mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Prompt Coverage Adequacy

arXiv 2607.02057 ↗First posted 2 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that large language models (LLMs) and autonomous agents raise the level of abstraction in software development by shifting the focus from writing precise procedures to expressing intents and goals. This paradigm shift introduces new challenges, particularly in how testing should be guided when prompts, rather than code, become primary development artifacts. To address this challenge, we propose Prompt Coverage Adequacy, a novel coverage criterion designed to support the testing of code generated from task descriptions. Prompt Coverage Adequacy serves as an analog to traditional code coverage, but operates at the level of prompts used in LLM and agent-based programming. Specifically, it measures how well a given test suite satisfies the requirements expressed in a prompt by leveraging the attention mechanisms of LLMs. We evaluate a simple instantiation of this criterion, based on attention boosting, across two datasets and multiple LLMs. Our results demonstrate that Prompt Coverage is associated with fault-detection effectiveness and can uncover over 30+% more faults than traditional code coverage when used to guide test generation. These findings suggest that Prompt Coverage Adequacy can serve as a foundation for developing testing metrics better suited to the emerging paradigm of LLM-driven software development, addressing the limitations of classical coverage criteria in this new context.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.

Builds on

21 of 41 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
  4. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  5. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,628
  6. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
  7. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  8. 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 272
  9. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
  10. 2020Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Reviewcited by 174
  11. 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
  12. 2022Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 133
9 more
  1. 2024Bugs in Large Language Models Generated Code: An Empirical Studycited by 59
  2. 2024CoverUp: Effective High Coverage Test Generation for Pythoncited by 36
  3. 2015On the "Naturalness" of Buggy Codecited by 35
  4. 2025Vibe Coding in Practice: Motivations, Challenges, and a Future Outlook -- a Grey Literature Reviewcited by 28
  5. 2018Semantically Enhanced Software Traceability Using Deep Learning Techniquescited by 22
  6. 2025Spotlight Your Instructions: Instruction-following with Dynamic Attention Steeringcited by 18
  7. 2024Evaluation of large language models for assessing code maintainabilitycited by 5
  8. 2024Toward Automated Validation of Language Model Synthesized Test Cases using Semantic Entropycited by 3
  9. 2026How well LLM-based test generation techniques perform with newer LLM versions?cited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.