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 →Covers 61 patent families on genetic-algorithm hyperparameter tuning, led by a single filer with 3 families and a long tail of single-filing entrants.
86 published records collapse into 61 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.
This dataset gathers records matching genetic algorithm or evolutionary search terms alongside hyperparameter or parameter tuning language, in combination with machine learning or neural network terms, across title, abstract and claims. No date limit was applied, so the 61 simple patent families and 86 published records returned represent every matching record the search string finds, not a fixed filing window. A single invention can appear as multiple published records where it was filed in more than one office, which is why the record count runs higher than the family count.
61 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not a map of the broader field, and are best read as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a finished picture.
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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP, MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC RESEARCH LABORATORIES INC). 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 (8 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 77 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 77 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.
Two views of the same 61 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Records run from a single filing in 2007 to 17 in 2026, the peak year in this series. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the recent uptick reflects publication lag rather than a change in filing activity.
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.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 49 of the 61 families (80.3%), ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 23 families (37.7%) and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) at 10 families (16.4%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 61 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about genetic algorithm based hyperparameter optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a system that implements a genetic algorithm routine to identify and optimize hyperparameters for a convolutional neural network, which is then used to denoise an image using those optimized hyperparameters.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not a ranking by citations, dates or breadth of claims. It should not be read as typical of the other 60 families in this set.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures worth checking before reading any further into this dataset.
The search returns 86 published records against 61 simple patent families. The gap reflects inventions published more than once, typically through filings in multiple offices, rather than 86 distinct inventions.
SAS Institute Inc is named on 3 of the 61 families in scope (4.9%), the highest figure among the 77 listed filers. 76 of those 77 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is the most direct way to state how spread the filing activity is across this list.
G06N (computing based on AI models) is carried by 49 of the 61 families, the highest share of any IPC subclass returned. G06F (37.7%) and G06Q (16.4%) follow; since a family can carry several subclasses, these percentages do not sum to 100%.
The search returned 9 receiving offices in all. The largest individually named are the United States (36 records) and India (28 records), each counted once per record filed there, so these figures track filing location rather than filer origin.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to genetic algorithm based hyperparameter optimization patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. Narrowing it further depends on what you are trying to answer.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any conclusion about what a specific record covers or blocks, the granted claim set needs to be read on its own terms.
Explore in EurekaSmall IPC subclasses in this result set may reflect search-term noise as much as genuine filing activity. A narrower or differently worded string run in Eureka can help separate the two.
Run a refined searchWith 2022 onward still filling in as later filings publish, a monitoring search can surface new records in this space as they appear rather than relying on a single snapshot.
Set up monitoringThis search returns 61 simple patent families and 86 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. The record count runs higher than the family count because a single invention can publish more than once if it is filed in multiple offices. These figures describe what this specific search string returns, not a definitive count of every patent that might touch this topic, since different wording could capture a different set.
SAS Institute Inc is named on 3 of the 61 simple patent families, the highest count among the 77 listed filers (the table shows the top 30). 76 of those 77 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the list is better described as a long tail of small filers than as a concentrated field. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a company and any related entity appear as separate rows and are not added together here.
This record, assigned to University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., describes a system that runs a genetic algorithm routine to identify and optimize hyperparameters for a convolutional neural network, then uses that network to denoise an image. It was the first record returned under this search's default ordering, not a selection based on citations, breadth or significance. What its granted claims actually require, and how far they extend, can only be determined by reading the claim set itself rather than the abstract summarised here.
The published-records trend runs from 1 record in 2007 to a peak of 17 in 2026, but years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications work through the publication pipeline, typically 18 to 30 months behind filing. That means the most recent years understate their eventual totals, and reading a rising or falling trend into year-to-year moves in this window is not supported by the data. The chart also counts published records, not distinct inventions, so a rise can reflect the same invention being filed more widely rather than more inventions being created.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 49 of the 61 families in scope (80.3%), the highest share of any IPC subclass returned by this search. G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 23 families (37.7%), and G06Q (business, commerce and administrative data processing) at 10 families (16.4%). Because a single family can carry several IPC subclasses, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be read as a partition of the dataset.
The search returned 9 receiving offices in total, counted in published records rather than families, since one invention can be filed in several offices. The largest individually listed are the United States with 36 records and India with 28 records, followed by smaller counts elsewhere. Receiving-office data shows where applications were filed, not where the filing organisation is based, so it cannot be used to infer any filer's nationality or region.
Go past this page: query the whole genetic algorithm based hyperparameter optimization patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("genetic algorithm" OR "evolutionary search") AND (hyperparameter OR "parameter tuning") AND ("machine learning" OR "neural network"))
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. One subclass (G06N) carries 80.3% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.
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 86 records and 61 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 (8 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 77 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 77 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
This page