← All speakers

Bio, Work & Ideas

Samridhi Vaid

Conference affiliation: Towards AI · 2026

On this page

Samridhi Vaid is a machine learning engineer specializing in healthcare AI, agentic systems, and the practical economics of deploying language models. She is first author of research on Berta AI Scribe, an open-source clinical documentation system used by 198 emergency physicians across 105 Alberta facilities.

From software engineering to clinical AI

Vaid began her career at Samsung Research & Development Institute, working on television automation and conformance testing from 2019 to 2021. She subsequently completed a computer science master’s degree at the University of Alberta in 2023, researching Quality-Diversity Transfer Learning for medical prediction problems with limited training data. Earlier projects included retail footfall analysis and medical predictive modeling.

She has worked with the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry since 2023 and Alberta Health Services since 2025, developing language-model applications and evaluation pipelines for clinical summaries. She has also advised startups through the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, mentored AI4Good Lab participants, and contributed to Towards AI as a machine learning engineer, consultant, and technical writer.

Her principal healthcare project, Berta, combines speech recognition and language models to convert physician-patient conversations into clinical notes while keeping sensitive data within secure health-system infrastructure. Research she led documented more than 22,000 clinical sessions between November 2024 and July 2025, with operating costs below $30 per physician each month.

Engineering ideas and contributions

  • Make research agents inspectable. Vaid’s deep research agent architecture separates an agent’s reasoning from MCP-hosted search, video-analysis, and report-compilation tools. Intermediate results remain available for verification and debugging, while progressive disclosure for agent skills loads detailed instructions only when a task requires them.
  • Test whether compaction actually reduces costs. Working on the Towards AI open-source tutor, Vaid found that prompt caching versus context compaction can reverse conventional optimization assumptions: retaining complete conversations preserved more information and sometimes cost less because cached tokens were discounted, while summarization introduced fresh tokens and discarded useful details.
  • Match retrieval to deployment constraints. Her context-engineering experiments distinguished cloud models, where cached conversation histories can remain economical, from local systems constrained by smaller context windows. She favors hybrid semantic and keyword retrieval when precise facts disappear in dense-search results, combining semantic matching with BM25.

Vaid also co-authored an analysis of autonomous research agents with Louis Bouchard and Ben Lorica, examining systems that investigate complex questions, assemble cited answers, and retain human oversight.

Read the topics behind these talks

2 conference talks

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

Combine exploratory research, file-based handoffs, structured editorial feedback, and a calibrated judge to turn a human brief into technical content you can inspect and improve.

  • Why a fluent post still needs research and editing
    0:32 ↗
  • Choose how much autonomy the task needs
    6:09 ↗
  • Keep coupled decisions in one agent
    13:15 ↗
  • Treat context as a budget
    16:15 ↗
  • Research broadly enough, then hand off a focused artifact
    20:22 ↗
  • Start with a human guideline and reusable services
    28:26 ↗
  • Separate the reasoning harness from the MCP server
    34:41 ↗
  • Make each research call inspectable
    40:06 ↗
  • Turn a video into a durable research artifact
    44:35 ↗
  • Connect the server and test one capability
    49:15 ↗
  • Use skills to load the research procedure
    56:14 ↗
  • Inspect the searches as well as the final report
    1:07:26 ↗
  • Build the writer’s context deliberately
    1:10:57 ↗
  • Teach the voice with representative examples
    1:19:10 ↗
  • Review in a separate context and return actionable feedback
    1:21:37 ↗
  • Run locally, then decide how to distribute the capability
    1:28:13 ↗
  • Follow the work through threads and traces
    1:33:06 ↗
  • Build evaluation data from the real writer
    1:37:00 ↗
  • Calibrate the judge against expert labels
    1:42:12 ↗
  • Read perfect scores in the context of their dataset
    1:46:37 ↗
  • New traces expose what the small evaluation missed
    1:53:05 ↗
  • Run the complete path from guideline to post
    1:55:00 ↗

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

An AI tutor’s compaction experiments show how cached history, retrieval, and hardware limits change what belongs in the context window—and when removing it becomes necessary.

  • The instruction was there. Why did the agent ignore it?
    0:34 ↗
  • One window, several kinds of context
    5:14 ↗
  • Start with inexpensive compaction
    8:51 ↗
  • Keep the source outside the window
    11:55 ↗
  • A shorter prompt can cost more
    15:32 ↗
  • Choose what changes, then measure it
    18:55 ↗
  • One agent, middleware, and two tools
    21:56 ↗
  • Retrieve a few useful chunks from a large corpus
    24:43 ↗
  • Give browsing a bounded filesystem
    27:07 ↗
  • Turn an intuitive configuration into an observable system
    32:17 ↗
  • Test answers, retained facts, and whether the policy ran
    36:23 ↗
  • Full history beats the initial defaults
    42:25 ↗
  • Cheaper cached inference preserves the same advantage
    47:10 ↗
  • Long-context recall and service cost are different questions
    53:24 ↗
  • Caching cannot make an oversized input fit
    55:36 ↗
  • Combine semantic retrieval with keyword search
    58:31 ↗
  • Name the constraint before choosing compaction
    1:00:33 ↗

References