The Dangers of Post-hoc Interpretability: Unjustified Counterfactual
  Explanations
  Post-hoc interpretability approaches have been proven to be powerful tools to
generate explanations for the predictions made by a trained black-box model.
However, they create the risk of having explanations that are a result of some
artifacts learned by the model instead of actual knowledge from the data. This
paper focuses on the case of counterfactual explanations and asks whether the
generated instances can be justified, i.e. continuously connected to some
ground-truth data. We evaluate the risk of generating unjustified
counterfactual examples by investigating the local neighborhoods of instances
whose predictions are to be explained and show that this risk is quite high for
several datasets. Furthermore, we show that most state of the art approaches do
not differentiate justified from unjustified counterfactual examples, leading
to less useful explanations.
