The Portability Trap in Machine Learning

Understanding The Portability Trap

As organisations increasingly adopt AI, many are turning to pre-built tools and algorithmic solutions to accelerate implementation. While these tools offer convenience and efficiency, they may unintentionally lead to what’s known as the Portability Trap.

Portability Trap occurs when algorithms designed for one specific social context—such as predicting recidivism risk, loan default likelihood, or employee performance—are applied in entirely different contexts without considering the unique social, cultural, and ethical nuances of the new environment. This lack of contextual adaptation can raise fairness issues and undermine trust. By addressing this challenge early, organizations can ensure their AI solutions are both effective and equitable, avoiding unintended consequences while building systems that truly align with their goals.

Example for The Portability Trap in Machine Learning

Here’s an example to illustrate the Portability Trap in ML:

“A chatbot designed to generate snarky replies might be entertaining on a gaming platform, but it could come across as offensive or inappropriate on a formal website, such as one for loan applications.” – Weerts (2021)

This highlights the importance of adapting AI systems to their specific use cases and social contexts. Two additional points are worth noting:

1. The issue isn’t limited to shifts in broad domains (e.g., from automated hiring to risk assessments). Even within the same domain, such as between different court jurisdictions, local fairness concerns can vary significantly, making direct transfers problematic.
2. Although frameworks like domain adaptation and transfer learning offer limited portability between contexts, they often treat context as merely changes in the joint distribution of features and labels. This approach falls short of capturing the deeper, more complex shifts in social and cultural dynamics that occur across different environments.

Understanding and addressing these nuances is crucial to avoid the pitfalls of the Portability Trap.

Guide to Addressing The Portability Trap in Machine Learning

To avoid the portability trap, ensure that the problem formulation captures both the social and technical requirements specific to the intended deployment context. This involves understanding and modelling how the system interacts with its real-world environment, stakeholders, and use case scenarios, rather than assuming universal applicability across different contexts.

Tackling bias and trap requires a systematic, proactive approach. You can get started with these resources:  

Free Resources  for The Portability Trap

Best practices for The Portability Trap (click Free Downloads)

 

 

AI Bias Mitigation Package – £999

The ultimate resource for organisations ready to tackle bias at scale starting from problem definition through to model monitoring to drive responsible AI practices.

Mitigate and resolve 15 Types of Bias specific to your project with detailed guidance from problem definition to model monitoring.

Packed with practical methods, research-based strategies, and critical questions to guide your team.

Comprehensive checklists with +75 design cards for every phase in the AI/ ML pipeline

Get Bias Mitigation Package– (Delivery within 2-3 days)

 

Customised AI Bias Mitigation Package – £2499

We’ll customise the design cards and checklists to meet your specific use case and compliance requirements—ensuring the toolkit aligns perfectly with your goals and industry standards.

Mitigate and resolve 15 Types of Bias specific to your project with detailed guidance from problem definition to model monitoring.

Packed with practical methods, research-based strategies, and critical questions specific to your use case.

Customised checklists and +75 design cards for every phase in the AI/ ML pipeline

Get Customised AI Bias Mitigation Package– (Delivery within 7 days)

Sources

Alshenqeeti, H., 2014. Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English linguistics research, 3(1), pp.39-45.

Aronson, R.E., Wallis, A.B., O’Campo, P.J., Whitehead, T.L. and Schafer, P., 2007. Ethnographically informed community evaluation: A framework and approach for evaluating community-based initiatives. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 11, pp.97-109.

Andrus, M., Dean, S., Gilbert, T.K., Lambert, N. and Zick, T., 2020, November. AI development for the public interest: From abstraction traps to sociotechnical risks. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) (pp. 72-79). IEEE.

Busetto, L., Wick, W. and Gumbinger, C., 2020. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and practice, 2(1), p.14.

Chen, Z., Zhang, J.M., Hort, M., Harman, M. and Sarro, F., 2024. Fairness testing: A comprehensive survey and analysis of trends. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 33(5), pp.1-59.

Daniel, K., 2017. Thinking, fast and slow.

Dhukaram, A.V. and Baber, C., 2015. Modelling elderly cardiac patients decision making using Cognitive Work Analysis: identifying requirements for patient decision aids. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(6), pp.430-443.

Dhole, K., 2023, December. Large language models as SocioTechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Big Picture Workshop (pp. 66-79).

Ferrara, E., 2023. Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1), p.3.

Klein, G., 2008. Naturalistic decision making. Human factors, 50(3), pp.456-460.

Kherbouche O. M, Ahmad A. , Bouneffa M.  and Basson H, “Analyzing the ripple effects of change in business process models,” INMIC, Lahore, Pakistan, 2013, pp. 31-36, doi: 10.1109/INMIC.2013.6731320.

Kuang, K., Li, L., Geng, Z., Xu, L., Zhang, K., Liao, B., Huang, H., Ding, P., Miao, W. and Jiang, Z., 2020. Causal inference. Engineering, 6(3), pp.253-263.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Dickinson, W.B., Leech, N.L. and Zoran, A.G., 2009. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International journal of qualitative methods, 8(3), pp.1-21.

Neuhauser, L. and Kreps, G.L., 2011, March. Participatory design and artificial intelligence: Strategies to improve health communication for diverse audiences. In 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.

Selbst, A.D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S.A., Venkatasubramanian, S. and Vertesi, J., 2019, January. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 59-68).

Weerts, H.J., 2021. An introduction to algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05595.

Wilson, V., 2012. Research methods: interviews.