From the Skin-Depth Equation to the Inverse RFEC
Sensor Model

arXiv:1609.04810v1 [cs.CE] 15 Sep 2016

Raphael Falque, Teresa Vidal-Calleja, Gamini Dissanayake, and Jaime Valls Miro
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Emails: Raphael.H.Guenot-Falque@student.uts.edu.au, Teresa.VidalCalleja@uts.edu.au,
Gamini.Dissanayake@uts.edu.au, Jaime.VallsMiro@uts.edu.au
Abstract—In this paper, we tackle the direct and inverse
problems for the Remote-Field Eddy-Current (RFEC) technology.
The direct problem is the sensor model, where given the geometry
the measurements are obtained. Conversely, the inverse problem
is where the geometry needs to be estimated given the field
measurements. These problems are particularly important in
the field of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) because they allow
assessing the quality of the structure monitored. We solve the
direct problem in a parametric fashion using Least Absolute
Shrinkage and Selection Operation (LASSO). The proposed
inverse model uses the parameters from the direct model to
recover the thickness using least squares producing the optimal
solution given the direct model. This study is restricted to the
2D axisymmetric scenario. Both, direct and inverse models, are
validated using a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) environment
with realistic pipe profiles.

Keywords: Remote Field Eddy Current (RFEC), direct
problem, inverse problem, Non Destructive Evaluation (NDE)
I. I NTRODUCTION
The Remote Field Eddy Current (RFEC) technology allows
in-line inspection of ferromagnetic pipelines. Tools based on
this technology are usually composed of an exciter coil and
one or several receivers. The exciter coil, driven by a lowfrequency alternative current, generates an electromagnetic
field that flows outside the pipe near the exciter coil and flows
back inward the pipe at a remote area as shown in Fig. 1(a).
The receivers are located in the remote part and record the
magnetic field. As shown in the figure the magnetic field
passes twice the pipe’s wall; this phenomenon is commonly
referred as the double through wall in the literature [1].
When the magnetic field flows through a ferromagnetic
medium (i.e. the pipe), the amplitude of the magnetic field
is attenuated, and the phase is delayed. Due to the double
through wall penetration, the magnetic field recorded by the
receiver has been modified by different areas of the pipe: when
it flows outward the pipe near the exciter coil and when it
flows backwards the pipe in the remote area. Hence inferring
the geometry of the pipe from the signal information is a
challenging task since a single measurement is correlated with
different areas of the geometry.
Inferring the pipe’s geometry from the tool signal corresponds to solving the inverse problem of the RFEC. This
problem has been studied in the literature for the 2D axisymmetrical case of a perfect pipe with a single crack. The
problem is then formulated as recovering the shape (size and

Fig. 1: Representation of the RFEC phenomenon. From the
global phenomenon (a), we propose a parametric direct model
that consider independently the flow of the magnetic field in
the air (b), and the local attenuation due to the magnetic field
flowing through the pipe thickness (c).

width) of the single defect [2–4]. These approaches solve the
problem using data-driven techniques and bypass the problem
of recovering the full pipe’s geometry. These solutions fit the
case of steel material, where most pipe bursts are due to cracks;
in the case of cast-iron pipes, the material is more sensitive to
corrosion. Hence the geometry of the pipe has a more organic
shape rather than a single isolated crack. Therefore, for castiron pipes recovering the full pipe’s geometry is critical.

Some other approaches from the literature consist of modifying the tool design. The use of several receivers located
at different axial locations from the exciter coil allows using
redundancy of the information provided by passing through
the same location to recover the full pipe’s geometry [5], [6].
However, this approach leads to longer tools and require more
electrical power to operate the multiple sensors and/or exciter
coils. Due to the in-line nature of the RFEC tools, the mobility
and the battery consumption have to be optimised.
Particularly for this work, to allow simple hardware design,
we consider the case of an elementary RFEC tool composed
of a single exciter coil and a single receiver. The aim of
this paper is to obtain an inverse sensor model of the RFEC
phenomenon which, given a set of continuous magnetic field
measurements, allows to recover the full pipe’s geometry for
a 2D axisymmetric scenario.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In
Sec. II, we give conceptual ideas about the behaviour of the
magnetic field. We then propose a direct model solved using
Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operation (LASSO).
From the direct model, we derive an inverse model formulated
in a least-square form. The dataset generated with Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) and the experimental results are given
in Sec. III. We finally discuss the performance and limitations
of the proposed model in Sec. IV.
II. M ODELLING OF THE RFEC PHENOMENON
The direct problem of the RFEC phenomenon consists
of mapping the pipe’s geometry to the sensor measurement
through a sensor model. Conversely, the inverse (or indirect)
problem consists of finding the model that maps the sensor
measurements into the pipe’s geometry. The main goal is to
solve the inverse problem, however, solving the direct problem
provides qualitative and quantitative information on the form
of the inverse model. Before to consider the direct and inverse
problem, we discuss some high-level insight of the RFEC
technology. Particular attention is dedicated to understanding
how the geometry near to the exciter coil impacts the sensor
measurements. Qualitative descriptions of the overall RFEC
phenomenon have been broadly studied and in depth descriptions are available in the literature [1], [7], [8].
A. Background information
As shown in [1], it is possible to consider a defect in the
pipe’s geometry as an anomalous source model. The defect
is then replaced by an independent source of magnetic field
superposed to the pipe (see Fig. 12 in [1]). Knowing that
the magnetic field gets attenuated while travelling through
a ferromagnetic medium, the idea is to replace the lack of
attenuation from the defect by a source of magnetic field
superposed to a perfect pipe. Following the same idea, one
could consider the pipe’s thickness as an attenuation of the
signal.
Let us consider a pipe with an organic geometry (i.e. a
corroded pipe), defined by a piecewise constant profile (as
shown in Fig. 1). Each piece is then considered as a local

