Sampling Luck Masquerades as Allocation Gain: Auditing Test-Time Budget Allocation for Neural Combinatorial Optimization

Abstract

Neural combinatorial optimization (NCO) solvers report the best of many sampled solutions per instance, and the sample count is, by convention, identical for every instance. Whether a non-uniform allocation of a fixed total budget would buy anything has not been measured. We measure it, and we audit the measurement itself. First, on in-distribution workloads the allocation headroom is not detectable. Across three pretrained solvers (POMO, AM, SymNCO) on uniform TSP-100, an oracle allocation computed and evaluated on the same stored samples reports a 2.2-2.6% gain with intervals excluding zero; measured out of sample the same gain is indistinguishable from zero (0.457, 0.015, -0.512 percent). Following the customary in-sample procedure, all three solvers would have supported a published 2%-level gain that does not exist. We calibrate this bias against an instance-wise null in which the true gain is zero by construction; over the ranges we test it does not shrink with more samples or more instances. Second, the same correction that removes the phantom gains preserves a real one. Under distribution shift (a workload mixing uniform and clustered instances), a pre-registered confirmatory experiment finds that allocation guided by held-out sample statistics improves best-of-k by 11.5% (AM, primary endpoint; 95% CI [7.4, 19.7]) and 12.0% (SymNCO, replication) at equal evaluation budget, with the signal-acquisition cost not charged; a pre-registered negative control (POMO, an order of magnitude more robust to shift) shows -0.3% [-0.7, 0.24]. The gain exceeds a frozen distribution-label baseline by 4.2 points [1.9, 7.7]. An exploratory policy charging a 20-sample probe against the same budget retains 3.4% (AM) and 4.6% (SymNCO). We give a correction procedure and a reporting checklist, and release all data, code, and the pre-registration record.