Off-policy evaluation for slate recommendation
  This paper studies the evaluation of policies that recommend an ordered set
of items (e.g., a ranking) based on some context---a common scenario in web
search, ads, and recommendation. We build on techniques from combinatorial
bandits to introduce a new practical estimator that uses logged data to
estimate a policy's performance. A thorough empirical evaluation on real-world
data reveals that our estimator is accurate in a variety of settings, including
as a subroutine in a learning-to-rank task, where it achieves competitive
performance. We derive conditions under which our estimator is unbiased---these
conditions are weaker than prior heuristics for slate evaluation---and
experimentally demonstrate a smaller bias than parametric approaches, even when
these conditions are violated. Finally, our theory and experiments also show
exponential savings in the amount of required data compared with general
unbiased estimators.
