These proceedings include the Late-Breaking Abstracts accepted for the Evo* 2025 Conference, hosted in Trieste (Italy), from April 23th to 25th. These extended abstracts were presented through short talks at the conference, providing an overview of ongoing research and initial results on the application of diverse Evolutionary Computation strategies and other Nature-Inspired methodologies to practical problem domains. Collectively, these contributions point to encouraging directions for future work, underscoring the potential of nature-inspired approaches-- especially Evolutionary Algorithms -- for advancing research and enabling new applications.

Assessing fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) typically involves AI experts who select protected features, fairness metrics, and set fairness thresholds. However, little is known about how stakeholders, particularly those affected by AI outcomes but lacking AI expertise, assess fairness. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 30 stakeholders without AI expertise, representing potential decision subjects in a credit rating scenario, to examine how they assess fairness when placed in the role of deciding on features with priority, metrics, and thresholds. We reveal that stakeholders' fairness decisions are more complex than typical AI expert practices: they considered features far beyond legally protected features, tailored metrics for specific contexts, set diverse yet stricter fairness thresholds, and even preferred designing customized fairness. Our results extend the understanding of how stakeholders can meaningfully contribute to AI fairness governance and mitigation, underscoring the importance of incorporating stakeholders' nuanced fairness judgments.

Recommender systems (RS), which are widely deployed across high-stakes domains, are susceptible to biases that can cause large-scale societal impacts. Researchers have proposed methods to measure and mitigate such biases -- but translating academic theory into practice is inherently challenging. RS practitioners must balance the competing interests of diverse stakeholders, including providers and users, and operate in dynamic environments. Through a semi-structured interview study (N=11), we map the RS practitioner workflow within large technology companies, focusing on how technical teams consider fairness internally and in collaboration with other (legal, data, and fairness) teams. We identify key challenges to incorporating fairness into existing RS workflows: defining fairness in RS contexts, particularly when navigating multi-stakeholder and dynamic fairness considerations. We also identify key organization-wide challenges: making time for fairness work and facilitating cross-team communication. Finally, we offer actionable recommendations for the RS community, including HCI researchers and practitioners.

Participatory AI, in which impacted community members and other stakeholders are involved in the design and development of AI systems, holds promise as a way to ensure AI is developed to meet their needs and reflect their values. However, the process of identifying, reaching out, and engaging with all relevant stakeholder groups, which we refer to as recruitment methodology, is still a practical challenge in AI projects striving to adopt participatory practices. In this paper, we investigate the challenges that researchers face when designing and executing recruitment methodology for Participatory AI projects, and the implications of current recruitment practice for Participatory AI. First, we describe the recruitment methodologies used in AI projects using a corpus of 37 projects to capture the diversity of practices in the field and perform an initial analysis on the documentation of recruitment practices, as well as specific strategies that researchers use to meet goals of equity and empowerment. To complement this analysis, we interview five AI researchers to learn about the outcomes of recruitment methodologies. We find that these outcomes are shaped by structural conditions of their work, researchers' own goals and expectations, and the relationships built from the recruitment methodology and subsequent collaboration. Based on these analyses, we provide recommendations for designing and executing relationship-forward recruitment methods, as well as reflexive recruitment documentation practices for Participatory AI researchers.

While gender bias in large language models (LLMs) has been extensively studied in many domains, uses of LLMs in e-commerce remain largely unexamined and may reveal novel forms of algorithmic bias and harm. Our work investigates this space, developing data-driven taxonomic categories of gender bias in the context of product description generation, which we situate with respect to existing general purpose harms taxonomies. We illustrate how AI-generated product descriptions can uniquely surface gender biases in ways that require specialized detection and mitigation approaches. Further, we quantitatively analyze issues corresponding to our taxonomic categories in two models used for this task -- GPT-3.5 and an e-commerce-specific LLM -- demonstrating that these forms of bias commonly occur in practice. Our results illuminate unique, under-explored dimensions of gender bias, such as assumptions about clothing size, stereotypical bias in which features of a product are advertised, and differences in the use of persuasive language. These insights contribute to our understanding of three types of AI harms identified by current frameworks: exclusionary norms, stereotyping, and performance disparities, particularly for the context of e-commerce.

