https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/genetic-algorithm-feature-subset-selection-for-classification-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-22 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · AI & Machine Learning

Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection Patents

48 patent families and 78 published records on genetic algorithm feature subset selection, with filings spread thinly across 44 listed organisations.

78
Published Records
48
Simple Patent Families
21%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

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 In force = 16 of 78 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 48 simple patent families and 78 published records make up this search, with filings described by terms like chromosome, mutation and crossover alongside feature selection.
  • Koninklijke Philips NV is named on 4 of the 48 families (8.3%), and 43 of the 44 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • China received 25 of the published records and the United States 13, out of 10 receiving offices returned in this dataset.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

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.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV4
  2. HARBIN INST OF TECH2
  3. BEIJING UNIV OF TECH2
  4. BIOINFORMATICS & MOLECULAR DESIGN RES CENT2
  5. ZHENGZHOU UNIV1
  6. HUNAN UNIV OF SCI & TECH1
  7. KONERU LAKSHMAIAH EDUCATION FOUNDATION1
  8. CIVIL AVIATION FLIGHT UNIV OF CHINA1
  9. NORTHEASTERN UNIV CHINA1
  10. SYMBIOSIS INT DEEMED UNIV1

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. 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 activity and technology mix

Two views of the same 48 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (55 of 78 published records)

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (55 of 78 published records)03581062007200920112013201520172019202120239202562022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

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.

Technology composition (share of 48 families)

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%.

Technology composition (share of 48 families)G06N · Computing based on AI models3266.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1939.6%G06K · Data recognition & presentation1531.3%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…510.4%G06V · Image/video recognition510.4%H04L · Digital information transmissi…510.4%G06T · Image data processing & genera…48.3%G01N · Material analysis & testing24.2%Other1633.3%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Example Record

A record from the result set

From the result set
US8762303B22014-06-24

Methods for feature selection using classifier ensemble based genetic algorithms

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. V.

Methods 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.

US8762303B2, patent drawing 1US8762303B2, patent drawing 2
View full record →

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 Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. 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
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 →
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 numbers

Three figures worth sitting with before treating any count here as a conclusion.

Scale
48 families / 78 records
simple patent families / published records

Two counting units, two numbers

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.

Counted in simple patent families and published records.
Filer spread
4 families (8.3%)
Koninklijke Philips NV, of 48 families

Largest single row

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.

Counted in simple patent families; listed filers only, organisations only.
Legal status
16 of 78 (21%)
records granted and in force at retrieval

Status at the retrieval date

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.

Counted in published records, as of the 2026-10-22 retrieval date.
Technology mix
66.7% of families
G06N share of 48 families

Largest IPC subclass by family share

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.

Counted in simple patent families; shares overlap by design.
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 genetic algorithm feature subset selection for classification patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this from here

This page is a starting point. The next step depends on what decision it needs to support.

Narrow the search string

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 →

Check granted claims directly

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 →

Track new publications

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 →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Genetic Algorithm Feature Subset Selection for Classification Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

Try Eureka
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:(("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.