arXiv:2610.21248v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep learning models have shown significant promise in code-related tasks. While confidence calibration techniques have been proposed to improve model reliability, their effectiveness in real-world tasks with strict accuracy requirements remains uncertain. In this paper, we investigate two key questions: first, whether existing measurement metrics, including confidence scores and uncertainty metrics, are effective for guiding selective prediction; and second, whether existing calibration techniques can improve these metrics to better identify cases where model predictions are likely to succeed or fail. We conduct a systematic study on defect prediction and vulnerability detection using seven code models, evaluating thirteen uncertainty signals and three widely used post-hoc calibration methods. Our analysis reveals three major findings: (1) even strong uncertainty signals can remain poorly calibrated and provide limited separation at the high-confidence end, constraining selective prediction in practice; (2) standard post-hoc calibrators often improve calibration scores but do not consistently translate into better selective prediction behavior; and (3) commonly used calibration metrics can disagree with selective prediction performance, underscoring the need to evaluate both jointly. Moreover, our findings motivate a decision-oriented view of reliability in deep code models, where calibrated scores must be evaluated together with selective-prediction quality and retained-region risk before they can support accept--defer deployment.