Machine learning models are widely used but can also often be wrong. Users would benefit from a reliable indication of whether a given output from a given model should be trusted, so a rational decision can be made whether to use the output or not. For example, outputs can be associated with a \emph{confidence measure}; if this confidence measure is strongly associated with \emph{likelihood of correctness}, then the model is said to be \emph{well-calibrated}.

In this case, the confidence measure can serve as a basis for rational graduated decision making on how much review and care is needed. \emph{Calibration} has so far been studied in mostly non-generative (\emph{e.g.}, classification) settings, especially in Software Engineering. However, generated code can quite often be wrong: Given generated code developers must decide whether to directly use, use after varying intensity of careful review, or discard model-generated code; thus calibration is vital in generative settings.

In this paper we make several contributions. We develop a framework for evaluating the calibration of code-generating models. We consider several tasks, correctness criteria, datasets, and approaches, and find that by and large generative code models are \textbf{\textit{\underline{not}}} well-calibrated out of the box. We then show how calibration can be improved, using standard methods such as Platt scaling. Since Platt scaling relies on the prior availability of correctness data, we evaluate the applicability and generalizability of Platt scaling in Software Engineering, discuss settings where it has good potential for practical use, and settings where it does not. Our contributions will lead to better-calibrated decision-making in the current use of code generated by language models, and offers a framework for future research to further improve calibration methods for generative models in Software Engineering.