让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

原文摘要

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.