When do explicit penalties improve flow matching?

Title:When do explicit penalties improve flow matching?

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 $2$-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.

Machine Learning (stat.ML); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Statistics Theory (math.ST)

arXiv:2610.15689 [stat.ML]

(or arXiv:2610.15689v1 [stat.ML] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15689 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.