Prompt Coverage Adequacy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02057v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:35:39 GMT
• Title: Prompt Coverage Adequacy
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) and autonomous agents raise the level of abstraction in software development.<n>This paradigm shift introduces new challenges in how testing should be guided when prompts, rather than code, become primary development artifacts.<n>We propose Prompt Coverage Adequacy, a novel coverage criterion designed to support the testing of code generated from task descriptions.
• Score: 10.326615143688482
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation [54.788849448970154]
  We introduce ClarifyCodeBench, a novel interactive benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models' capability in resolving requirement ambiguity.<n>We conduct a systematic evaluation of six state-of-the-art LLMs using ClarifyCodeBench.<n>Our empirical results yield three critical insights: 1) Capability Decoupling: Strong code generation performance does not inherently translate to effective requirement clarification; 2) The Reasoning Paradox: While increased computational thinking enhances code correctness, it yields marginal gains in identifying ambiguities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T09:58:59Z)
• Enhancing LLM-Based Test Generation by Eliminating Covered Code [2.2566909388480743]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in improving test generation.<n>We propose a scalable LLM-based unit test generation method.<n>Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based and search-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T15:16:43Z)
• Rethinking Testing for LLM Applications: Characteristics, Challenges, and a Lightweight Interaction Protocol [83.83217247686402]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved from simple text generators into complex software systems that integrate retrieval augmentation, tool invocation, and multi-turn interactions.<n>Their inherent non-determinism, dynamism, and context dependence pose fundamental challenges for quality assurance.<n>This paper decomposes LLM applications into a three-layer architecture: textbftextitSystem Shell Layer, textbftextitPrompt Orchestration Layer, and textbftextitLLM Inference Core.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T13:00:28Z)
• AetherCode: Evaluating LLMs' Ability to Win In Premier Programming Competitions [37.21656149034477]
  Competitive programming has emerged as a critical benchmark for evaluating the reasoning and coding capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We argue that current evaluations overstate model proficiency, masking a substantial gap between LLMs and elite human programmers.<n>We present AetherCode, a new benchmark that draws problems from premier programming competitions such as IOI and I CPC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T14:04:55Z)
• Uncovering Systematic Failures of LLMs in Verifying Code Against Natural Language Specifications [0.6813925418351435]
  Large language models (LLMs) have become essential tools in software development, widely used for requirements engineering, code generation and review tasks.<n>In this paper, we uncover a systematic failure of LLMs in evaluating whether code aligns with natural language requirements.<n>Our results reveal that LLMs frequently misclassify correct code implementations as either not satisfying requirements'' or containing potential defects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T13:07:26Z)
• MERA Code: A Unified Framework for Evaluating Code Generation Across Tasks [56.34018316319873]
  We propose MERA Code, a benchmark for evaluating code for the latest code generation LLMs in Russian.<n>This benchmark includes 11 evaluation tasks that span 8 programming languages.<n>We evaluate open LLMs and frontier API models, analyzing their limitations in terms of practical coding tasks in non-English languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T14:31:33Z)
• AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarios [51.46347732659174]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities in real-world agentic applications.<n>AgentIF is the first benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM instruction following ability in agentic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T17:31:10Z)
• Tests as Prompt: A Test-Driven-Development Benchmark for LLM Code Generation [1.7268889851975326]
  We introduce WebApp1K, a novel benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in test-driven development (TDD) tasks.<n>Unlike traditional approaches relying on natural language prompts, our benchmark emphasizes the ability of LLMs to interpret and implement functionality directly from test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T23:47:12Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph [83.90988015005934]
  Uncertainty quantification is a key element of machine learning applications.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark that implements a collection of state-of-the-art UQ baselines.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical investigation of UQ and normalization techniques across eleven tasks, identifying the most effective approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T20:06:31Z)
• Advancing Code Coverage: Incorporating Program Analysis with Large Language Models [8.31978033489419]
  We propose TELPA, a novel technique to generate tests that can reach hard-to-cover branches.<n>Our experimental results on 27 open-source Python projects demonstrate that TELPA significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art SBST and LLM-based techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-07T14:08:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.