stat.MLOct 11, 2026

When do explicit penalties improve flow matching?

Authors: Lea Kunkel, Alberto González-Sanz, Sophie Langer

Abstract

Flow matching can learn structure directly from data, raising the question of when additional constraints improve generation. We study penalties that encode such constraints, with physics-informed flow matching as a motivating example. Satisfying a constraint more closely need not make the generated distribution more accurate. We therefore compare penalised and unpenalised generative modelling through their expected squared 22-Wasserstein error. Our analysis covers both vector-valued and functional data in a Hilbert-space setting. We first derive geometric criteria that account for constraint violations and the distribution of samples after projection onto the constraint set. We then solve the statistical comparison explicitly for specific velocity-field classes and constraints via flow matching. In this model, penalisation improves accuracy exactly when the reduction in estimation variance outweighs the increase in squared bias. The resulting formula shows how this trade-off depends on sample size, the model class, the noise schedule, and the penalty weight.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables1 asset

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Oct 2, 2026

Generalization Bounds for Flow-matching Generative Models for Intrinsically Low-dimensional Data

Despite the remarkable empirical success of flow-matching models, their statistical generalization guarantees remain underdeveloped. Existing analyses often impose restrictive assumptions on the estimated velocity field and yield convergence rates that fail to reflect the intrinsic low-dimensional structure common in real data, such as natural images and molecular geometries. In this work, we study the statistical generalization of flow-matching models for learning an unknown distribution PdataP_{\mathrm{data}} from finitely many samples. We derive finite-sample error bounds on the learned generative distribution, measured in the Wasserstein-pp distance, for all p≥1p\geq 1. Specifically, given nn i.i.d. samples from PdataP_{\mathrm{data}}, we show that, for every d>dp∗(Pdata)d>d_p^\ast(P_{\mathrm{data}}) and appropriately chosen network architectures and hyperparameters, the learned distribution P^FM\widehat{P}^{\mathrm{FM}} satisfies Wp(P^FM,Pdata)≲n−1/d+n−1/(2p)(log⁡(1/ξ))1/(2p) \mathbb{W}_p(\widehat{P}^{\mathrm{FM}},P_{\mathrm{data}}) \lesssim n^{-1/d}+n^{-1/(2p)}\bigl(\log(1/ξ)\bigr)^{1/(2p)} with probability at least 1−ξ1-ξ, where dp∗(Pdata)d_p^\ast(P_{\mathrm{data}}) denotes the Wasserstein-pp dimension of the target measure. Our results demonstrate that flow matching naturally adapts to the intrinsic geometry of data and mitigates the curse of dimensionality, as the convergence exponent depends on the intrinsic rather than ambient dimension. These guarantees remain meaningful in high-dimensional regimes and provide a theoretical explanation for the empirical success of flow matching on structured data distributions under substantially more relaxed assumptions than those in existing analyses.
Mar 6, 2026

Training Flow Matching: The Role of Weighting and Parameterization

We study the training objectives of denoising-based generative models, with a particular focus on loss weighting and output parameterization, including noise-, clean image-, and velocity-based formulations. Through a systematic numerical study, we analyze how these training choices interact with the intrinsic dimensionality of the data manifold, model architecture, and dataset size. Our experiments span synthetic datasets with controlled geometry as well as image data, and compare training objectives using quantitative metrics for denoising accuracy (PSNR across noise levels) and generative quality (FID). Rather than proposing a new method, our goal is to disentangle the various factors that matter when training a flow matching model, in order to provide practical insights on design choices.
Sep 30, 2026

MintFlow: Minimal Trajectory Intervention for Constrained Flow Matching

Flow matching models excel at generative modeling, and many downstream applications require their samples to satisfy prescribed constraints, such as observed measurements and physical laws. However, existing constrained samplers often face a trade-off: enforcing constraints can substantially displace samples from the pretrained data distribution. To address this trade-off, we introduce MintFlow, a training-free constrained sampling framework that formulates constraint enforcement as a minimal intervention on the pretrained flow trajectory. MintFlow seeks the minimal perturbation of an intermediate flow state such that its subsequent evolution under the pretrained flow field satisfies the target constraint. By minimally perturbing the flow state while keeping the pretrained flow field unchanged, MintFlow enforces the constraint while minimizing unnecessary deviation from the pretrained distribution. An adjoint formulation yields a closed-form expression for this perturbation, eliminating expensive iterative optimization. Furthermore, MintFlow adaptively selects the intervention time to balance the required perturbation magnitude with its amplification by the remaining flow. Across a range of tasks in generative vision and physical system modeling, MintFlow achieves competitive constraint satisfaction while preserving the pretrained generative distribution substantially better than state-of-the-art constrained methods.