Thesis
An early piece of work that still reflects how I think: start with something real, follow the deeper structure underneath it, and see what changes.
This was my undergraduate thesis at Princeton.
I still keep it here because it shows an early version of a pattern that has stayed with me: start from a real problem, get close to the system underneath it, and build a model that leads to better decisions. In this case, the problem was sustainable fishing. More broadly, it was an early exercise in thinking about incentives, tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and how better structure changes outcomes.
Thesis snapshot
Fishing Within the Limits: A Sustainable Fishing Model
Princeton University · June 2013
Advisor: Philippe Rigollet
This thesis explored a more complete model for fishery regulation. Instead of focusing only on the target species, it incorporated habitat damage and bycatch as part of the system. The goal was to maximize sustainable harvest while protecting the broader ecosystem over time.
Why I chose it
The starting point was personal.
My family spent years traveling to Alaska, and king salmon season on the Kenai River was always a big part of why and when we went. The thesis introduction captures that experience well: the ritual of getting on the water early, the physical intensity of fighting a king salmon, and the satisfaction of bringing one into the boat. Then it turns to a harder reality. King salmon fishing on the Kenai had been prohibited because the numbers were too low, and that decline carried environmental and financial consequences at the same time.
That combination pulled me in. Something that felt vivid and personal opened into a larger systems problem. A fishery is never just one fish. It is a population, a habitat, an industry, a regulatory structure, and a long-term sustainability question all interacting at once.
What stayed with me
What stayed with me is the instinct to follow the deeper structure.
The thesis took a broader view than traditional regulation by modeling the target species together with bycatch and habitat impact. That way of thinking still feels familiar to me now. The visible problem is usually only part of the story. The more important question is how the system is set up, what tradeoffs are being made, what constraints matter, and where better design can improve the outcome.
That thread carries directly into the work I do today. Different domain, same pull: understand the full system, make the tradeoffs explicit, and shape something that performs well over time.