What Do Flow-Based Inverse Solvers Approximate? A Posterior-Transport View
Authors: Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao
Organizations: 1RIKEN iTHEMS · 2RIKEN AIP · 3South China University of Technology · 4Columbia University
Abstract
A growing family of training-free solvers -- FlowDPS, FLOWER, PnP-Flow and their diffusion ancestors (DPS, DAPS) -- repurpose a pretrained flow-matching prior to solve imaging inverse problems by adding a measurement-guidance term to the deterministic probability-flow ODE. Despite strong empirical results, what these per-step corrections actually approximate -- and how far the resulting samples are from the true posterior p(x∣y) -- has not been characterized. We give a posterior-transport account of flow-based inverse problem solving. Our starting point is a simple but consequential fact: for a \emph{deterministic} flow prior, Bayesian conditioning is realized entirely by a \emph{reweighting of the source distribution}, not by a drift correction; pushing the reweighted source through the \emph{unmodified} velocity field yields exact posterior samples. From this we show that trajectory-guidance solvers can be read as the minimum-kinetic-energy \emph{correction} field needed to morph the unconditional source into the posterior, and that FlowDPS / FLOWER / PnP-Flow correspond to distinct zeroth-order / Gaussian / proximal approximations of this single object; we bound the resulting posterior bias in Wasserstein distance. A controlled 2D study with a closed-form posterior confirms the theory decisively: source reweighting matches the true posterior to the Monte-Carlo floor on every metric, whereas trajectory guidance incurs 200--800× larger error and collapses posterior modes, \emph{regardless of guidance strength}. Guided by the analysis we propose a cheap, principled velocity-correction solver that is competitive across two in-domain priors (AFHQ, CelebA) and two out-of-distribution settings while, unlike point-estimate source-space optimizers, producing diverse posterior samples with uncertainty that correlates with reconstruction error.
Flow matching has emerged as the state-of-the-art generative model and has been used for plug-and-play (PnP) priors to solve inverse problems in computational imaging. However, existing flow-based inverse solvers assume linear forward models and/or make simplifying approximations in posterior sampling. To circumvent these problems, we introduce FlowSGS, a flow-based posterior sampling method using Split Gibbs Sampling (SGS) to decompose the posterior into a likelihood step and a prior step. Specifically, we sample from the likelihood step using Langevin dynamics and leverage the Stochastic Interpolants (SI) framework to integrate a pretrained flow model into the prior step. We provide a form for the prior step that uses SI's reverse-time SDE, and show connections to previous PnP methods. Moreover, with the aid of the flow prior's straight probability paths and a novel timestep correction technique for the reverse-time SDE, FlowSGS requires fewer network evaluations in its prior step than plug-and-play diffusion samplers. Our experiments show state-of-the-art performance on a range of inverse problems. For the first time, we provide an experiment on a nonlinear inverse problem (Fourier phase retrieval) for flow-based inverse solvers.
Flow matching approaches to imaging inverse problems commonly incorporate measurements in two ways. Conditioning-based approaches supply measurement-derived information as a network input, often through concatenation, while inference-guided approaches combine an unconditional velocity field with a separate data-consistency update. In these common formulations, the forward model is not explicitly enforced within the learned conditional velocity field. We propose a principled parametrization of the measurement-conditional velocity field to solve inverse problems. Under linear interpolation, we express the conditional velocity v(xt,t,y) in terms of the posterior mean E[x1∣xt,y], and characterize that mean as the unique minimizer of a variational objective whose data-consistency term is explicit. We further prove that the velocity field defines a probability flow from the source distribution to the measurement-conditioned posterior. Splitting the variational objective yields a conditional velocity parameterization with operator-dependent data-consistency updates, which we train end-to-end under the flow-matching objective, with no additional guidance at inference. Our method achieves state-of-the-art PSNR with 50× fewer function evaluations than the strongest flow baseline. Varying the sampling steps provides test-time control over the distortion-perception trade-off without retraining.
Shirin Shoushtari, Edward P. Chandler, Xiao Shi +1
Flow-based generative models have emerged as powerful image priors for training-free inverse problem solving, capturing coherent semantics and fine-grained structure. Despite these strengths, existing flow-based inverse solvers primarily focus on the design of individual updates, largely overlooking spatio-temporal information allocation under a fixed number of function evaluations (NFEs). Temporally, insufficient early exploration can trap the flow trajectory in an incorrect semantic basin, whereas excessive allocation of NFEs to early stages leaves little budget for late-stage refinement. Spatially, data consistency provides direct constraints only within observed regions, whereas the recovery of missing regions relies mainly on the generative prior. To address these two issues, we introduce two complementary and training-free components, i.e., Spectrum-Adaptive Scheduling (SAS) and Measurement-Prioritized Attention (MPA). For temporal allocation, SAS distributes the available NFEs over flow time according to the degradation spectrum and logSNR geometry, thus better balancing semantic exploration and detail refinement. For spatial propagation, MPA exploits data-prior conflicts to guide information toward weakly constrained regions, thereby enhancing semantic and structural fidelity. Extensive experiments on standard image inverse problems, e.g., super-resolution, motion deblurring, and inpainting, demonstrate that the proposed components can be integrated into existing flow-based inverse solvers in a plug-and-play manner without retraining or additional flow-model evaluations, and can also significantly improve the restoration quality of existing solvers.