We study estimator selection and hyper-parameter tuning in off-policy evaluation. Although cross-validation is the most popular method for model selection in supervised learning, off-policy evaluation relies mostly on theory, which provides only limited guidance to practitioners. We show how to use cross-validation for off-policy evaluation. This challenges a popular belief that cross-validation in off-policy evaluation is not feasible. We evaluate our method empirically and show that it addresses a variety of use cases.

Off-policy learning is a framework for optimizing policies without deploying them, using data collected by another policy. In recommender systems, this is especially challenging due to the imbalance in logged data: some items are recommended and thus logged more frequently than others. This is further perpetuated when recommending a list of items, as the action space is combinatorial. To address this challenge, we study pessimistic off-policy optimization for learning to rank. The key idea is to compute lower confidence bounds on parameters of click models and then return the list with the highest pessimistic estimate of its value. This approach is computationally efficient, and we analyze it. We study its Bayesian and frequentist variants and overcome the limitation of unknown prior by incorporating empirical Bayes. To show the empirical effectiveness of our approach, we compare it to off-policy optimizers that use inverse propensity scores or neglect uncertainty. Our approach outperforms all baselines and is both robust and general.