Flow Matching enables simulation-free training of generative models on Riemannian manifolds, yet sampling typically still relies on numerically integrating a probability-flow ODE. We propose Riemannian MeanFlow (RMF), extending MeanFlow to manifold-valued generation where velocities lie in location-dependent tangent spaces. RMF defines an average-velocity field via parallel transport and derives a Riemannian MeanFlow identity that links average and instantaneous velocities for intrinsic supervision. We make this identity practical in a log-map tangent representation, avoiding trajectory simulation and heavy geometric computations. For stable optimization, we decompose the RMF objective into two terms and apply conflict-aware multi-task learning to mitigate gradient interference. RMF also supports conditional generation via classifier-free guidance. Experiments on spheres, tori, SO(3), and SE(3) demonstrate competitive one-step sampling with improved quality-efficiency trade-offs and substantially reduced sampling cost.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Instantaneous velocity (A→B) vs. average velocity (P→Q) on Euclidean straight lines and manifold geodesics.
Figure 2: Cosine similarity between full-parameter gradients ∇θL1 and ∇θL2 across Earth categories during training (per-iteration values and running average); negative values indicate gradient conflicts.
Volcano
Earthquake
Flood
Fire
Dateset size
827
6,120
4,875
12,809
RFM
0.351
0.309
0.272
0.377
RCT
0.155
0.053
0.086
0.080
G-PSD
0.139
0.045
0.067
0.046
G-ESD
0.184
0.178
0.178
0.196
G-LSD
0.115
0.032
0.065
0.027
Table 1: MMD ( ↓ ) at 1 NFE on the Spherical test dataset. Values are averaged over 5 runs with different random seeds. Best is bold ; second best is underlined .
Figure 3: Earth dataset: generated sample distributions overlaid with ground-truth test data (red). Top-left: Volcano; top-right: Earthquake; bottom-left: Flood; bottom-right: Fire.
General
Glycine
Proline
PrePro
RNA
Dataset size
138,208
13,283
7,634
6,910
9,478
RFM
0.45
0.27
0.52
0.47
0.68
RCT
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.11
G-PSD
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.14
G-ESD
0.29
0.13
0.44
0.26
0.45
G-LSD
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.08
Table 2: MMD ( ↓ ) at 1 NFE on Torus test datasets (mean over 5 runs with different random seeds). Best is bold ; second best is underlined .
Cone
Fisher
Line
Swiss Roll
Dateset size
20k
40k
40k
40k
RFM
0.311
0.154
0.095
0.346
RCT
0.096
0.071
0.051
0.082
G-LSD
0.044
0.073
0.037
0.032
RMF
0.057
0.076
0.038
0.080
RMF-MT
0.049
0.039
0.035
0.061
Table 3: MMD ( ↓ ) at 1 NFE on the SO(3) test set (mean over 5 runs with different random seeds). Best is bold ; second best is underlined .
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dataset size
15.6M
RFM
3.2
23
38
59
80
82
88
G-LSD
60
75
81
88
88
87
90
RMF
65
80
82
86
88
88
90
RMF-MT
60
67
70
72
75
78
81
Table 4: Grasping success rate % ( ↑ ) on the SE(3) dataset across different sampling steps. Best is bold ; second best is underlined . Notice: The metric is the grasping success rate, not MMD.
Cone
Fisher
Swiss
Mixture
uncond
-
-
-
0.439
CFG
0.115
0.159
0.546
0.234
Table 5: MMD ( ↓ ) at 1 NFE on the SO(3) mixture test set.
MMD/epoch
3
4
8
16
32
64
128
EMF
0.193 / 50
0.154 / 32
0.108 / 60
0.115 / 51
0.150 / 50
0.159 / 132
0.357 / >400
RFM
0.088 / 18
0.080 / 16
0.073 / 2
0.054 / 2
0.040 / 2
0.037 / 2
0.031 / 2
RMF
0.066 / 18
0.056 / 10
0.055 / 6
0.038 / 6
0.035 / 6
0.028 / 4
0.026 / 6
Table 6: MMD ( ↓ ) for 1 NFE on hyperspheres Sd−1 , with epochs to reach each score.
