Frame the consequential question.
Clarify the decision, the estimand, and the evidence needed. Surface assumptions and choose a design that can support the intended claim.
I’m Masha, a Senior Scientist at Amazon. I build AI evaluation systems, design experiments and quasi-experimental studies, and develop the measurement and structural models that tell teams what a result means.
I stay hands-on in the research and lead the scientists and engineers around it: choosing defensible methods, setting validation standards, and turning evidence into decisions people can act on.
The question determines the method. Across AI evaluation, causal studies, measurement, and structural models, I ask what supports the conclusion, and what would change it.
Where does the model fail—and does the result generalize?
I build human-grounded evaluations, analyze where LLM judges and human raters disagree, and break errors down by category. I use regression checks to compare models and prompts, and I validate the reference data itself before trusting it.
A high aggregate agreement rate can hide a weak category. Agreement with human labels also does not establish that the labels capture the right thing.
What variation identifies the effect?
I design experiments and quasi-experimental studies around the causal question, the assignment process, and the available comparison. I assess identification, run diagnostics, quantify uncertainty, and show how results move under different assumptions.
A comparison group has to be credible for the question being asked. Similar pre-trends are a diagnostic; they do not establish the identifying assumption.
Are we measuring the intended construct?
My psychometrics training shapes how I design and validate measures. Before interpreting a change in a score, I check comparability, composition, and uncertainty.
When the mix of respondents changes, a score can move even if the underlying experience does not.
What assumptions support the counterfactual?
I use structural models to make assumptions about behavior explicit and to examine counterfactuals. I assess identification, fit, and sensitivity to establish what a model can and can’t tell us.
A model can fit observed behavior while supporting very different counterfactual predictions under alternative assumptions.
I work from the individual research problem to the standards a team can use.
I lead scientists and engineers, set the methodological and validation standards they work to, and work across disciplines with senior decision-makers. I stay close to the research while helping others frame questions and assess evidence.
Led eight scientists
and engineers
Methods and validation
across disciplines
AI evaluation, measurement
and intervention impact
Clarify the decision, the estimand, and the evidence needed. Surface assumptions and choose a design that can support the intended claim.
Make diagnostics, validation criteria, uncertainty reporting, and scientific review explicit enough to carry across projects and teams.
Communicate what is known, what remains uncertain, and which tradeoffs belong to the decision-maker. Help collaborators challenge the conclusion productively.
Treatment-effect heterogeneity, measurement quality, and the interpretation of evidence.
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 18(4): 854–877.
An average treatment effect can hide differences in how individual test items respond to an intervention. The paper examines what those differences mean for interpretation and uncertainty. For AI evaluation, this raises a related question: does an overall benchmark gain extend across the items that matter?
In Handbook of Experimental Development Economics, edited by U. Dasgupta and P. Maitra. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Before comparing results across settings, check what the tests measure, how reliably they measure it, and whether the scores are comparable. This chapter examines those questions for learning outcomes.
Psychological Assessment, 30(3): 328–338.
Response-time information can support shorter cognitive tests while preserving measurement precision. The study examines when incorporating that information into the model makes shorter forms possible.
I began in psychometrics, studied policy evaluation and statistics at Harvard, and worked on measurement and randomized experiments at MIT and J-PAL. At Amazon, my work spans causal inference, structural modeling, measurement, and AI evaluation.
These fields share questions I care about: what is identified, what is measured, what assumptions do the work, and how far a conclusion can travel.
I have also taught statistics, people analytics, and data science at Harvard and Harvard Business School.
Senior Scientist · Research Scientist
Measurement Fellow · Randomized evaluations
Ph.D., Policy Evaluation and Statistics
A.M., Statistics · Ed.M., Education
Psychometric research
For research conversations, collaborations, and professional opportunities, connect with me on LinkedIn.