Slashdot Log In
IBM Using Complex Math To Manage Natural Disasters
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu Apr 03, 2008 06:59 PM
from the stopping-a-flood-with-natural-logs dept.
from the stopping-a-flood-with-natural-logs dept.
coondoggie brings us a NetworkWorld story about IBM's efforts to use complex algorithms to manage responses to natural disasters. Researchers are making use of recent increases in processor speed and algorithm efficiency to develop a scalable, flexible model capable of handling the complicated planning involved in reacting to a crisis. Quoting:
"'We are creating a set of intellectual properties and software assets that can be employed to gauge and improve levels of preparedness to tackle unforeseen natural disasters,' says Dr. Gyana Parija. 'Most real-world problems involve uncertainty, and this has been the inspiration for us to tackle challenges in natural disaster management.' In the case of flooding, for example, the stochastic programming model would use various flood scenarios, resource supply capabilities at different dispatch locations, and fixed and variable costs associated with deployment of various flood-management resources to manage various risk measures. By assigning probabilities to the factors driving outcomes, the model outlines how limited resources can meet tomorrow's unknown demands or liabilities. In this way, the risks and rewards of various tradeoffs can be explored, IBM said."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It won't save us (Score:5, Informative)
"...Some members interviewed felt Brown showed an imperious attitude, and nicknamed him 'The Czar'."
Heckuva job, Brownie! More optimistically, I hope that their algorithms could predict the 4 or 5 "wild"- fires in Southern California which are all started mysteriously(on the same day) "in season."
Re:It won't save us (Score:5, Interesting)
Shouldn't be too hard. One of the things they discovered while studying line noise in telephone circuits is that the cause of the noise doesn't matter: it could be induction from nearby motors, bad connections influenced by the wind, or short-circuits triggered by someone dropping a screwdriver -- it all fits into the statistical patterns. In the case of fires, it doesn't matter if it's lightning, arson, or volcanic eruption, the pattens still hold.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It won't save us (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It won't save us (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The algorithms aren't designed to predict disasters, but to manage the response to disasters in progress. (Which isn't actually very easy.)
complex math... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:complex math... (Score:5, Funny)
That's an imaginary natural disaster
Parent
Re:complex math / Oblig. XKCD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
if(contribution_of_lobbiests_impacted > 100000000)
do_something();
else
ignore_poor_people();
Parent
Re:Easy (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
At least... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, while I know it's somewhat rude make an issue of sigs, you are aware that actual children are harmed in the making of child pornography, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: "The model allows all unforeseen challenges to be solved..."
I hardly think that the government's indifference could be, ahem, classified as an unforeseen challenge.
Though I suppose, if the problem is foreseen, it could also probably be dealt with as well.
Complex math? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Complex math? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The idea is to use high-level math techniques, which IBM calls Stochastic programming, to help speed up and simplify complex tasks "
Re:Complex math? (Score:5, Informative)
In mathematics, "complex" does not mean complicated any more than "proper" means correct or "rational" means sane or "group" means any old gathering or collection. These words have very specific meanings in mathematics, and using them for their general-English meaning, in the context of math, is at best confusing and at worst outright misleading.
You can talk about a "complex algorithm", and people will generally understand you mean a complicated one, because the word "algorithm" lends more of a computer-science context. You can say "complex way of doing things" and convey the idea of complicatedness, because "way of doing things" is sufficiently general that it doesn't really imply any particular context at all. But saying "complex math" very much conveys the idea of the use of complex numbers (i.e., numbers with a real part and an imaginary part, either or neither or both of which may be zero for any given number) because the word "math" strongly implies a mathematics context and draws the math-jargon sense of the word "complex" to the forefront. Only someone who doesn't *know* what the word "complex" means in mathematics would think of any other meaning.
It's like saying "hedge fund" and expecting people to get the idea that you're collecting money for shrubberies. Only someone with no idea what a hedge fund is would get that impression.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Awesome, now they get to patent how to respond to natural disasters so that no one else can innovate... another victory for our wonderful patent process!
before the flood of replies... (Score:5, Informative)
<p>
The new thing with this apparently is that they're using a new mathematical model that previously was too computationally expensive to do on a large scale. Computers are powerful enough to use these models now.
Quantifiable (Score:2)
I don't mean to sound like a stereotypical paranoid geek, but we give too much power to machines they will start controlling our life.
Re:Quantifiable (Score:4, Interesting)
You get either a machine or a bureaucrat. Take your choice. At least with a machine, you can turn it off. Just try to get rid of an incompetent bureaucrat or crooked politician who appoints him.
Parent
How would you rather choose? (Score:2)
It something like triaging patients in a mass casualty - in the case of limited resources and nearly unlimited casualties, you spend the doctors & nurses time where it will do the most good. Saving a 5 year old with massive head trauma may make you feel all warm and fu
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Intellectual Properties (Score:2, Funny)
You may be infringing on a patent...
Short Term FEMA Math... (Score:3, Funny)
"unforseen"? (Score:4, Funny)
But then it goes on to talk about mostly foreseeable natural disasters. If you live on a flood plain or a low-lying coastal area subject to hurricanes, you're going to get flooded. In an earthquake zone you're going to get earthquakes. Lot of vegetation in an area that has dry spells, fires. And so on.
Legitimately unforeseen natural disasters would be things like a comet impact [imdb.com], volcanoes erupting in downtown LA [imdb.com], or perhaps alien invasion [imdb.com]. Oh wait, that last would be an unnatural disaster, wouldn't it? But come to think of it, the ones I just mentioned have all been foreseen too.
I guess I just don't foresee a need for this software. Maybe they should work on software for foreseeable disasters.
Monte Carlo (Score:2, Insightful)
Hat. Old. (Score:4, Interesting)
What I do remember though, is that I mentioned to my superiors that a case-based reasoning engine would take a lot of the (non-discrete) math out of the whole thing. Because things happen and we learn from them. Has the nature of nature changed, or was I wrong in the first place?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$Millions for IBM, $0 for New Orleans (Score:2)
IBM Claiming Patent for 'Responding to Chaos' (Score:3, Informative)
Stochastic programming? (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, it took LOTS of data.
But, once you entered the data, you could tell the system "I want 99.999% uptime" and it would give you the most cost efficient way to buy and store the parts needed. Or you could start with a budget and find out what sort of availability you could afford. Depending on the size of the operation and criticality of the availability you could save a lot of money or really help with availability.
It sounds like this software does something similar. In the spares optimization, you don't know which airport your plane will be at when it's engine needs replacing. In the disaster scenario, you don't know where the disaster will strike. In the first case, you're optimizing spare part allocation. In the second you're optimizing recovery supplies and equipment. Either way you get the best probabilities you can and optimize the best you can.
Yeah, I know. I read the article. AND posted an on-topic, very un-funny comment. I must be new here. Well, this user ID is new, at least.
stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Many research groups are working on simulation and prediction of behavior, natural disasters, preparedness, etc. But the first words out of an IBM researcher's mouth are "intellectual properties and software assets".
Shame on you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
WHAT'S THAT SMELL? (Score:2)
We are in the midst of failure of such analysis... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus the reason why they are with IBM doing analysis using stochastic modeling is because they failed in the financial industry. They did not improve returns and thus needed another industry that they could tap for money.
I work in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, it's concerned with how you get drinking water to the Superdome long enough to get everyone out; it's not concerned with determining where the hurricane lands to begin with.