Hierarchical Optimization for Financial Planning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Financial institutions face challenges in efficiently optimizing complex, non-linear objectives with multiple variables and constraints, such as minimizing tax liability and maximizing retirement contributions, due to the computational intensity and rigidity of existing systems, which often require significant processing resources and time, and are not capable of handling multiple sub-objectives or combinations of objectives effectively.

Innovation Solution

A hierarchical optimization method and system that processes objectives sequentially and iteratively, determining an ordered set of stages, updating fixed inputs with variable inputs from previous stages, and using optimizers to calculate optimal values, reducing the search space and computational resources needed to generate results efficiently.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If non-linear computations are used to solve complex financial objectives with multiple variables and constraints, then the accuracy of optimization results is improved, but the computing resources consumed and time required increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoptimization accuracyVSAvoidcomputing resources
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the optimization process into multiple stages, where each stage optimizes a subset of variables rather than all variables simultaneously. This segmentation reduces the computational complexity of each individual optimization step while maintaining overall optimization accuracy through iterative refinement across stages.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies preliminary action by performing initial optimizations on variable subsets before combining results. The system pre-processes the optimization problem by dividing it into manageable stages, establishing initial solutions that are then refined iteratively, reducing the total computational burden compared to solving the complete problem in one step.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Device complexity

If existing hard-coded systems are used for specific objectives, then the system structure is simplified, but the adaptability to handle different combinations of customer objectives is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem structureVSAvoidobjective combination flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements universality by creating a system that can handle multiple different objective combinations through a common framework. The optimization system is designed to accept various objective functions and constraints dynamically, allowing it to adapt to different customer needs (tax minimization, retirement optimization, etc.) without requiring separate hard-coded systems for each scenario.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies dynamics by making the system configuration flexible and adjustable. Rather than hard-coding specific objectives, the system dynamically adapts to different objective combinations by receiving user-defined parameters and configuring the optimization process accordingly, enabling both simplicity and versatility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Reliability

If existing optimizers are used to optimize non-linear mathematical expressions, then the optimization capability is provided, but the time required exceeds feasible limits for practical scenarios

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoptimization capabilityVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the variable set into multiple subsets that are optimized in separate stages. Each stage optimizes a portion of the variables while holding others fixed, dramatically reducing the computational time required for each optimization step compared to optimizing all variables simultaneously, while still achieving reliable results through iterative refinement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by optimizing variable subsets iteratively rather than attempting to optimize all variables to perfect precision in a single step. The system achieves sufficient optimization accuracy through multiple passes over variable subsets, reducing total processing time while maintaining reliable results.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS11308431B2Hierarchical optimization for processing objectives sequentially and/or iteratively
Publication Date: 2022.04.19 INTUIT INC
  • US11308431B2 patent drawing
  • US11308431B2 patent drawing
  • US11308431B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for hierarchical optimization including: receiving a request to optimize a primary objective; determining a set of stages to optimize the primary objective; for each respective stage of the set of stages: determining an objective function; when the respective stage is the first stage to be processed: determining values of a set of variable inputs to the respective stage and an output of the objective function; when the respective stage is not the first stage: updating a set of fixed inputs to the respective stage by including the variable inputs to one or more previously processed stages and their corresponding values to the set of fixed inputs to the respective stage; determining values of the set of variable inputs to the respective stage and output of the objective function for the respective stage; providing a final output for display on a display device.