Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Physics vs Distributions: Pareto Optimal Flow Matching with Physics Constraints

About

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 objectives. As a consequence, physics constraints do not impede inference performance. We benchmark our method across three representative PDE benchmarks. PBFM achieves a Pareto-optimal trade-off, competitive inference speed, and generalizes to a wide range of physics-constrained generative tasks, providing a practical tool for scientific machine learning. Code and datasets available at https://github.com/tum-pbs/PBFM.

Giacomo Baldan, Qiang Liu, Alberto Guardone, Nils Thuerey• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Solving PDEBurgers
Relative Error3.11
24
Forward PDE solvingPoisson
Relative L2 Error28.56
15
Forward PDE solvingNavier-Stokes
Relative L2 Error137.4
15
Physics-informed quantitative forecastingHelmholtz Staircase Equation (test)
CRPS0.0094
14
Physics-informed quantitative forecastingNavier-Stokes Flow (test)
CRPS0.034
14
Inverse PDE solvingDarcy
Relative L2 Error1.02
10
Forward PDE solving1D Burgers' equation standard synthetic (test)
Relative L2 Error0.0311
10
Forward PDE solvingHYCOM
Relative L2 Error83.86
10
Forward PDE solvingDarcy
Relative L2 Error0.62
9
Generative ModelingDarcy flow 1024 samples (test)
Relative Error0.838
7
Showing 10 of 12 rows

Other info

Follow for update