IBM Using Complex Math To Manage Natural Disasters

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."

It won't save us

High-performance computing won't save us from idiots in high places, even during natural disasters. Case in point: Michael D. Brown [wikipedia.org], who was in charge of FEMA during the Hurricane Katrina ordeal. From the wikipedia article:

"...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

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."

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.

Re:It won't save us

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."

What's your guess? Blackwater, with black helicopters, in the forest? I'm going with Col. Mustard, with the candle-stick, in the grasslands.

Re:It won't save us

I hope that their algorithms could predict the 4 or 5 "wild"- fires in Southern California which are all started mysteriously

If there's enough money in it, I can predict a mysterious fire just about anywhere at any time.

complex math...

sqrt(-1) = natural disaster!

Re:complex math...

sqrt(-1) = natural disaster!

That's an imaginary natural disaster

Re:

I hear the river is expected to crest at 5 + 3i feet over flood stage.

Government

Can they model government indifference to the people's plight?

Easy

if(contribution_of_lobbiests_impacted > 100000000)
do_something(); /* better respond to them */
else
ignore_poor_people(); /* who cares */

Re:Easy

PeopleWhoUseUnderscoresInTheirVariableAndFunctionNames = null; /* Okay, I'll get off your lawn. Sheesh. */

Re:

Why is P modded 'flamebait'? He asks a relevant question. The response of government officials may unfortunately be the biggest factor in calculating how to deal with a disaster.

Patents

Oh man, I just loved this: "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"

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...

Before everyone starts smarting at this thing 'predicting' natural disasters, please read the summary carefully (I know your not going to read the article). The math and system is designed to help deal with natural disasters that do happen (like optimizing your relief delivery path, plotting the best places to contain/fight a forest fire, etc etc). It is also used to evaluate how best, and how well current resources could be used in a natural disaster by predicting (yes, there is it, a prediction) most likely challenges, problems, scale and the like. I think it's useful.
<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.

Obligatory

I was told there would be no math...

Short Term FEMA Math...

Natural Disaster + Presidential Photo-Ops = Great PR!

"unforseen"?

From TFA: "to tackle unforeseen natural disasters"

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.

Hat. Old.

I used to do Delphi stuff (I know) for a firm of insurance actuaries. They were writing code for (essentially) predicting how long it would take to pay out for natural disasters. They had some very clever Stochastics in there, along with some nice triangulation/vector stuff too: I remember the names Bornhuetter and Ferguson (sadly it's been a long time and there's been the odd small sweet sherry since, so life isn't that clear recently).

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:

It's just occured to me that my comment above is a nearly a good example for the discussion (on here? maybe) the other day about the desirability of more complex algorithms, versus the greater and greater amounts of data available, when data mining. Any th

IBM Claiming Patent for 'Responding to Chaos'

And thanks to IBM, responding to a crisis of 9/11 or Katrina magnitude strikes may constitute patent infringement. Big Blue has a patent pending for Optimizing the Selection, Verification, and Deployment of Expert Resources in a Time of Chaos [uspto.gov], which covers responding to 'episodes of profound chaos during hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, solar flares, flooding, terrorism, war, and pandemics to name a few.' It's apparently this easy [flickr.com].

stupid

"'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.

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:Complex math?

Complex math? Aren't real numbers good enough for the job?

You need the imaginary axis to quantify FEMA's competency. :)

Re:

I repeat: RTFA. This so-called "complex math" is _not_ about imaginary numbers! It's about stochastic programming and _complex algorithms_ (i.e. complicated). Why don't you mod me up (for a change) so you people can get this straight.

"The idea is to use

Re:Complex math?

> That's "complex" as in "complicated" math

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.

Re:Quantifiable

...but we give too much power to machines they will start controlling our life.

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.

Re:

Want to know something REALLY funny about your comment? The reality is that what they are talking about is typically applied to financial modeling. Though part of the problem we have right now is that the quants ("really smart") guys screwed up the analysi