Riemannian Variational Flow Matching for Material and Protein Design
Olga Zaghen, Floor Eijkelboom, Alison Pouplin, Cong Liu, Max Welling, Jan-Willem van de Meent, Erik J. Bekkers

TL;DR
This paper introduces Riemannian Gaussian Variational Flow Matching (RG-VFM), a geometric extension of VFM for generative modeling on curved manifolds, improving material and protein design tasks by respecting manifold structures.
Contribution
The paper develops RG-VFM, incorporating Riemannian geometry into flow matching, and demonstrates its advantages over Euclidean methods in manifold-aware generative modeling.
Findings
RG-VFM outperforms Euclidean baselines on synthetic and real-world benchmarks.
Incorporating curvature via Jacobi fields improves geodesic distance approximation.
Endpoint prediction enhances learning signals on curved manifolds.
Abstract
We present Riemannian Gaussian Variational Flow Matching (RG-VFM), a geometric extension of Variational Flow Matching (VFM) for generative modeling on manifolds. Motivated by the benefits of VFM, we derive a variational flow matching objective for manifolds with closed-form geodesics based on Riemannian Gaussian distributions. Crucially, in Euclidean space, predicting endpoints (VFM), velocities (FM), or noise (diffusion) is largely equivalent due to affine interpolations. However, on curved manifolds this equivalence breaks down. We formally analyze the relationship between our model and Riemannian Flow Matching (RFM), revealing that the RFM objective lacks a curvature-dependent penalty -- encoded via Jacobi fields -- that is naturally present in RG-VFM. Based on this relationship, we hypothesize that endpoint prediction provides a stronger learning signal by directly minimizing…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- Very well-written paper with excellent explanations and visuals. - Variational extension of FM is well motivated; and this paper lifts this idea to Riemannian manifolds. - The derivations and design choices are well-justified and appear natural. - Good empirical results in two different real-world domains and on one synthetic dataset.
- The work appears somewhat incremental, as extending Riemannian flow matching to a variational formulation is relatively straightforward. Formally establishing a connection between RG-VFM and RFM through Proposition 4.1 is useful, but not very surprising. - The discussion of intrinsic versus extrinsic viewpoints is interesting, yet it remains unclear how the extrinsic perspective offers a clear advantage. While it provides additional flexibility, it essentially represents a trade‑off rather tha
1. The paper provides a clear and well-motivated theoretical bridge between **variational** and **geometric** generative modeling. The idea of introducing curvature-dependent terms via Jacobi fields to analyze flow-matching losses is novel and elegant. 2. The derivation is rigorous, with propositions and proofs connecting RG-VFM and RFM. The mathematical treatment of curvature effects is insightful, especially Proposition 4.3, showing curvature-dependent correction terms. 3. The paper is wel
1. The method is limited to manifolds with **closed-form geodesics**. This assumption restricts applicability to simple spaces (e.g., \(S^n\), \(H^n\)), leaving open how to handle more general manifolds. 2. While results are positive, the experiments lack deeper ablations (e.g., sensitivity to curvature magnitude, loss variants, or effect of variance parameter σ in the Riemannian Gaussian). 3. The paper briefly mentions that RG-VFM maintains simplicity of linear flows but does not analyze tr
- The paper is well-presented: the text is clear and simple. - The proofs provided in the appendix are well-detailed. - Proposition 4.1 (and 4.3) is an interesting contribution, showing a limitation in Riemannian Flow Matching [2] – the baseline method for Riemannian generative modelling – and demonstrating the method’s superiority in accounting for curvature terms, theoretically. - The proposed fix is very simple. - The empirical validation is rather extensive and convincing for the given examp
- I am not certain about the initial trichotomy (or the impression that is given when stating is as follows) of “endpoint (VFM), a velocity (FM/RFM), noise (diffusion)”. Diffusion can be trained all three ways, and noise prediction was introduced in DDPM [1], as it empirically produced better performance. Same goes for flow matching. (Indeed, though, because of the linearity in the path, all reparameterisations are *theoretically* equivalent.) - It seems to me that the words “intrinsic” and “ext
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques · 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis · Advanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
