## 3 Results
### Thermal Comfort and Preference Survey Results  
The analysis of thermal comfort preferences under ACU operations in cool mode (22 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 26 \({}^{\circ}\)C) and dry mode (23 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C) highlighted notable differences in occupant comfort perceptions depending on the mode and temperature setpoints. In cool mode, the mode values revealed a shift in occupant preferences as the setpoint temperature increased. At 22 \({}^{\circ}\)C, occupants predominantly preferred warmer conditions (mode = 3). However, at setpoints between 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the mode shifted to \"no change\" (mode = 1), suggesting general satisfaction with the ACU settings in this range. At the highest setpoint, 26 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the mode transitioned to \"cooler\", reflecting a preference for cooler conditions as temperatures approached the upper limit of comfort. Statistically significant chi-squared values (\(p<0.001\) for all but 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C) confirmed these differences in preference, indicating distinct shifts in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**FIS Type \({}^{*}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of Rules**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dataset Used**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Validation Dataset**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of Test Results**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error Rate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Execution**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Data Interval**} \\  & & & **Range** & & & **[\%]** & & **[seconds]** & \\ \hline General & 551 & All possible & 10 \(<\) T \(<\) 40 & 1106 ** & 18.13 & 6.29 & R: 4 \\ RST- & 4 & combinations & 20 \(<\) H \(<\) 100 & & & T: 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ Optimized & 4 & tions & 0 \(<\) HI \(<\) 50 & 1106 & 3.94 & 3.06 & H: 5\% \\ \hline General & 551 & Actual & 20 \(<\) T \(<\) 40 & 467 & 2.03 & 2.78 & HI: 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ RST- & 4 & Historical & 40 \(<\) H \(<\) 100 & & & & \\ optimized & 4 & 27 \(<\) HI \(<\) 50 & 467 & 0.00 & 0.85 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Comparative performance of FISs for ACU control in office spaces. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**FIS Type \({}^{*}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of Rules**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dataset Used**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Validation Dataset**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error Rate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Execution**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Data Interval**} \\  & & & **Range** & & & **[\%]** & & **[seconds]** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{General} & \multirow{4}{*}{3357} & \multirow{4}{*}{All possible} & 0 \(<\) R \(<\) 44 & & & & \\  & & & 10 \(<\) T \(<\) 40 & 1186 ** & 29.48 & 26.27 & R: 4 \\ \cl  
comfort levels across the temperature range. The proportion analysis supported these findings. At 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, a majority (53.97%) preferred \"no change\", demonstrating stable thermal comfort at moderate setpoints. At 26 \({}^{\circ}\)C, however, 46.03% expressed a preference for cooler conditions, signaling reduced satisfaction at higher temperatures. In dry mode, a different pattern emerged. At 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C, occupants predominantly preferred cooler conditions (mode = 1), reflecting a need for cooling in these settings. At 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the mode shifted to \"no change\" (mode = 2), indicating improved satisfaction and stabilization at this higher setpoint. Chi-squared test results showed significant variations in preferences at 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(p<\) 0.01), but no significant change at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(p=\) 0.3654), where the preferences were more evenly distributed. The proportions in dry mode further illustrate these trends. At 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 59.49% preferred cooler temperatures while, at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, only 45.57% opted for \"no change\", with a notable rise in preferences for slightly warmer conditions, suggesting a broader range of comfort perceptions at this setpoint.