My thoughts go that way too, but I expected some volumes to be more important than others. And because of it, I expected the article to measure a negative correlation. Hence my surprise.<p>But reading the paper, the study is about random samples of the complete test suite, and the results are far too weak to get any conclusion about it, finding negative correlations some times, and weak positive other times.<p>Anyway, they got a strong correlation, with good p-value (not very worthy on this context, but it&#x27;s all we get) for your hypothesis about coverage volume. It&#x27;s just my hypothesis about some code being more important than other that is inconclusive.