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 →48 patent families and 78 published records on genetic algorithm feature subset selection, with filings spread thinly across 44 listed organisations.
78 published records collapse into 48 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 16 of 78 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This search pulls records that combine genetic algorithm terminology with feature selection or feature subset language, narrowed to documents that also mention chromosome, mutation or crossover, the vocabulary specific to genetic-algorithm search mechanics rather than feature selection methods generally. The result is 78 published records that collapse to 48 simple patent families once duplicate country filings are merged.
48 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the size, maturity or competitive shape of any wider field, and the page is best read as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.
Counted over all 78 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 55 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (23 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 44 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 44 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 48 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Records run from 2007 through 2026, counted by earliest filing year. 2024 is the peak so far at 9 records; years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so recent counts should not be read as a drop-off.
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 (55 records); the 78 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 66.7% of the 48 families, ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 39.6% and G06K (data recognition & presentation) at 31.3%. Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 48 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 feature subset selection for classification patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMethods for performing genetic algorithm-based feature selection are provided herein. In certain embodiments, the methods include steps of applying multiple data splitting patterns to a learning data set to build multiple classifiers to obtain at least one classification result; integrating the at least one classification result from the multiple classifiers to obtain an integrated accuracy result; and outputting the integrated accuracy result to a genetic algorithm as a fitness value for a candidate feature subset, in which genetic algorithm-based feature selection is performed.Shown under the database's default ordering, not as a ranking by citations, breadth or importance. The granted claims, not this abstract, define what the patent covers.


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 sitting with before treating any count here as a conclusion.
The dataset resolves to 48 simple patent families once country duplicates are merged, from 78 published records in total. Filing-trend and receiving-office figures are counted in records; technology-composition and filer figures are counted in families. The two series are not interchangeable.
Koninklijke Philips NV is named on 4 of the 48 families, the highest count of any single row in the listed filers. 43 of the 44 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, one family can name more than one filer, so rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
16 of the 78 published records were granted and still in force when the data was retrieved. The remaining records sit in other states, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, that are not broken out individually in this dataset. In-force status is a snapshot, not a quality measure.
G06N (computing based on AI models) is carried by 32 of the 48 families in scope, the highest share among the subclasses named on this page. G06F and G06K follow at 39.6% and 31.3% respectively. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and do not partition the dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to genetic algorithm feature subset selection for classification patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point. The next step depends on what decision it needs to support.
Chromosome, mutation and crossover are genetic-algorithm mechanics terms, but some of the subclasses returned sit far outside feature selection for classification. Refining the string would separate genuine matches from noise before drawing further conclusions.
Refine the search in Eureka →Family counts and abstracts describe what a document discusses, not what its claims require. Any filing decision needs the granted claim set read directly rather than inferred from this page.
Pull full claim sets in Eureka →Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and will continue to change the recent-year counts. A monitoring search catches additions as they land rather than relying on a single snapshot.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →This particular search returns 78 published records that collapse to 48 simple patent families once duplicate country filings are merged. The search string requires genetic-algorithm terminology (chromosome, mutation or crossover) together with feature selection or feature subset language, so it is scoped to that specific combination rather than feature selection methods in general. Because the underlying search sets no date limit, this count reflects every matching record regardless of filing date, not a fixed recent window.
Koninklijke Philips NV is named on 4 of the 48 simple patent families in scope, the highest count of any single row among the 44 listed filers (organisations only; the table shows the top 30). 43 of those 44 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the volume is spread thinly rather than concentrated in a small number of names. A larger family count does not indicate claim scope, validity or commercial value, it only reflects how many families that name is attached to in this search.
Published records run from 2007 through 2026 by earliest filing year, with 2024 as the peak so far at 9 records. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, most filings take 18 months to publish, and PCT applications entering national phase can take up to 30 months, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals. The trend counts published records, not distinct inventions, so a rising count can also reflect the same invention being filed in more countries.
Among the subclasses with the most families, G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 32 of the 48 families (66.7%), G06F (electric digital data processing) on 19 (39.6%), and G06K (data recognition & presentation) on 15 (31.3%). A single family can carry more than one IPC class, so these shares add up to more than 100% and do not divide the dataset into separate buckets. The dataset includes 21 subclasses in total; the figures above cover only the largest few.
The dataset returned 10 receiving offices in total, with China (25 records), the United States (13), India (12), WIPO under the PCT (8), the EPO (6) and South Korea (5) among the largest, counted in published records. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, the dataset contains no information about filer nationality or country of origin. One invention can appear multiple times in this count if it was filed through more than one office.
Go past this page: query the whole genetic algorithm feature subset selection for classification 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") AND ("feature selection" OR "feature subset") AND (chromosome OR mutation OR crossover))
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 66.7% 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 78 records and 48 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 (23 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 44 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 44 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 2026-10-22.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (16 of 78). 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.
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