Thank you very much for the response! This paper is pretty interesting for sure.<p>It&#x27;s just it doesn&#x27;t have what I would consider good evidence that coverage isn&#x27;t correlated with effectiveness. (or... I don&#x27;t understand the section that explains it &lt;:( )<p>What I would consider good evidence would be to demonstrate that <i>different</i> test suites of the <i>same size</i> and <i>different coverage</i> achieve the same effectiveness.<p>* test suite A has a size of 300 sloc, and a coverage of 5%, effectiveness of ~8%<p>* test suite B has a size of 300 sloc, and a coverage of 12%, effectiveness of ~8%<p>That to me would be evidence of the stated conclusion, but I don&#x27;t see where this is demonstrated (or where this is demonstrated, I don&#x27;t understand). I do see where it is stated! Though... now that I have read through the paper a bit more thoroughly.<p>On the subject of normalized effectiveness.<p><pre><code>  Suppose
  we are comparing suite A, with 50% coverage, to suite B, with
  60% coverage. Suite B will almost certainly have a higher
  raw effectiveness measurement, since it covers more code and
  will therefore almost certainly kill more mutants. However,
  if suite A kills 80% of the mutants that it covers, while suite
  B kills only 70% of the mutants that it covers, suite A is
  in some sense a better suite.&quot;
</code></pre>
I don&#x27;t believe a majority of people would agree with this. To me, this says coverage is positively correlated with effectiveness, and that suite B is doing more with less. Maybe that&#x27;s a philosophical stand point? By normalizing, have you eliminated the premise?<p>Anyway, thank you for your time and work!