arXiv preprint ·
RainCheck: Harnessing Historical Weather Data with Machine Learning for Rainfall Forecasting in Bangladesh
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
In brief
Rainfall Forecasting, Put to a Fair Test
The study tests six learners against climatology, persistence, and SARIMA using 618,650 station-days from 35 Bangladesh Meteorological Department stations covering 1948–2014. It compares random, future-year, and unseen-station-and-year evaluations, and releases a leakage-aware protocol and code for more credible station-based rainfall studies.
What they found: On held-out future years, calendar-only models did not improve on the station-month climatology by more than 0.8 percentage points for high-rainfall-month classification. A calendar-only random forest’s next-day wet-day AUC fell from 0.889 on a random split to 0.835 on future years, below climatology at 0.859.
AI-written summary. Check anything you rely on against the original paper.
Abstract
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.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Jailbreak Connectivity: Towards Diverse, Transferable, and Universal Multimodal Large Language Model Jailbreak
PhysicsNeMo-Mesh: GPU-Native Meshes and Simulation Cases for Physics AI
Nemotron 3.5 Super and Lightning: Open, Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Models for Agentic AI
Tactus: Tactile & Pose Sensing Glove for Natural Dexterity Data Collection
Evaluating Causal Reasoning in LLMs: A Case Study in the Challenges of Procedural Generation
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.