Physics vs Distributions: Pareto Optimal Flow Matching with Physics Constraints
Giacomo Baldan, Qiang Liu, Alberto Guardone, Nils Thuerey

TL;DR
This paper introduces Physics-Based Flow Matching (PBFM), a novel training method that enforces physical constraints in generative models without sacrificing distributional accuracy, achieving Pareto-optimal trade-offs in physics-constrained generative tasks.
Contribution
PBFM is the first method to explicitly address the conflicting objectives of physical and distributional accuracy by enforcing constraints during training with conflict-free updates and unrolling.
Findings
Achieves Pareto-optimal trade-offs between physical and distributional accuracy.
Maintains inference speed while enforcing physical constraints.
Generalizes well across various physics-constrained generative tasks.
Abstract
Physics-constrained generative modeling aims to produce high-dimensional samples that are both physically consistent and distributionally accurate, a task that remains challenging due to often conflicting optimization objectives. Recent advances in flow matching and diffusion models have enabled efficient generative modeling, but integrating physical constraints often degrades generative fidelity or requires costly inference-time corrections. Our work is the first to recognize the trade-off between distributional and physical accuracy. Based on the insight of inherently conflicting objectives, we introduce Physics-Based Flow Matching (PBFM) a method that enforces physical constraints at training time using conflict-free gradient updates and unrolling to mitigate Jensen's gap. Our approach avoids manual loss balancing and enables simultaneous optimization of generative and physical…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
It makes sense to cast “physics vs. distribution” as a true multi-objective problem and use conflict-free gradient updates (ConFIG), so that each step descends both the flow-matching loss and the physics residual, thereby avoiding brittle manual weights and consistently improving the Pareto front over fixed-weight baselines. It mitigates Jensen's gap through training-time unrolling, thereby lowering the residual errors without incurring additional inference costs. I appreciate that the author
Physical residuals are sensitive to the minimum noise set as a hyperparameter; higher noise degrades residuals and requires careful tuning. The method also introduces a time-based residual scaling, whose choice affects errors (albeit less so with unrolling). Some elaborations on how to handle the hyperparameter sensitivity would be helpful. The paper aggregates boundary-condition penalties and the divergence-free residual into a single “physics” loss. However, these terms can induce conflicti
- The paper addresses a fundamental problem in generative modeling: how to enforce known physical constraints to improve the fidelity of generated data. - The proposed method requires more memory storage and training time, which might not scale well for larger systems. - The paper clearly identifies the challenge of conflicting gradient updates and introduces a corresponding method that enables gradient descent to simultaneously reduce both the matching loss and the physical constraint loss.
-The proposed method appears somewhat straightforward, as it primarily leverages an existing approach (ConFIG) to compute conflict-free gradient updates. - Section 3.3 is a bit difficult to follow. The authors could add a figure to illustrate why this issue needs to be addressed and to clarify the concept of Jensen’s gap. In particular, is this a typo - should the final clean sample be $x_1$ rather than $x_0$?
S1. The empirical study is comprehensive, including ablations on unrolling, stochastic sampling, and Gaussian noise effects, which clarifies the contribution of each component and isolates the respective observed gains. S2: The experimental benchmarks are well chosen and physically meaningful, spanning PDEs with increasing complexity. The results demonstrate stable improvements across tasks, and the method manages to maintain minimal inference overhead despite additional training components. S
**W1.** Many components of the proposed framework: residual-based losses from PINNs (Raissi *et al.*, 2019), **ConFIG** gradient orthogonalization [4], and stochastic sampling from ECI [1] are adapted rather than novel. The main contribution lies in integrating these existing mechanisms under a Pareto framework rather than introducing fundamentally new algorithmic principles. Moreover, since PBFM enforces *soft* constraints, it cannot match the strict physical consistency of hard-constraint appr
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Model Reduction and Neural Networks · Lattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
MethodsDiffusion
