Flow Matching for Posterior Inference with Simulator Feedback
Benjamin Holzschuh, Nils Thuerey

TL;DR
This paper introduces a flow-based method refined with simulator feedback for efficient and accurate inverse problem solving, significantly outperforming classical methods in speed and accuracy.
Contribution
It presents a novel flow matching approach that incorporates simulator feedback during fine-tuning, reducing computational costs while improving inference accuracy.
Findings
Improves inference accuracy by 53%.
Achieves up to 67 times faster inference.
Competitive with traditional MCMC methods.
Abstract
Flow-based generative modeling is a powerful tool for solving inverse problems in physical sciences that can be used for sampling and likelihood evaluation with much lower inference times than traditional methods. We propose to refine flows with additional control signals based on a simulator. Control signals can include gradients and a problem-specific cost function if the simulator is differentiable, or they can be fully learned from the simulator output. In our proposed method, we pretrain the flow network and include feedback from the simulator exclusively for finetuning, therefore requiring only a small amount of additional parameters and compute. We motivate our design choices on several benchmark problems for simulation-based inference and evaluate flow matching with simulator feedback against classical MCMC methods for modeling strong gravitational lens systems, a challenging…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
- The problem studied is highly relevant as foundation models (including diffusion and flow-based models) become available in various scientific domains. It is important to develop inference methods for inverse problems that have low bias, good posterior coverage, and high efficiency of training and inferences -- this paper attempts to solve these problems. - The proposed algorithm plausibly attacks these challenges (even if it is not very well demonstrated by the experiments, see below) and sh
Throughout the text, there are many inaccurate or somewhat sloppy statements and references that confuse a specialist in flow matching models (and would likely impede understanding by non-specialists as well). A list follows. - Abstract: I would suggest to revise it to explain the problem setting and approach at a higher level. - First sentences: "Flow-based generative modeling is a powerful tool for solving inverse problems in physical sciences" -- this is a bold claim. The use of flow-based
- *Novelty*: To the best of my knowledge, the idea of including simulator feedback in flow matching for posterior estimation is novel - *Soundness*: The idea of using simulator feedback to correct for the imprecision of score matching may indeed be helpful in certain applications. - *Presentation*: I found the tables and figure easy to read and informative, while being also visually appealing.
While I must acknowledge certain positive aspects of the paper, I have also several concerns that motivate my negative recommendation, which I am listing below. 1. While I find the figures and tables quite enlightening, I find the presentation being a weakness. There are multiple hand-wavy explanations and claims that I find a bit confusing. See below for concrete examples. 2. Empirical validation: I was surprised by the numbers from figure 3 and 4 which seems worse than existing alternatives.
The paper has some strengths overall, which I will outline below. **Strengths:** 1. Introduction of the flow matching perspective for these set of problems making a faster inference procedure. 2. Providing the solutions on using either differentiable or non-differentiable simulators.
Despite its strengths, the paper has a few major and minor weaknesses. **Major weaknesses:** 1. I’m really concerned about the presentation of the results and the abilities of this method, because of the lack of enough comparisons and metrics. 2. Regarding the gravitational lensing problem (presented as the main real-world task being tackled), they are operating in a relatively small space, making the problem easy and solvable. However, they didn’t include any coverage test (e.g., TARP [1], o
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsModel Reduction and Neural Networks · Simulation Techniques and Applications