Figure 4: Visualization of samples generated by CFG and unconditional models.
Method
NFE
MSE( ↓ )
k-mer corr. ( ↑ )
Dirichlet FM
100
0.034
N/A
Fisher FM
100
0.030
0.96
Eulerian RMF
1
0.030
0.96
Lagrangian RMF
1
0.027
0.88
Semigroup RMF
1
0.030
0.84
RMF(ours)
1
0.030
0.94
Table 7: Promoter DNA sequence generation results. Best is bold ; second best is underlined .
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Volcano
Earthquake
Flood
Fire
Dateset size
827
6,120
4,875
12,809
RMF
0.092
0.042
0.068
0.042
RMF-MT
0.102
0.035
0.048
0.032
α RMF
0.106
0.051
0.061
0.043
iRMF
0.108
0.039
0.060
0.037
Appendix
Table 8: MMD ( ↓ ) on the spherical dataset (mean over 5 runs with different random seeds). Best is bold ; second best is underlined .
Figure 5: iRMF: Cosine Similarity about ∇L1(θ) and ∇L2(θ) with 0% r=t on Spherical Datasets.
RMF
RMF-MT
G-LSD ( Davis et al., 2026 )
iteration/second
8.27
6.42
3.60
Appendix
Table 9: Iterations per second ( ↑ ) for different methods.
Figure 6: Cosine Similarity about ∇L1(θ) and ∇L2(θ) with 0% r=t
Figure 7: Multi-step MMD comparison between RFM and RMF across all datasets.
Volcano
Earthquake
Flood
Fire
Dataset size
827
6,120
4,875
12,809
RDM
−6.61±0.97
−0.40±0.05
0.43±0.07
−1.38±0.05
RFM
−7.93±1.67
−0.28±0.08
0.42±0.05
−1.86±0.11
G-LSD
−4.96±0.68
−0.93±0.01
−0.38±0.33
−2.14±0.42
G-PSD
−3.50±0.22
−0.63±0.13
−0.76±0.13
−2.48±0.71
G-ESD
−4.49±0.20
−0.67±0.08
−0.88±0.38
−2.29±0.08
Appendix
Table 10: NLL( ↓ ) on the Spherical Dataset. Standard deviation is estimated over 5 runs.
General
Glycine
Proline
PrePro
RNA
Dataset size
138,208
13,283
7,634
6,910
9,478
RDM
1.04±0.012
1.97±0.012
0.12±0.011
1.24±0.004
−3.70±0.592
RFM
1.01±0.025
1.90±0.055
0.15±0.027
1.18±0.055
−5.20±0.067
G-LSD
0.99±0.05
1.99±0.02
0.24±0.07
1.11±0.02
−4.15±0.09
G-PSD
0.95±0.02
1.94±0.03
0.08±0.04
1.10±0.04
−4.40±0.13
G-ESD
0.99±0.04
1.95±0.01
0.19±0.04
1.10±0.02
−4.61±0.07
Appendix
Table 11: NLL( ↓ ) on the Torus Dataset. Standard deviation is estimated over 5 runs.
Volcano
Earthquake
Flood
Fire
Dataset size
827
6,120
4,875
12,809
RFM
472
43
49
39
RCT
280
20
18
17
RMF-MT
140
16
17
19
Appendix
Table 12: KLD( ↓ ) on the Spherical Dataset.
step
100
10
5
1
Dataset size
3,938
FrameFlow
1.16
2.34
6.53
N/A
Semigroup RMF
4.14
2.72
4.62
5.28
RMF(ours)
7.74
6.36
7.13
7.46
Appendix
Table 13: scRMSD( ↓ ) on the Protein generation.
