Modern deep models for summarization attains impressive benchmark performance, but they are prone to generating miscalibrated predictive uncertainty. This means that they assign high confidence to low-quality predictions, leading to compromised reliability and trustworthiness in real-world applications. Probabilistic deep learning methods are common solutions to the miscalibration problem. However, their relative effectiveness in complex autoregressive summarization tasks are not well-understood. In this work, we thoroughly investigate different state-of-the-art probabilistic methods’ effectiveness in improving the uncertainty quality of the neural summarization models, across three large-scale benchmarks with varying difficulty using our newly introduced evaluation protocol. We show that the probabilistic methods consistently improve the model’s generation and uncertainty quality, leading to improved selective generation performance (i.e., abstaining from low-quality summaries) in practice. We also reveal notable failure patterns of probabilistic methods widely-adopted in NLP community (e.g., Deep Ensemble and Monte Carlo Dropout), cautioning the importance of choosing appropriate method for the data setting.