Abstract:In this paper, we study the classi cation problem in which we have access to easily obtainable surrogate for true labels, namely complementary labels, which specify classes that observations do not belong to. Let Y and Ȳ be the true and complementary labels, respectively. We rst model the annotation of complementary labels via transition probabilities P (Ȳ = i|Y = j), i 6= j ∈ {1, · · · , c}, where c is the number of classes. Previous methods implicitly assume that P (Ȳ = i|Y = j), ∀i 6= j, are identical, which is not true in practice because humans are biased toward their own experience. For example, as shown in Figure 1, if an annotator is more familiar with monkeys than prairie dogs when providing complementary labels for meerkats, she is more likely to employ “monkey” as a complementary label. We therefore reason that the transition probabilities will be di erent. In this paper, we propose a framework that contributes three main innovations to learning with biased complementary labels: (1) It estimates transition probabilities with no bias. (2) It provides a general method to modify traditional loss functions and extends standard deep neural network classi ers to learn with biased complementary labels. (3) It theoretically ensures that the classi er learned with complementary labels converges to the optimal one learned with true labels. Comprehensive experiments on several benchmark datasets validate the superiority of our method to current state-of-the-art methods. ∗UBTECH Sydney AI Centre and the School of Information Technologies in the Faculty Engineering and Information Technologies at The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia, xiyu0300@uni.sydney.edu.au, tongliang.liu@sydney.edu.au, dacheng.tao@sydney.edu.au †Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh,gongmingnju@gmail.com ‡Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University 1 ar X iv :1 71 1. 09 53 5v 3 [ st at .M L ] 8 A ug 2 01 8 Not “monkey” Not “prairie dog” Not “meerkat” Complementary Label True Label Meerkat Monkey Prairie Dog Figure 1: A comparison between true labels (top) and complementary labels (bottom).

Simple and Effective Complementary Label Learning Based on Mean Square Error Loss

Uncertainty-aware Complementary Label Queries for Active Learning

Learning with Biased Complementary Labels

Learning from Complementary Labels

Multi-Complementary and Unlabeled Learning for Arbitrary Losses and Models

Multi-Complementary and Unlabeled Learning for Arbitrary Losses and Models

Extending Ordinary-Label Learning Losses to Complementary-Label Learning.

Learning with Complementary Labels Revisited: The Selected-Completely-at-Random Setting Is More Practical

Unbiased Risk Estimator to Multi-Labeled Complementary Label Learning

Biased Complementary-Label Learning Without True Labels

Discriminative Complementary-Label Learning with Weighted Loss.

Learning from Complementary Labels Via Partial-Output Consistency Regularization.

Class-Imbalanced Complementary-Label Learning via Weighted Loss

Not “ monkey ” Not “ prairie dog ” Not “ meerkat ” ComplementaryLabel True Label Meerkat MonkeyPrairie Dog

Learning with Multiple Complementary Labels

Boosting Semi-Supervised Learning with Contrastive Complementary Labeling

Learning from Noisy Labels with Complementary Loss Functions

Pseudo Labels for Imbalanced Multi-Label Learning

Generative-Discriminative Complementary Learning

Multi-Label Learning with Stronger Consistency Guarantees