# UAV Emergency Landing Site Ranking on Nanjing ELSS Benchmark 1.0 (test)

Source: [UAV Emergency Landing Site Ranking on Nanjing ELSS Benchmark 1.0 (test)](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/uav-emergency-landing-site-ranking-on-nanjing-elss-benchmark-1-0-test>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2026-02-26T06:01:20.508Z

Evaluation of ranking performance for determining optimal UAV emergency landing sites using the Nanjing ELSS Benchmark 1.0 test set, measured by metrics such as R.R. (Recall Rate) and F.R. (Failure Rate).

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

| Scope | Recorded value |
| --- | --- |
| Task | Ranking performance for UAV emergency landing site assessment |
| Dataset (including any stated split) | Nanjing ELSS Benchmark 1.0 (test) |
| Metric | Recall Rate |
| Unit | PERCENT |
| Direction | Higher is better |
| Results loaded | 3 of 3 |
| Coverage | All results currently returned for this benchmark |

Evaluation settings may differ between results. The original papers and recorded configurations are needed to establish comparability. A shared metric name alone does not establish an identical protocol.

## Metrics

- [Recall Rate](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/uav-emergency-landing-site-ranking-on-nanjing-elss-benchmark-1-0-test.md?metric=Recall%20Rate>): Higher is better; unit: PERCENT.

- [Failure Rate](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/uav-emergency-landing-site-ranking-on-nanjing-elss-benchmark-1-0-test.md?metric=Failure%20Rate>): Lower is better; unit: PERCENT.

- [Other Metric Value](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/uav-emergency-landing-site-ranking-on-nanjing-elss-benchmark-1-0-test.md?metric=Other%20Metric%20Value>): Higher is better; unit: PERCENT.

## Recorded results

| Method | Recall Rate | Result date | Report paper |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Semantic Risk Assessment Framework | 67 | Not recorded | 6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb |
| Semantic Risk Assessment Framework | 44 | Not recorded | 6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb |
| Random Baseline | 11 | Not recorded | 6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb |

### Semantic Risk Assessment Framework

Recall Rate: 67. Result ID: 699762105698665ec4b4fc10.

[Reporting paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb.md>)

[Method origin paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb.md>)

Recorded evaluation configuration: {"POI Integration":"Enabled"}. This record does not assert independent reproduction.

### Semantic Risk Assessment Framework

Recall Rate: 44. Result ID: 699762105698665ec4b4fc11.

[Reporting paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb.md>)

[Method origin paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb.md>)

Recorded evaluation configuration: {"POI Integration":"Disabled"}. This record does not assert independent reproduction.

### Random Baseline

Recall Rate: 11. Result ID: 699762105698665ec4b4fc12.

[Reporting paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/6981813ba8b01e76cc8e23bb.md>)

Recorded evaluation configuration: Not recorded. This record does not assert independent reproduction.

Page 1 of 1. This is an index page, not the full collection.
