The brief and submission requirements
The Challenge Cup research brief brought algorithm questions together with platform conditions and documentation requirements. I worked on proposals and implementation for UAV coordination, organizing the handoffs into materials that explain the research structure and its evaluation basis.
Algorithm exploration and included implementation
Working materials contain experiments labeled MADDPG and PPO, while the formal technical description primarily uses Q-learning. Those directions have different evidence scopes. The case preserves research exploration and limits completed capabilities to the implementation that can be traced.
Code and platform dependencies
Technical documentation describes responsibilities while code and usage instructions explain entry points. Organizer tools, platform versions, and references are external dependencies. Keeping those boundaries clear helps explain engineering scope and collaboration without assigning every nearby file to personal authorship.
Technical notes, code, and test material
The retained package contains technical documentation, usage instructions, a test report, application materials, and seven Python source files. Together they answer what was proposed, how it is used, and what testing was documented. Their existence does not independently confirm formal submission or review acceptance.
Results and evaluation conditions
The report contains result tables and images, with scoring text retained separately. Scenarios, evaluation rules, and run conditions must be linked before drawing a model-performance conclusion. The case presents these material types without treating text lines as independent experiments or assigning an unsupported improvement percentage.
My part
I participated in algorithm proposals and implementation, connecting exploratory work with code, technical descriptions, and testing materials. The case uses high-level research diagrams and preserves the distinction between attempted directions, traceable implementation, and evaluation evidence. It makes no platform-validation or review-success claim.
