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."

Re:It won't save us

[Carnildo]

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:Quantifiable

[iminplaya]

...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.

Hat. Old.

[PJ The Womble]

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:I'm skeptical

[SerpentMage]

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 analysis and underdid the risk.

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 the financial industry and cracked up laughing when I saw "the science."

Re:stupid

[Lurker2288]

Why shame on them? They're not government, and they're not academics. They wouldn't be doing the research if there wasn't a way to make a buck off of it. If you don't want to shell out for their knowledge or their 'software assets,' then feel free to turn to one of the many other research groups who aren't working for a profit.