Hybrid-reasoning large language models (LLMs) expose explicit controls over reasoning effort, allowing users or systems to trade off answer quality against inference cost. However, existing methods for adaptive thinking-mode selection are typically evaluated under different models, datasets, and implementation assumptions, making it difficult to compare their practical behavior. We introduce HRBench, a unified evaluation framework for studying thinking-mode switching in hybrid-reasoning LLMs. HRBench organizes the design space along two axes: three switching strategy families, prompt-based selection, external routing, and speculative execution, and four training regimes, training-free, SFT, offline and online RL, yielding 12 controlled evaluation settings. We evaluate these settings across 6 LLMs, from Qwen3.5-2B to Kimi-K2.5-1.1T, and 5 reasoning benchmarks covering mathematics, science, and code, while reimplementing 12+ representative prior methods within the same pipeline. Our analysis characterizes how different switching strategies occupy distinct effectiveness-efficiency trade-off regions: prompt-based methods often provide favorable token-accuracy trade-offs, routing methods offer more stable cost reduction, and speculative methods tend to improve accuracy at higher token cost. We further find that training affects strategies differently, and that the preferred strategy varies with model scale and task domain. HRBench provides reference implementations and a unified evaluation platform to support more controlled research on efficient reasoning in hybrid-reasoning LLMs. Our data, code and repository are available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/HRBench.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) often follow a fixed Think-then-Answer paradigm, which is inefficient in heterogeneous multitask settings because simple inputs may not require explicit reasoning while difficult ones can benefit substantially from it. Learning when to think is also unstable during post-training, where imbalanced rollouts can drive the model toward always-thinking or always-direct behavior. We propose Switch-Reasoner, a GRPO-based framework that learns to adaptively select reasoning modes for MLLMs. It treats thinking as a virtual tool invocation and allows the model to either answer directly or invoke explicit reasoning before answering. To stabilize this decision, we introduce a dual-level regulation mechanism that balances the overall use of Thinking Mode and Direct Mode while providing sample-level supervision based on the relative benefit of the two choices. Experiments on 11 multimodal tasks show that Switch-Reasoner reduces unnecessary reasoning while maintaining strong performance, achieving a better accuracy-efficiency trade-off.
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on complex tasks but exhibit systematic inefficiency: they often overthink easy problems and underthink hard ones. Existing approaches based on uniform length penalties or rigid routing incur an efficiency tax, trading reduced computation on easy instances for accuracy loss on hard instances. We formulate efficient reasoning as an instance-adaptive computation allocation problem and propose When2Think, a post-training framework for hybrid reasoning that dynamically allocates computation based on problem difficulty. Our method introduces Instance-level Difficulty-Aware Control (IDAC), a reward-shaping mechanism that leverages pre-computed reference statistics (accuracy and token usage) to regulate reasoning depth. Combined with verifier-based rewards and batch-wise standardized advantages, IDAC enables stable critic-free optimization without learned reward models or online reference-model queries. When2Think encourages direct answering on easy instances while preserving extended reasoning on hard instances, thereby learning when to use System 1 (NoThink) versus System 2 (Think). Experiments on mathematical benchmarks demonstrate improved accuracy-efficiency trade-offs: on AIME24, Pass@3 increases by 10.0% while token usage is reduced by 27.9% relative to the base model, and on AIME25, When2Think achieves 40.0% Pass@3, outperforming compression and routing-only baselines.
Reasoning in large language models is often discussed as a single capability, but some of its gains may stem from simpler underlying operations. We examine two such primitives, recall and state-tracking, through five controlled task families centered on state-based recall, and compare matched transformer and hybrid architectures with and without reasoning augmentation. Across the suite, reasoning-augmented variants substantially outperform instruction-only variants, often by large margins. This pattern is consistent with the State over Tokens view: externalized reasoning traces help because they carry the intermediate state forward in token space. By contrast, hybrid inductive bias does not yield a uniform advantage in accuracy once reasoning tokens are available. When architectural differences do appear, they follow task structure: the hybrid Think model is more robust on strictly sequential chained updates, whereas the transformer Think model is more robust on flat multi-hop retrieval. We therefore cast the main contribution of this study as a descriptive account of what drives performance on state-based recall tasks: reasoning-token augmentation appears to be the dominant factor, while hybrid advantages are narrower, task-dependent, and potentially more about inference efficiency than overall capability. We also release the codebase and data required to reproduce these results.