Fairness in federated learning has emerged as a rapidly growing area of research, with numerous works proposing formal definitions and algorithmic interventions. Yet, despite this technical progress, fairness in FL is often defined and evaluated in ways that abstract away from the sociotechnical contexts in which these systems are deployed. In this paper, we argue that existing approaches tend to optimize narrow system level metrics, such as performance parity or contribution-based rewards, while overlooking how harms arise throughout the FL lifecycle and how they impact diverse stakeholders. We support this claim through a critical analysis of the literature, based on a systematic annotation of papers for their fairness definitions, design decisions, evaluation practices, and motivating use cases. Our analysis reveals five recurring pitfalls: 1) fairness framed solely through the lens of server client architecture, 2) a mismatch between simulations and motivating use-cases and contexts, 3) definitions that conflate protecting the system with protecting its users, 4) interventions that target isolated stages of the lifecycle while neglecting upstream and downstream effects, 5) and a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment where multiple fairness definitions can be relevant at once. Building on these insights, we propose a harm centered framework that links fairness definitions to concrete risks and stakeholder vulnerabilities. We conclude with recommendations for more holistic, context-aware, and accountable fairness research in FL.

The proliferation of LLM bias probes introduces three significant challenges: (1) we lack principled criteria for choosing appropriate probes, (2) we lack a system for reconciling conflicting results across probes, and (3) we lack formal frameworks for reasoning about when (and why) probe results will generalize to real user behavior. We address these challenges by systematizing LLM social bias probing using actionable insights from social sciences. We then introduce EcoLevels - a framework that helps (a) determine appropriate bias probes, (b) reconcile conflicting findings across probes, and (c) generate predictions about bias generalization. Overall, we ground our analysis in social science research because many LLM probes are direct applications of human probes, and these fields have faced similar challenges when studying social bias in humans. Based on our work, we suggest how the next generation of LLM bias probing can (and should) benefit from decades of social science research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on various benchmarks, yet their ability to engage in deliberate reasoning remains questionable. We present NYT-Connections, a collection of 358 simple word classification puzzles derived from the New York Times Connections game. This benchmark is designed to penalize quick, intuitive "System 1" thinking, isolating fundamental reasoning skills. We evaluated six recent LLMs, a simple machine learning heuristic, and humans across three configurations: single-attempt, multiple attempts without hints, and multiple attempts with contextual hints. Our findings reveal a significant performance gap: even top-performing LLMs like GPT-4 fall short of human performance by nearly 30%. Notably, advanced prompting techniques such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency show diminishing returns as task difficulty increases. NYT-Connections uniquely combines linguistic isolation, resistance to intuitive shortcuts, and regular updates to mitigate data leakage, offering a novel tool for assessing LLM reasoning capabilities.

Natural language question answering (QA) over structured data sources such as tables and knowledge graphs (KGs) have been widely investigated, for example with Large Language Models (LLMs). The main solutions include question to formal query parsing and retrieval-based answer generation. However, current methods of the former often suffer from weak generalization, failing to dealing with multiple sources simultaneously, while the later is limited in trustfulness. In this paper, we propose UnifiedTQA, a trustful QA framework that can simultaneously support multiple types of structured data in a unified way. To this end, it adopts an LLM-friendly and unified knowledge representation method called Condition Graph (CG), and uses an LLM and demonstration-based two-level method for CG querying. For enhancement, it is also equipped with dynamic demonstration retrieval. We have evaluated UnifiedTQA with 5 benchmarks covering 3 types of structured data. It outperforms 2 existing unified structured data QA methods and in comparison with the baselines that are specific to a data type, it achieves state-of-the-art on 2 of them. Further more, we demonstrates potential of our method for more general QA tasks, QA over mixed structured data and QA across structured data.

Table Question Answering (TQA) aims at composing an answer to a question based on tabular data. While prior research has shown that TQA models lack robustness, understanding the underlying cause and nature of this issue remains predominantly unclear, posing a significant obstacle to the development of robust TQA systems. In this paper, we formalize three major desiderata for a fine-grained evaluation of robustness of TQA systems. They should (i) answer questions regardless of alterations in table structure, (ii) base their responses on the content of relevant cells rather than on biases, and (iii) demonstrate robust numerical reasoning capabilities. To investigate these aspects, we create and publish a novel TQA evaluation benchmark in English. Our extensive experimental analysis reveals that none of the examined state-of-the-art TQA systems consistently excels in these three aspects. Our benchmark is a crucial instrument for monitoring the behavior of TQA systems and paves the way for the development of robust TQA systems. We release our benchmark publicly.