Accurate prediction is not profitable advice: profit-based evaluation of machine learning nitrogen recommendations in winter wheat
TL;DR
This work builds a test bench on 892 yield response curves from two long running UK experiments, and sweeps the nitrogen to grain price ratio to cover all price scenarios, finding that machine learning fails as a predictor and pays as a profit scored correction to standard advice.
Abstract
Nitrogen rates for winter wheat are set before the season, under unknown prices and weather. The standard UK advice does not respond to prices, yet recent price swings moved the most profitable rate by tens of kilograms per hectare. Machine learning is often proposed as the fix. However, it is usually judged on prediction accuracy, and accurate prediction does not by itself make the recommended rate more profitable. Our insight is to score nitrogen advice directly by the profit it forgoes on measured yield response curves. We build a test bench on 892 such curves from two long running UK experiments, and sweep the nitrogen to grain price ratio to cover all price scenarios. On this bench, machine learning fails as a predictor. No model recovers the best rate within farm tolerance, and the benchmark noise shows none can. At normal prices, every model also loses to the standard advice on profit. The gain sits elsewhere. A simple correction step applied after the model cuts profit losses by a quarter, while better models and extra features give no gain. The same frozen correction cuts losses by 43% at the second site without any retraining. A hybrid of standard advice plus a damped correction removes bias and trims rare large losses. The same price sweep also prices emission cuts, at a cost comparable to current carbon prices. Machine learning therefore pays as a profit scored correction to standard advice, not as its replacement.
