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."

Government

[boris111]

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

Patents

[LeoDavinci578]

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!

Re:Government

[Harmonious Botch]

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.

Re:It won't save us

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it's a coincidence that this news came just a couple days after the EPA announced it was banning IBM from bidding on future contracts.

"Hey, look at what our scientists are coming up with using advanced supercomputer models to forecast hurricanes, forest fires, and climate change! Here are the predictions for the rest of 2008, 2009, 2010..." (holds printouts close to face) "...wow, these are potentially devastating consequences for the ol' USA unless our government leaders are unusually skillful and courageous...."

Monte Carlo

[alexhard]

From what I could gather from the summary, this sounds like a glorified Monte Carlo simulation, not exactly something newsworthy..

Re:Hat. Old.

[PJ The Womble]

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 thoughts?

stupid

[nguy]

"'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:What about man mande disasters?

[Chmcginn]

It's not about predicting the disasters per se, but about modeling the best way to respond to the disasters.

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.

Re:It won't save us

[Lurker2288]

What you say may be true, but I can't help but think of Nassim Nicholas Taleb and his black swans. He would argue that while your wild fires might fit the existing statistical models, a REAL disaster, the kind with the potential to really knock the country on its ass, would be essentially impossible to predict. I'm not sure I entirely buy into his thinking, but you have to admit, it's usually the unexpected stuff that produces the greatest impact.