## 5 Result and Discussion
### Comparative Methods
#### 5.5.3 Statistical Analysis Based on TP  
Statistical analyses based on TP for accuracy, NPV, PDV, and threat score are included in Tables 2-5. The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best accuracy in predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 2.13% improvement over the vulture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 94.52%.  
The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best NPV when predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 1.28% improvement over the vulture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 95.16%.  
The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best PPV when predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 13.08% improvement over the vulture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 94.81%.  
The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best threat score in predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 6.81% improvement over the vulture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 95.76%.  
Figure 7: Comparative analysis based on TP:(**a**) accuracy, (**b**) NPV, (**c**) PDV, and (**d**) threat score.  
in predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 10.09% improvement over the culture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 94.81%.  
The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best NPV when predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 1.04% improvement over the culture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 95.60%.  
The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best PDV when predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 0.40% improvement over the culture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 96.28%.  
The BCHO-TCN LightGBM model demonstrates the best threat score when predicting out-of-stock prediction, with a 5.84% improvement over the culture-TCN LightGBM model, achieving a maximum of 95.86%.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Best** & **Mean** & **Variance** \\ \hline Perceptron & 92.37 & 82.20 & 44.41 \\ \hline CNN-LSTM & 91.00 & 80.87 & 38.75 \\ \hline BiLSTM & 93.40 & 83.41 & 39.55 \\ \hline Rabbit-TCN Light GBM & 90.67 & 83.04 & 31.98 \\ \hline Hawk-TCN Light GBM & 93.49 & 80.59 & 68.66 \\ \hline Vulture-TCN Light GBM & 85.25 & 81.56 & 18.25 \\ \hline BCHO-TCN Light GBM & 94.81 & 93.87 & 0.32 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Statistical analysis based on k-fold for accuracy.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Best** & **Mean** & **Variance** \\ \hline Perceptron & 89.06 & 82.88 & 12.68 \\ \hline CNN-LSTM & 93.09 & 82.77 & 41.04 \\ \hline BiLSTM & 91.61 & 82.11 & 32.71 \\ \hline Rabbit-TCN Light GBM & 92.84 & 82.20 & 53.54 \\ \hline Hawk-TCN Light GBM & 87.70 & 77.90 & 36.03 \\ \hline Vulture-TCN Light GBM & 94.61 & 88.54 & 18.49 \\ \hline BCHO-TCN Light GBM & 95.60 & 94.76 & 0.79 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Statistical analysis based on k-fold for NPV.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Best** & **Mean** & **Variance** \\ \hline Perceptron & 93.88 & 79.06 & 56.27 \\ \hline CNN-LSTM & 95.95 & 87.93 & 57.12 \\ \hline BiLSTM & 82.38 & 76.63 & 9.67 \\ \hline Rabbit-TCN Light GBM & 88.12 & 77.96 & 32.00 \\ \hline Hawk-TCN Light GBM & 92.88 & 81.05 & 48.38 \\ \hline Vulture-TCN Light GBM & 95.89 & 80.97 & 65.97 \\ \hline BCHO-TCN Light GBM & 96.28 & 93.77 & 12.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Statistical analysis based on k-fold for PDV.