*4.2.2 Results and interpretation*

With the help of the software modules for processing and decision based on fuzzy logic presented above, the mosaic in **Figure 10** was evaluated resulting in the graphs presented in **Figure 11** with the notes for the Kmax = 25 portions of the artifact.

First we observe a few peaks on the *conservation* curve (circle markers) that corresponds to the images with the numbers 3, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21, 22, and 23. They are all above the level 6.7, which belongs to the class good. Two of them, 11 and 23, are qualified towards very good class. Other remarkable points on the same curve denote minimal values (square markers) that correspond to images 1 and 25, which are qualified as poor and very poor, respectively. The low grades also have the

images with numbers 5 and 20 but also 2 and 24. All these belong rather to the poor

*Automation of the Expertise of the Roman Mosaic Arts in Constanta: Analytical and Statistical…*

level of intervention and visually confirmed as such.

The interpretation of *intervention* curve reveals some peaks, which, however, do not exceed grade 5 as are images 11 and 23. They show the best preserved parts of mosaic but few interventions are not excluded. On the contrary, the points marked with red points denote possible interventions for images that were already qualified as poor. These images are 1, 2, 5, 20, 24, and 25 that were detected with obvious

Automatic analysis of images with mosaic-type artifacts and automatic classification of images of interest is sustainable and efficient. The mathematical tools for

image class.

*Answer of the fuzzy inference system.*

**Figure 11.**

**Figure 10.**

*Mosaic artifact partitioned into 25 subimages for analysis.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92679*

**5. Conclusions**

**271**

**Figure 9.** *Model of fuzzy inference system.*

*Automation of the Expertise of the Roman Mosaic Arts in Constanta: Analytical and Statistical… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92679*

**Figure 10.** *Mosaic artifact partitioned into 25 subimages for analysis.*

**Figure 11.** *Answer of the fuzzy inference system.*

images with numbers 5 and 20 but also 2 and 24. All these belong rather to the poor image class.

The interpretation of *intervention* curve reveals some peaks, which, however, do not exceed grade 5 as are images 11 and 23. They show the best preserved parts of mosaic but few interventions are not excluded. On the contrary, the points marked with red points denote possible interventions for images that were already qualified as poor. These images are 1, 2, 5, 20, 24, and 25 that were detected with obvious level of intervention and visually confirmed as such.
