Fastest
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/decision-tree-split-criterion-selection-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Artificial Intelligence & Machine LearningDecision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patents
288 families and 458 records on decision tree split criterion algorithms, led by a single filer with 4.2% share and a long tail of 84 smaller filers.
458
Published Records
288
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
40%
In Force at Cut-off
458 published records collapse into 288 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION is named on 12 of the 288 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 183 of 458 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 288 simple patent families and 458 published records sit in scope, with no date limit applied to the search string.
- International Business Machine Corporation is named on 12 of the 288 families (4.2%), the highest share of any single listed filer.
- 84 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, against a leader at 12 families.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on a search for records that mention a decision tree together with a split or splitting criterion (including information gain) and a node or attribute reference. That combination is specific enough to pull in classic tree-induction filings but broad enough to sweep in records where the terms appear for other reasons, so the smaller technology branches in the chart below should be read as noisy rather than as a map of sub-fields.
No start year was set on the search, so the 288 simple patent families and 458 published records in scope span whatever the database holds under this string. The filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window and should not be read as the full history.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 458 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 430 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. 3 rows in this table share the name GRID (STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA, STATE GRID ZHEJIANG ELECTRIC POWER CO LTD HANGZHOU POWER SUPPLY CO, STATE GRID ZHEJIANG ELECTRIC POWER CO LTD). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (6 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 30 of the 94 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The figures below come from the same 288-family and 458-record base described above, split out by filing year and by IPC subclass.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (430 of 458 published records)
Published records run from 6 in 2007 to a peak of 55 in 2018, with 15 recorded so far for 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed records continue to publish, so the recent drop in count reflects publication lag rather than fewer filings.
Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2007-2026 (430 records); the 458 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (IPC subclass share of families)
G06F (electric digital data processing) carries the highest share at 53.1% of the 288 families, ahead of G06N (computing based on AI models) at 48.3%, G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) at 28.8% and G06K (data recognition & presentation) at 19.4%. These shares add to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass.
Shares are the percentage of the 288 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about decision tree split criterion selection algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative Filing
A representative record from the result set
First record returned under default database order
Decision tree generating apparatus, decision tree generating method, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and inquiry system
PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
A decision tree generating apparatus includes an information gain calculator and a decision tree generator. When a classification target data set including pieces of classification target data with different attribute values is segmented into subsets in the form of a decision tree, the information gain calculator computes an amount of entropy reduction for each attribute, and derives an information gain based on that reduction together with the reliability of a user's answer to an inquiry about the attribute. The decision tree generator then successively selects the attribute with the maximum information gain.US20180005126A1, Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd., filed 2018-01-04. Shown as the first record returned by the search, not as the most cited or most representative filing.
Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Insights
Reading the filer and technology figures
These cards report individual figures from the dataset. None of them should be combined with another card to produce a new total or share.
Filer concentration
12 of 288
families named
Largest single filer share
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 12 of the 288 simple patent families in scope, a 4.2% share. This is the single-row figure the ranking supports; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
Based on the filer ranking, simple patent families
Long tail
84 of 94
filers at 2 or fewer families
Spread of the listed filers
84 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This is the measure the dataset supports for how spread out filing activity is among named organisations; it says nothing about filers outside the list, since individual-named filers were removed from this ranking.
Listed filers only, simple patent families
Technology split
53.1% / 48.3%
share of 288 families
G06F and G06N carry the largest shares
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 53.1% of the 288 families and G06N (computing based on AI models) on 48.3%. Because a family can carry both classes, these two figures cannot be added to produce a combined coverage share.
IPC subclass tagging, simple patent families
Legal status
183 of 458
records in force
Status at retrieval date
183 of the 458 published records (40%) were granted and still in force at the point of retrieval. The remaining records are a mix of statuses not broken out individually here, so no single alternative status can be quoted from this figure.
Legal status, published records, at retrieval date 2026-10-15
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to decision tree split criterion selection algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this next
The figures above describe what the search returned. Moving from counts to a filing or freedom-to-operate decision requires reading the underlying claim sets directly.
Pull the granted claims that matter to your design
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Use Patsnap Eureka to pull the granted claim set for any record that looks close to a design under consideration.
Open Eureka →Track the filers you plan to watch
Set up monitoring on specific named filers rather than inferring group ownership from similar names, since rows here are not rolled up to corporate parent.
Open Eureka →Re-run the search with your own term set
This dataset reflects one search string. Adjusting terms around split criterion, attribute selection or specific algorithms (ID3, C4.5, CART) will shift both the family count and the technology mix.
Open Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this dataset
This search returns 288 simple patent families and 458 published records with no date limit applied, so the figure covers every matching record the database holds under this string rather than a fixed recent window. A family groups one invention across the countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, which is why the two totals differ. Treat 288 as the invention-level count and 458 as the publication-level count; neither figure represents a complete worldwide count of the underlying technology, only what this search string captured.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 12 of the 288 simple patent families in scope, a 4.2% share, the highest of any single row in the filer ranking. The ranking lists 94 organisations, counted in families and ordered by volume only, with only the top 30 shown on the page. Because one family can name several filers and filer names are not consolidated to corporate parent, no group of rows in this ranking should be summed into a combined total or share.
The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 6 in 2007 to a peak of 55 in 2018 and showing 15 so far for 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in, since records filed recently take time to publish, so the apparent drop in those years reflects publication lag rather than fewer filings. This dataset does not support a growth-rate figure or a maturity judgement, and the chart's recent window is not the full history captured by the underlying search.
Among the IPC subclasses large enough to read with confidence, G06F (electric digital data processing) covers 53.1% of the 288 families and G06N (computing based on AI models) covers 48.3%, followed by G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) at 28.8% and G06K (data recognition & presentation) at 19.4%. These shares add to more than 100% because a single family can be tagged with more than one subclass. Smaller subclasses appear in the underlying chart but are not detailed here, since a broad search string can pull in unrelated matches at low volume.
The single highest share belongs to International Business Machine Corporation at 4.2% of the 288 families, and 84 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. That combination, a leader well under 5% share alongside a long tail of low-volume filers, is the honest way to describe spread in this dataset; filer rows cannot be added together to produce an aggregate concentration figure because the same family can name more than one filer.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Decision Tree Split Criterion Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole decision tree split criterion selection algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("decision tree*") AND ("split criterion" OR "splitting criterion" OR "information gain") AND (node OR attribute*))Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field.
What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 458 records and 288 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.
Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (6 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 30 of the 94 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included
Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (183 of 458). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka
Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level
Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.