I&#x27;m biased (it&#x27;s my research field, in part) but I&#x27;d suggest that studies on coverage are all over the place, with this one showing lack of correlation, and other studies showing good correlation between coverage and... some kind of effectiveness (the ICSE paper mentioned above, also from 2014, and a TOSEM paper coming out this year, as well as a variety of publications over the years).<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.cmu.edu&#x2F;~agroce&#x2F;onwardessays14.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.cmu.edu&#x2F;~agroce&#x2F;onwardessays14.pdf</a> covers the Inozemtseva et al. paper as well as some other recent work, and nothing in the time since we wrote that has modified my view that the jury is still out on coverage, depending on the situation in which you want to use it.  Saying &quot;coverage is not useful&quot; is pretty clearly wrong, and saying &quot;coverage is highly effective for measuring all suites in all situations&quot; is also clearly wrong.  Beyond that, it&#x27;s hard to make solidly supported claims that don&#x27;t depend greatly on details of what you are measuring and how.<p>I suspect Laura generally agrees, though probably our guesses on what eventual answers might be differ.