Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 28, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Machine-learning rainfall forecasts are often evaluated by shuffling station records into random training and test sets. For rainfall, this lets a model see what happened at neighbouring stations on the very day it is asked to forecast, and it hides the fact that a seasonal lookup table already explains most of the variance. We quantify both effects on 618,650 station-days from 35 Bangladesh Meteorological Department stations (1948-2014). We compare random, temporal (train <=1999, test 2005-2014) and spatio-temporal (unseen stations and unseen years) evaluation, calendar-only versus antecedent-rainfall features, and six learners against climatology, persistence and SARIMA. Three findings stand out. First, a station-month climatology alone classifies high-rainfall months with 88.4% accuracy (AUC 0.950), and no learner improved on it by more than 0.8 points under temporal evaluation. Second, a calendar-only random forest reached a next-day wet-day AUC of 0.889 under a random split, higher than any model with real predictors under temporal evaluation, yet fell to 0.835, below climatology (0.859), on future years. Third, models with lagged rainfall add genuine but modest skill for next-day forecasts: a Brier skill score of 0.074 (95% CI 0.064-0.088) over climatology, rising to 0.091 when station and year inputs are removed and to 0.131 when other stations' same-day observations are added. A GRU sequence model matches but does not exceed gradient boosting, and skill disappears beyond a two-day lead. For monthly totals, no learner beat climatology significantly. We release a leakage-aware protocol and code so that future station-based studies report skill against climatology on held-out years.