Paper:
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 learningto-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.

Review:
This paper addresses the problem of off-policy evaluation in combinatorial contextual bandits.  A common scenario in many real world contextual bandit problems is when there is a significant amount of logged data (for example logged search queries, results and clicks) but training or evaluating a model online in real time through e.g. an A/B test is expensive or infeasible.  Ideally one would evaluate/train the model off-policy (i.e. on the logged data), but this incurs a significant bias since the data was not generated by the policy being evaluated.  The authors show in their experiments that this bias significantly impacts the quality of models that are directly trained on the logs.  They devise a method called the 'pseudo-inverse estimator' to remove the bias and provide theoretical results showing that the method is unbiased under some strong assumptions (although in experiments it appears that these assumptions can be violated).  They demonstrate empirically in carefully crafted synthetic and real-world experiments that the method outperforms baseline approaches.
This paper is very well written and, although dense, is quite clear.  The careful explanation of notation is appreciated.  
In the figures in the appendices, it looks as though the direct method (DM-tree) outperforms or matches the proposed strategy on a variety of the synthetic problems (particularly on ERR vs NDCG).  The authors justify this by noting that ERR violates the assumption of linearity which seems like a reasonable justification (and it's appreciated that both metrics are included).  However, then in Section 4.3 the experiment shows PI doing slightly worse on NDCG and better on ERR.  This seems inconsistent with the linearity hypothesis.  The authors note that the baseline could be stronger for ERR, which suggests that perhaps the proposed method wouldn't outperform SUP on either baseline?
It seems curious that although wIPS is provably unbiased under weaker assumptions than IP, it performs so much more poorly in experiments.  Is this because the variance of the estimator is so high due to the cardinality of S(x)?
Overall, this is a very neat paper proposing a tidy solution with compelling theoretical and empirical results and well thought out experiments.  The empirical results, however, don't suggest to me that this method is absolutely better than the fairly naive (admittedly unsatisfying) approach of directly regressing the logs with e.g. a regression tree.  
There's a typo on line 116: "in on".
The assumption on rewards on 113 seems like it could be a strong one.  This line is saying essentially that all the rewards given actions in the slate are independent of all the other actions.  In practice, this must almost certainly be violated in most cases (e.g. people's clicks will vary based on context).  Although I suppose in some cases, e.g. in search where the user is looking for a specific single result, this may be fine.
The notation in the paragraph starting on line 117 is a little confusing to me.  The text refers to vectors, but they're indexed into with pairs (given the notation in the rest of the paper, I assume that they are vectors and the pairs map to a vector index?).