Data dim SN
3
4
8
16
32
64
128
data dim × train samples
3 × 50K
4 × 50K
8 × 50K
16 × 50K
32 × 50K
64 × 50K
128 × 50K
network params
732K
733K
737K
745K
762K
795K
860K
Appendix
Table 14: Dataset scale vs. network size in Ablation Studies. “data dimension × train samples” reports data dimension × number of training samples for each dataset; “network params” reports the number of RMF parameters used in that experiment.
Dataset
Fire
Flood
Earthquake
Volcano
General
PrePro
Glycine
Proline
RNA
D. × T. S.
2 × 12,809
2 × 4,875
2 × 6,120
2 × 827
2 × 138,208
2 × 6,910
2 × 13,283
2 × 7,634
7 × 9,478
N. P.
36M
22.6M
36M
46M
731K
731K
2.7M
731K
1.4M
Appendix
Table 15: Dataset scale vs. network size in other dataset. ”D.” is ”data dimension”. ”T. S.” is ”train samples”. ”N. P.” is ”network params”
Dataset
Fire
Flood
Earthquake
Volcano
General
PrePro
Glycine
Proline
RNA
model size
36M
22.6M
36M
46M
731K
731K
2.7M
731K
1.4M
base
0.032
0.048
0.035
0.102
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.07
1/16
0.030
0.051
0.031
0.141
0.128
0.095
0.032
0.139
0.185
1/128
0.031
0.053
0.049
0.229
-
0.122
0.081
-
-
1/1024
0.068
0.097
0.072
-
-
-
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 16: RMF model downsizing ablation (MMD ↓ ). “base” denotes the original model; 1/16, 1/128, and 1/1024 denote reduced-size variants. “–” indicates experiments stopped once test performance deteriorated substantially.
Dataset
Metric
Fire
Flood
Earthquake
Volcano
General
PrePro
Glycine
Proline
RNA
100 %
MMD
0.032
0.048
0.035
0.102
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.07
p-value
0.171
0.465
0.405
0.752
0.059
0.158
0.227
0.128
0.01
10 %
MMD
0.036
0.084
0.064
0.100
0.085
0.077
0.081
0.074
0.275
p-value
0.107
0.049
0.089
0.108
0.01
0.01
0.326
0.01
0.01
1 %
MMD
0.066
0.085
0.133
0.225
0.110
0.125
0.127
0.167
0.281
p-value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.039
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Appendix
Table 17: Low-data regime MMD two-sample evaluation. We report both MMD ↓ and permutation-test p-value ↑ , computed by comparing 1000 generated samples with 1000 held-out test samples using 100 random permutations. Values of 0.01 indicate the minimum reported p-value resolution of the test.
Training Data Fraction
Fire(A/B)
Flood(A/B)
Earthquake(A/B)
Volcano(A/B)
100 %
0.7845/0.796
0.632/0.612
0.703/0.746
0.944/0.981
10 %
0.7935/0.793
0.673/0.657
0.735/0.735
0.948/0.982
1 %
0.8595/0.867
0.685/0.679
0.81/0.75
0.957/0.982
Appendix
Table 18: Low-data regime leave-one-out 1-NN memorization diagnostic (accuracy → 0.5). A/B denote train-generated / test-generated comparisons, respectively. Each point is classified by the label of its nearest neighbor after excluding itself. Results are reported only on sphere-type datasets; torus datasets are omitted because reliable geodesic nearest-neighbor comparison would require a separate periodic-distance implementation.
Figure 8: Ramachandran plots on the Torus Dataset.
Figure 9: SO(3) one-step sample figure
Volcano
Earthquake
Flood
Fire
General
Glycine
Proline
PrePro
RNA
Dateset size
827
6,120
4,875
12,809
138,208
13,283
7,634
6.910
9,478
learning rate
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
number of layers
12
10
7
10
4
10
4
4
6
hidden dimensions
2048
2048
2048
2048
512
512
512
512
512
r=t %
75 %
75 %
75 %
75 %
75 %
75 %
75 %
75 %
75 %
batch size
8192
4096
8192
8192
4096
2048
2048
2048
2048
Appendix
Table 19: The Spherical and Torus experimental hyperparameters are as follows.
