In today’s economy, a significant portion of the workforce—including freelancers, gig workers, and small business owners—faces volatile income. Traditional budgeting methods fail to address the challenges these individuals face due to inconsistent cash flow.
Problem Statement
Conventional budgeting models like the 50/30/20 rule do not adapt to income variability, often leading to overspending or extreme frugality. A need exists for a dynamic, personalized budgeting solution that adjusts based on changing income levels.
Importance of the Study
Income volatility can cause financial instability, stress, and increased debt. Adaptive budgeting using Artificial Intelligence (AI) could help users better manage finances by predicting income trends and allocating funds accordingly.
Objectives
Examine limitations of traditional budgeting for variable income.
Develop an AI-based system using machine learning and reinforcement learning.
Evaluate its performance against conventional methods.
Address ethical concerns like data privacy and bias.
Propose enhancements and integrations with other tools.
Research Questions
The study explores how income fluctuations affect budgeting, whether AI can accurately predict income, the impact on financial outcomes, and associated ethical challenges.
Scope & Limitations
Focus is on urban individuals with irregular earnings. Constraints include geographic focus, data reliability, and cultural generalizability.
Literature Review
Traditional Budgeting: Works well for stable income but fails with irregular earnings.
Income Volatility: Affects budgeting behavior, leading to stress and poor savings.
Behavioral Finance: Psychological biases worsen under income unpredictability.
Adaptive Budgeting Systems: Some rule-based models exist but lack personalization and predictive power.
AI in Finance: LSTM models and reinforcement learning can improve forecasting and decision-making.
Ethics in AI: Concerns include data security, transparency, and fairness.
Methodology
Design: Mixed methods—quantitative data collection and machine learning; qualitative interviews and surveys.
Sample: 200 participants aged 21–45 in urban gig-based work.
Data Collection: Financial diary app for 12 months of income/expenses; surveys and interviews for insights.
Evaluation: Metrics included prediction error (RMSE, MAPE), budgeting effectiveness, and user satisfaction.
Ethics: Ensured participant consent, anonymization, and data security.
System Design
Components:
Data Input Module
Income Prediction Engine (LSTM)
Adaptive Budgeting Agent (DQN)
User Interface
Prediction Model: Uses income history, seasonality, profession, etc.
Budgeting Algorithm: Learns optimal fund allocation to maintain financial stability.
Interface Features: Budget updates, alerts, visualizations, and feedback.
Privacy: Secure APIs, data encryption, user control.
Findings
Income Prediction Accuracy: RMSE of 485, MAPE of 9.3%—acceptable performance.
Budgeting Results:
35% reduction in income-expenditure mismatch.
12% average increase in savings.
25% decrease in missed debt payments.
User Feedback:
85% found the system easy to use.
78% experienced reduced financial stress.
70% gained trust in AI budgeting after 3 months.
Case Studies: Users saw improved financial outcomes and budgeting consistency.
Statistical Significance: Improvements in savings and spending were statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Discussion & Implications
Findings Interpretation: AI systems outperformed traditional methods in managing volatile incomes.
Theoretical Impact: Bridges behavioral finance and AI; supports LSTM and RL as effective tools.
Practical Use: Fintech companies and advisors can adopt such systems; policymakers may promote them through incentives.
Ethical Concerns: Must address privacy, bias, and explainability to build trust.
Limitations: Urban focus, reliance on digital literacy, and inability to account for unexpected life events.
Future Research: Include macroeconomic data, expand to broader populations, and enhance user interfaces.
Conclusion
This study presented the development and evaluation of an AI-driven adaptive budgeting system tailored for individuals with volatile incomes. By combining LSTM-based income prediction with a reinforcement learning budgeting agent, the system demonstrated significant improvements in financial stability, savings rates, and debt management compared to traditional budgeting methods.
The findings underscore the transformative potential of AI in personal finance, especially for underserved segments such as freelancers and gig workers who face unpredictable earnings. The adaptive nature of the system allows users to make informed financial decisions despite income uncertainties, reducing stress and enhancing long-term financial well-being.
While challenges remain regarding data quality, ethical considerations, and system scalability, this research establishes a foundation for future advancements in intelligent financial planning tools.
References
[1] Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608.
[2] Federal Reserve Board. (2019). Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018 - May 2019. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2018.htm
[3] Gitman, L. J., & Joehnk, M. D. (2018). Personal Financial Planning (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
[4] Hochreiter, S., &Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8), 1735-1780.
[5] Johnson, K., & Ward, T. (2020). Managing income volatility in low-income households. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 31(1), 34-47.
[6] Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.
[7] Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-477.
[8] Liu, Y., Zhang, X., & Li, J. (2021). Rule-based adaptive budgeting for variable income earners. International Journal of Financial Studies, 9(3), 47.
[9] Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2019). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635.
[10] Shefrin, H., &Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609-643.
[11] Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
[12] Zarsky, T. Z. (2013). Transparent predictions. University of Illinois Law Review, 1507-1558.