The Right Measure for Physics-Constrained Generation: A Co-Area Correction for Posterior-Consistent PDE Inverse Problems
For researchers using generative models for uncertainty-aware scientific inference with PDE constraints, this work identifies and corrects a fundamental bias that invalidates current methods.
The paper shows that conditioning generative models on hard PDE constraints for inverse problems samples the wrong distribution due to the Borel–Kolmogorov paradox, and introduces CoCoS, a measure-aware sampler that corrects this bias. The bias can inflate posterior error to 20× the sampling-noise floor, while CoCoS matches the gold-standard posterior to within sampling noise.
Generative models -- diffusion and flow matching -- are increasingly used to solve partial differential equation (PDE) inverse problems, enforcing the governing physics as a \emph{hard constraint} (via projection or guidance) and reporting the resulting samples as a Bayesian posterior with calibrated uncertainty. We show that this widely adopted recipe samples the wrong distribution. Conditioning a generative prior on a hard PDE constraint is conditioning on a measure-zero manifold -- an operation that is intrinsically ambiguous (the Borel--Kolmogorov paradox) and whose physically correct resolution, the small-residual-noise limit, carries a co-area (Fixman) Jacobian factor $[det(JJ^{\top})]^{-1/2}$ that projection- and guidance-based methods silently omit. We make the bias precise, show that it grows with the heterogeneity of the constraint sensitivity, and validate it on controlled problems against an \emph{i.i.d.} ground-truth arbiter. The omitted factor is not a second-order detail: removing it inflates the posterior error to $20\times$ the sampling-noise floor; minimal-displacement projection (as in PCFM) is biased at $9\times$ the floor; and a naive scalar reweighting does not fix it. We introduce \textbf{CoCoS}, a measure-aware constrained sampler that targets the correct co-area posterior, and show that it matches the gold-standard posterior to within sampling noise. Our results imply that ``satisfying the physics'' is not the same as ``sampling the posterior,'' and give a principled correction for uncertainty-aware scientific inference.