3, one role updated per iteration. Produces the balance windows across three seeds and the 7×7 cross-play matrix that shows strength is non-monotone in training iteration.

03

Language-shaped reward (exploratory diagnostic)

Qwen-2.5-7B via Ollama maps intents to a bounded reward term (cumulative team bonus ≤ 0.3). Of 100 updates: 93 fire concentration, 78 mobility, 29 reconnaissance. Reaches 0.98 / 0.94 against Random, but collapses from 50/50 to 0/50 against the rule-based Blockade. Behavioural specialisation, not a causal mechanism.

04

Recurrent State-Space World Model (counterfactual rollout)

Trained on logged interaction trajectories. Enables counterfactual rollouts of alternative manoeuvre doctrines without re-simulating the environment — the predictive C2 application primitive.

▸ INSIGHTS FROM MARL TRAINING

Three observations from training runs.

Generated from logged self-play episodes via the system's LLM advisor module. Each insight renders a complete tactical narrative, risk assessment, and Course-of-Action evaluation in commander-readable format.

INSIGHT 01

Decisive blockade closure — early training

Iteration 3, 205 steps, blockade victory. Rapid attrition of breakthrough fleet under concentrated early fire.

INSIGHT 02

Extended breakthrough success — mid training

Iteration 83, 9,063 steps, breakthrough victory. Long-horizon manoeuvre and delayed engagement sequence.

INSIGHT 03

Late-training long engagement — high-return outlier

Iteration 99, 9,586 steps, return 136.29. A late-training counter-example to aggregate win-rate dominance.

Subscribe

Weekly methodology essays and policy commentary.