Within computing research, there are two spellings for an increasingly important term - dialogue and dialog. We analyze thousands of research papers to understand this "dialog(ue) debacle". Among publications in top venues that use "dialog(ue)" in the title or abstract, 72% use "dialogue", 24% use "dialog", and 5% use both in the same title and abstract. This split distribution is more common in Computing than any other academic discipline. We investigate trends over ~20 years of NLP/AI research, not finding clear evidence of a shift over time. Author nationality is weakly correlated with spelling choice, but far from explains the mixed use. Many prolific authors publish papers with both spellings. We use several methods (such as syntactic parses and LM embeddings) to study how dialog(ue) context influences spelling, finding limited influence. Combining these results together, we discuss different theories that might explain the dialog(ue) divergence.

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 confidence measure; if this confidence measure is strongly associated with likelihood of correctness, then the model is said to be well-calibrated. In this case, for example, high-confidence outputs could be safely accepted, and low-confidence outputs rejected. Calibration has so far been studied in non-generative (e.g., classification) settings, especially in Software Engineering. However, generated code can quite often be wrong: Developers need to know when they should e.g., directly use, use after careful review, or discard model-generated code; thus Calibration is vital in generative settings. However, the notion of correctness of generated code is non-trivial, and thus so is Calibration. 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 not well-calibrated out of the box. We then show how Calibration can be improved, using standard methods such as Platt scaling. 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.