Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes flow-based inverse solvers, such as FlowDPS and FLOWER, through a posterior-transport lens to clarify what these methods approximate when solving imaging inverse problems. The authors reveal that Bayesian conditioning in deterministic flow priors is achieved by reweighting the source distribution rather than through drift corrections, leading to exact posterior samples when the unmodified velocity field is used. Their findings demonstrate that trajectory-guidance solvers introduce significant errors compared to source reweighting, with a proposed velocity-correction solver outperforming existing methods in generating diverse posterior samples while maintaining uncertainty correlation with reconstruction error.
Trajectory-guidance solvers can lead to up to 800 times larger errors compared to simple source reweighting, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of flow-based inverse problem solving.
A growing family of training-free solvers -- FlowDPS, FLOWER, PnP-Flow and their diffusion ancestors (DPS, DAPS) -- repurpose a pretrained flow-matching prior to solve imaging inverse problems by adding a measurement-guidance term to the deterministic probability-flow ODE. Despite strong empirical results, what these per-step corrections actually approximate -- and how far the resulting samples are from the true posterior $p(x\mid y)$ -- has not been characterized. We give a posterior-transport account of flow-based inverse problem solving. Our starting point is a simple but consequential fact: for a \emph{deterministic} flow prior, Bayesian conditioning is realized entirely by a \emph{reweighting of the source distribution}, not by a drift correction; pushing the reweighted source through the \emph{unmodified} velocity field yields exact posterior samples. From this we show that trajectory-guidance solvers can be read as the minimum-kinetic-energy \emph{correction} field needed to morph the unconditional source into the posterior, and that FlowDPS / FLOWER / PnP-Flow correspond to distinct zeroth-order / Gaussian / proximal approximations of this single object; we bound the resulting posterior bias in Wasserstein distance. A controlled $2$D study with a closed-form posterior confirms the theory decisively: source reweighting matches the true posterior to the Monte-Carlo floor on every metric, whereas trajectory guidance incurs $200$--$800\times$ larger error and collapses posterior modes, \emph{regardless of guidance strength}. Guided by the analysis we propose a cheap, principled velocity-correction solver that is competitive across two in-domain priors (AFHQ, CelebA) and two out-of-distribution settings while, unlike point-estimate source-space optimizers, producing diverse posterior samples with uncertainty that correlates with reconstruction error.