Cone
Fisher
Line
Swiss Roll
CFG
Dateset size
20K
40K
40K
40K
60k
learning rate
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
5e-4
number of layers
4
4
4
8
4
hidden dimensions
512
512
512
1024
512
r=t %
10 %
10 %
10 %
10 %
10%
batch size
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
Appendix
Table 20: The SO(3) experimental hyperparameters are as follows.
Manifold-valued data, and consequently the distributions they induce, are prevalent across many domains, ranging from the locations of geospatial events, such as earthquakes, to biomolecular torsion angles that encode information about three-dimensional structure. While diffusion and flow-based generative models have been successfully extended to compact manifolds, sampling typically requires tens or hundreds of sequential network evaluations. We introduce RW-Flow, a theoretically grounded framework for learning one-step generative models on compact manifolds via Wasserstein gradient flows. The main challenge is identifiability: driving the velocity field to zero should guarantee that the model distribution matches the target distribution. We establish a necessary and sufficient condition for identifiability on compact, connected Riemannian manifolds. We specifically show that, for a symmetric, Lipschitz-continuous cost function, the velocity field induced by the Sinkhorn divergence is identifiable if and only if the associated Gibbs kernel is nondegenerate. This characterization provides a general principle for designing identifiable costs on compact manifolds. It also reveals that the squared geodesic distance, the natural manifold analogue of the squared Euclidean distance, does not always guarantee identifiability. Across benchmarks involving geospatial events, protein side chain torsion angles, RNA backbone torsion angles, and general manifolds discretized as triangular meshes, RW-Flow outperforms existing one-step methods in nearly all settings under fair comparison conditions.
Ualibyek Nurgulan, Seungwoo Yoo, Prin Phunyaphibarn +1
Sampling from unnormalized densities is analogous to the generative modeling problem, but the target distribution is defined by a known energy function instead of data samples. Because evaluating the energy function is often costly, a primary challenge is to learn an efficient sampler. We introduce Flow Sampling, a framework built on diffusion models and flow matching for the data-free setting. Our training objective is conditioned on a noise sample and regresses onto a denoising diffusion drift constructed from the energy function. In contrast, diffusion models' objective is conditioned on a data sample and regresses onto a noising diffusion drift. We utilize the interpolant process to minimize the number of energy function evaluations during training, resulting in an efficient and scalable method for sampling unnormalized densities. Furthermore, our formulation naturally extends to Riemannian manifolds, enabling diffusion-based sampling in geometries beyond Euclidean space. We derive a closed-form formula for the conditional drift on constant curvature manifolds, including hyperspheres and hyperbolic spaces. We evaluate Flow Sampling on synthetic energy benchmarks, small peptides, large-scale amortized molecular conformer generation, and distributions supported on the sphere, demonstrating strong empirical performance.
Human motion generation is often learned in Euclidean spaces, although valid motions follow structured non-Euclidean geometry. We present Riemannian Motion Generation (RMG), a unified framework that represents motion on a product manifold and learns dynamics via Riemannian flow matching. RMG factorizes motion into several manifold factors, yielding a scale-free representation with intrinsic normalization, and uses geodesic interpolation, tangent-space supervision, and manifold-preserving ODE integration for training and sampling. On HumanML3D, RMG achieves state-of-the-art FID in the HumanML3D format (0.043) and ranks first on all reported metrics under the MotionStreamer format. On MotionMillion, it also surpasses strong baselines (FID 5.6, R@1 0.86). Ablations show that the compact T+R (translation + rotations) representation is the most stable and effective, highlighting geometry-aware modeling as a practical and scalable route to high-fidelity motion generation.
Fangran Miao, Jian Huang, Ting Li
Department of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Department of Applied Mathematics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Department of Data Science and Statistics, Southern University of Science and Technology