Home » Design » – Making Algorithms Trustworthy

Want yet more email?

Enter your email address to get notifications of new posts.

Request contact
If you need to get in touch
Enter your email and click the button

– Making Algorithms Trustworthy

Algorithms can determine whether you get a loan, predict what diseases you might get and even assess how long you might live.  It’s kind of important we can trust them!

David Spiegelhalter is the Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk in the Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. As part of the Cambridge Science Festival he was talking (21st of March 2019) on the subject of making algorithms trustworthy.

I’ve heard David speak on many occasions and he is always informative and entertaining. This was no exception.



Algorithms now regularly advise on book and film recommendations. They work out the routes on your satnav. They control how much you pay for a plane ticket and, annoyingly, they show you advertisements that seem to know far too much about you.

But more importantly they can affect life and death situations. The results of an algorithmic assessment of what disease you might have could be highly influential, affecting your treatment, your well-being and on your future behaviour.

David is a fan of Onora O’Neill who suggests that organisations should not be aiming to increase trust but should aim to demonstrate trustworthiness. False claims about the accuracy of algorithms are as bad as defects in the algorithms themselves.


The pharmaceutical industry has long used a phased approach assessing the effectiveness, safety and side-effects of drugs. This includes the use of randomly controlled trials, and long-term surveillance after a drug comes onto the market, to spot rare side-effects.

The same sorts of procedures should be applied to algorithms. However, currently only the first phase of testing on new data is common. Sometimes algorithms are tested against the decisions that human experts make. Rarely will randomly controlled trials be conducted, or the algorithm in use be subject to long-term monitoring.


As an aside, David entertained us by reporting on how the machine learning community have become obsessed with training algorithms to assess the characteristics of who did or did not survive the Titanic.   Unsurprisingly, being a woman or a child helped a lot. David used this example to present a statistically derived decision tree.  The point he was making was that the decision tree could (at least sometimes) be used as an explanation, whereas machine learning algorithms are generally black boxes (i.e. you can't inspect the algorithm itself).  

Algorithms should be transparent. They should be able to explain their decisions as well as to provide them. But transparency is not enough. O’Neill uses the term 'intelligent openness’ to describe what is required. Explanations need to be accessible, intelligible, usable, and assessable. 

Algorithms need to be both globally and locally explainable. Global explainability relates to the validity of the algorithm in general, while local explainability relates to how the algorithm arrived at a particular decision. One important way of being able to test an algorithm, even when it’s a black box, is to be able to play with inputting different parameters and seeing the result.

Deep Mind (owned by Google) is looking at how explanations can be generated from intermediate stages of the operation of machine learning algorithms.

Explanation can be provided at many levels. At the top level this might be a simple verbal summary. At the next level it might be having access to a range of graphical and numerical representations with the ability to run 'what if' queries. At a deeper level, text and tables might show the procedures that the algorithm used.  Deeper still, would be the mathematics underlying the algorithm. Lastly, the code that runs the algorithm should be inspectable.  I would say that a good explanation is dependent on understanding what the user wants to know - in other words, it is not just a function of the decision making process but also a function of the user’s actual and desired state of knowledge.


Without these types of explanation, algorithms such as the one used by the US company Compas to predict rates of  recidivism, are difficult to trust. 

It is easy to feel that an algorithm is unfair or can’t be trusted. If it cannot provide sufficiently  good explanations, and claims about it are not scientifically substantiated, then it is right to be sceptical about its decisions. 

Most of David’s points apply more broadly than to artificial intelligence and robots.  They are general principles applying to the transparency, accountabilityand user acceptance of any system.  Trust and trustworthiness are everything.

See more of David’s work on his personal webpage at http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/Dept/People/Spiegelhalter/davids.html ,      . And read his new book “The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data”, available shortly.

David Spiegelhalter


Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

How do we embed ethical self-regulation into artificial Autonomous, Intelligent Systems (A/ISs)? One answer is to design architectures for A/ISs that are based on ‘the Human Operating System’ (HOS).

Theory of Knowledge

A simple computer program will know very little about the world, and will have little or no capacity to reflect upon what it knows or the boundaries of its applicability.

Any sophisticated A/IS, if it is to apply ethical principles appropriately, will need to be based on a far more elaborate theory of knowledge (epistemology).

The epistemological view taken in this blog is eclectic, constructivist and pragmatic. As we interact with the world, we each individually experience patterns, receive feedback, make distinctions, learn to reflect, and make and test hypotheses. The distinctions we make become the default constructs through which we interpret the world and the labels we use to analyse, describe, reason about and communicate. Our beliefs are propositions expressed in terms of these learned distinctions and are validated via a variety of mechanisms, that themselves develop over time and can change in response to circumstances.

We are confronted with a constant stream of contradictions between ‘evidence’ obtained from different sources – from our senses, from other people, our feelings, our reasoning and so on. These surprise us as they conflict with default interpretations. When the contradictions matter, (e.g. when they are glaringly obvious, interfere with our intent, or create dilemmas with respect to some decision), we are motivated to achieve consistency. This we call ‘making sense of the world’, ‘seeking meaning’ or ‘agreeing’ (in the case of establishing consistency with others). We use many different mechanisms for dealing with inconsistencies – including testing hypotheses, reasoning, intuition and emotion, ignoring and denying.

In our own reflections and in interactions with others, we are constantly constructing mini-belief systems (i.e. stories that help orientate, predict and explain to ourselves and others). These mini-belief systems are shaped and modulated by our values (i.e. beliefs about what is good and bad) and are generally constructed as mechanisms for achieving our current intentions and future intentions. These in turn affect how we act on the world.

%d bloggers like this: