Talk:Katie Bouman

CHIRP

I know that Bourman created Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction using Patch priors (CHIRP) c. 2016 to potentially create images of black holes. I also know that Bourman led the creation of the algorithm that allowed for the image of the black hole to be taken. However, has there been any recent confirmation that CHIRP was indeed the program that was used to capture this image? Also, are there images (either of Bourman or of the black hole in M87) that can be used in this article? Starsandwhales (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

She did NOT create CHIRP. Better look it up, e.g. in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirp ).--Rosember (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Sorry for my superficial contribution. The link is completely unrelated to Bouman's work. I was too fast while checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosember (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was more than one algorithm used and the image released was a composite of multiple algorithmically produced images. Bouman was a member of one of the imaging sub-teams. There were over 200 imaging team members. Not sure why so much focus is on Bouman for the black hole image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:A2E:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

My guess is, that as a young good looking woman she was much more attractive to the media (sex sells) than the ongoing reproduction of the one single low resolution photo of a black hole that was the only illustration of a scientific sensation. The article should be converted to highlight her as a media phenomenon rather than a leading contributor to the event horizon project (which she most probable wasn't IIRC the official presentation of the image).--Rosember (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This comment by Rosember on the media's perception of Dr. Bouman is unrelated to the integral content of the article currently marked as AfD. Please consider the core principles of Wikipedia set out in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion).Soyapencil (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There were 4 independent imagining teams, without data or results sharing between them. If her team didn't provide any results, the 3 other teams will still be in agreement. Possibly the CHIRP based approach provided higher resolution than others tho. I am still in a dark in terms of how biased the results of CHIRP are (she claims they are unbiased because of patch source randomization, and it can be measured), so can't tell if the higher resolution is actually really higher resolution. 81.6.34.246 (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

CHIRP appears to be an RML algorithm (Regularized Maximum Likelihood) that contrasts with CLEAN. Four imaging worked independently, two using RML methods, two using CLEAN methods. Andrew Chael also seems to be on the RML team with Bouman, not the CLEAN team.

The CHIRP algorithm has nothing to do with the Chirp wikipedia page linked here in talk. Jmckaskle (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The CHIRP algorithm has a clear citation path in the literature. Please see Bouman et al. (IEEE, 2016) Computational Imaging for VLBI Image Reconstruction for a detailed treatise and exposition of CHIRP used for VLBI. Soyapencil (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Father

Somewhere around "did imaging research with Purdue University professors.[2] She first learned about the Event Horizon Telescope in school in 2007", it might probably be worth mentioning that his father, Charles Addison Bouman, is working on image and signal processing as a professor in the very same uni. --Ehitaja (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? (And I presume you mean 'her' father) Da5nsy (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Da5nsy or if you want an article where they mention both him and his daughter. Or just google his name... it is not that hard to get this information.Garnhami (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

it's in the ref name="bangert" which I just added. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References

"Was the first person to see a visualization of a black hole." yup it's in ref name="bangert"

An anon disagrees. Let's see the exact words: Quotes from and links to twitter account of MIT CSAIL ‏ "Verified account

@MIT_CSAIL Follow Follow @MIT_CSAIL More Here's the moment when the first black hole image was processed, from the eyes of researcher Katie Bouman. #EHTBlackHole #BlackHoleDay #BlackHole (v/@dfbarajas)" and

"MIT CSAIL ‏ Verified account

@MIT_CSAIL Follow Follow @MIT_CSAIL More Scientist Katie Bouman just posted about the moment when "the first image I ever made of a black hole" was processed.

Just to clarify, this was the first image *ANYONE EVER MADE* of a black hole. #smalldetails http://bit.ly/2G3CUUo

1. EHTBlackHole #BlackHoleDay #BlackHole"

Both these include the same photo of Bouman sitting in front of the computer as the image is being processed. I suppose it could be argued that the photographer was the first person to see this stage of the black hole image, but that would be merely pedantic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All we've got from this photo is that the black hole image was in the process of being generated, or had finished being generated, when she posed for the camera. This doesn't tell us what happened before that, it doesn't confirm that when the image appeared she was the only person looking at it. If she was working in a shared lab with colleagues in the room, as the picture and presence of a photographer suggests, it's very hard to imagine that after working on this project for years, they weren't particularly interested in seeing the image as it was generated.

As a figure in a breaking news story, let's not add a compelling detail into the mix without a source that says it 100% clearly. --86.185.141.184 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit comment of the anon's 3rd reverts says "respectfully disagree about "first to see visualisation" if the source is just the photo captions, Wikipedia should not spread this compelling detail today without a source" No, it's not just in the photo captions. The text of the article says

Photos circulating on social media after Wednesday’s announcement referenced the hand-over-mouth incredulous look from Bouman, as she watched that first image come together. In her social media post, Bouman wrote, “Watching in disbelief as the first image I ever made of a black hole was in the process of being reconstructed.”
MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab posted in response: “Just to clarify, this was the first image *ANYONE EVER MADE* of a black hole. #small details.”

So the anon has almost proved that somebody else could have also watched as the photo was being processed. That's could have with no call out from MIT to them, no photo of them watching it, no actual proof that the processing was able to be viewed by others simultaneously, nobody who claims to have viewed it at the same time. BTW the mention of the 200 others who participated in the project was in the same sentence. Perhaps my argument here seems pedantic, but how else do you address the anon's pedantic comments.

I'll suggest that somebody else review the evidence in the article [1] and revert the anon. He can't revert again without going over WP:3RR. I only have 2RRs so could do it myself, but perhaps I'm too annoyed at his silly arguments to make a rational decision. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We've got three likely possibilities: she watched the image appear alone, she watched it appear alongside other members of her team (perhaps everyone's laptop was viewing the same feed), or someone else saw it appear first before sharing it with her. The source you're quoting here would fit all three situations.

It's a small detail, but with people cynically asking why Bouman alone seems to have been singled out for press attention, we shouldn't throw an exciting narrative tidbit into the mix (that she was the first human to see a black hole, and implicitly was in charge of generating the image and determining who saw its output) if it might not be true. --86.185.141.184 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

How important really was Katie Bouman in the black hole imaging? Wasn't there many people involved? Does she really deserve her own Wiki article?

WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She said it herself on Facebook: "I'm so excited that we finally get to share what we have been working on for the past year! The image shown today is the combination of images produced by multiple methods. No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all. — with Chi-kwan Chan, Shoko Koyama, Maciek Wielgus, Lindy Blackburn and Kazu Akiyama." https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213326021042929&set=a.10211451091290857&type=3&theater WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Also see this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/science/katie-bouman-black-hole.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0wz1BbUTNaGABTKgbUVglPemM_MS9U6ULMZienS62PQLCA6ilgFiUp7mQ should we nominate the page for speedy deletion? WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand how science works. Every major achievement takes an enormous team of collaborators to carry out. The LIGO collaboration that led to the discovery of gravitational waves included more than 1,000 scientists at 90 institutions If we used the criteria that in order to be noteworthy, a scientist would have to do all the work themselves, no scientists would have a Wikipedia page. Dr. Bouman's contribution was significant and the attention and praise she has received for those contributions puts her high in the ranks of a noteworthy scientist. Webmz (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"While she led the development of an algorithm to take a picture of a black hole, an effort that was the subject of a TED Talk she gave in 2016, her colleagues said that technique was not ultimately used to create this particular image." WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think this page is speedyable, you don't have a good understanding of WP:SPEEDY criteria. I'm confident it would easily survive an WP:AfD as well. As to the exact role of her contributions to the image, that's already being discussed above and the article can be adjusted to reflect consensus on that as necessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue at this point it doesn't even matter (from Wikipedia point of view) what her contributions are. She easily passes WP:NOTABILITY Coderzombie (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to us what she did. She could be the subject of media coverage for standing in one place for 3 days, and if she passes the WP:GNG, the article won't be deleted. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. The article presents no proof of any independent notability, or any accomplishments she is personally credited with. Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist. Otherwise this is a clear case of WP:1E. Therefore a redirect to Event Horizon Telescope is appropriate for now. Any relevant material can be mentioned there. --Tataral (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You can't just unilaterally redirect a page that's being actively edited by many people. Natureium (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is pertinent to state again, that while Bouman's computer science work helped in this discovery, as they were trying different algorithms, her personal work was not used to create the famous image. This is an overt inaccuracy currently on the wikipedia page, as its stating that she specifically created the photo. "In their eagerness to celebrate her, however, many nonscientists on social media overstated her role in what was a group effort by hundreds of people, creating an exaggerated impression as the photo was shared and reshared." 174.54.4.54 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of Academic Position

Tataral insists that the title of Bouman's position (Associate in Computing and Mathematical Sciences) should not be capitalized. In customary U.S. usage, the title of a specific position occupied by a given person would be capitalized when placed adjacent to their name. Also, Caltech's website capitalizes it on Bouman's individual page. Tataral cites to Wikipedia guidelines in their reversion note, but I find no authority for this particular change after reading those guidelines carefully. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Try here. Natureium (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)