source of attenuation. We then dissociate the global RFEC
phenomenon shown in Fig. 1(a) in two part: (i) the attenuation
due to the magnetic field flowing in the air, and (ii) the
local attenuation due to the magnetic field flowing through
the pipe (the former one is shown in Fig. 1(b) and the latter
in Fig. 1(c)).
The global attenuation of the magnetic field propagating in
the air (i), mostly due to field radiating from the coil, is a
constant term for a given excitation and global geometry. The
definition of this value is however complex since it involves
many parameters (e.g. dimensions and excitation of the coil,
diameter of the pipe, distance between the exciter and the
receiver).
The local interaction of the electromagnetic wave with the
pipe (ii) can be described as a plane wave propagating through
a homogeneous, isotropic, and conductive medium (i.e. the
pipe). This phenomenon can be described by deriving the skin
depth equation from the Maxwell equations and can be written
as follow;

s
s
ωµσ
ωµσ
t+ωt
−j
t
−
2
2 e
(1)
B(t) = B0 e
{z
},
|
{z
}|
phase contribution

amplitude

with B the magnetic field, B0 the initial value of the magnetic
field, ω the frequency, µ the magnetic permeability of the
medium, σ the electrical conductivity, and t the distance
travelled by the wave. The amplitude and the phase-lag are
usually the measurements recorded by the RFEC tools since
they have a log-linear or linear relationship with the thickness
of the conductive medium:

r
ωµσ


t
 φlocal =
2
r
(2)
ωµσ


t
 ln(B)local = ln(B0 ) −
2
In this paper, we model the direct and inverse problem
uniquely with the amplitude. However, a similar study could
be done with the phase-lag.
B. Direct problem
We now consider the direct problem, which consists of
finding a function h such that h : t −→ y, where y is
the sensor measurements and t a set of thickness values that
describe the pipe’s geometry around the RFEC tool.
Let us first consider the case of a single measurement. Using
the wave superposition principle, we can then add (i) and (ii)
as follow;
k
X
y = y0 −
wi ti + ,
(3)
i=1

with y0 the constant term described in (i), ti the ith thicknesses
of the pipe piece (the pipe’s geometry is approximated as a
piecewise constant profile a shown in Fig.
p 1(a)), and wi the
unknown parameters that embeds both − ωµσ
2 from (ii) and
a location weight. Since this approach is an approximation of
the actual phenomenon, we consider  the noise contribution

that contains both the actual sensor noise and an unmodelled
non-linearity. Given enough independent measurements, the
optimal values for the weights can be found using a least
square formulation.
Let us now consider a set of m measurements where each
measurement is associated to k local average thicknesses that
are regularly spaced over the length of the tool. This can be
seen as moving the tool within the pipe simultaneously to
gathering pipe thickness information in a sliding window. The
sliding window approximates the geometry as a piecewiseconstant profile as describe in Fig. 1(a). We then formulate
Eq. (3) in a matrix form to combine the m set of measurement
and thickness values together,
y = T w + ,

(4)

The constant term y0 from Eq. (3) is unknown (it depends
on the excitation, the number of turn in the coil, the electromagnetic properties of the air and the distance between the
exciter and the sensor). It is, however, possible to estimate
y0 from the measurements, therefore, we include it into the
vector of the model parameters w which is defined as,


y0
 w1 




w =  ...  ,
(5)


wk−1 
wk
T is the matrix that contains the local average thickness
information;


1 t11 t12 . . . t1k
1 t21 t22 . . . t2k 


T = .
(6)
..
..
..  ,
..
 ..
.
.
.
. 
1 tm1 tm2 . . . tmk
and y the vector with all the sensor measurements.
 
y1
 y2 
 
y =  . .
 .. 

(7)

ym
In order to select parameters ŵ that reflects the attenuation
of the magnetic field through its path, there is a need for an
optimisation method that sets the weights of the non-relevant
thicknesses to zero. It can be obtained by learning the model
parameters with LASSO [9]. Using this parameter selection
also allows avoiding over-fitting the irrelevant parameter that
would be performed by a closed form solution. More formally,
LASSO corresponds to the least square formulation with L1 regularisation as


min k T ŵ − y k2 +α k ŵ k1 ,
(8)
with α the regularisation parameter, which is learned with
an iterative process. Finally, the direct problem is solved by

estimating ŷ as
ŷ = |{z}
T ŵ ,

(9)

h(T )

with the proposed model h(T ).
C. Inverse problem
After estimating the parameters of the direct model (3), we
now consider the inverse problem. More formally, we want to
find the inverse function h−1 such that h−1 : y −→ t. Due
to the double-through wall phenomenon, h cannot be simply
inverted as the geometry under the exciter coil and the receiver
are convoluted in the measurements. Instead, having the direct
problem expressed as a linear model, allows formulating the
inverse problem in a closed form solution, which can be
obtained with least squares.
We consider here solving the inverse problem for a long
pipe section as one system (i.e. recovering the thickness of the
full pipe at the same time). To solve the optimisation problem
through least squares, the degree of freedom (which is equal
to the number of equations minus the number of parameters)
of the system has to be positive or null. As a rule of thumb,
to avoid over-fitting, the degree of freedom should be superior
to ten.
Let us consider the inspection of a long pipe section using
a RFEC tool. During the inspection, a set of m discrete
measurements are collected at regular intervals along the pipe.
We approximate the pipeline geometry as a piecewise-constant
profile with n steps of average thickness t. n is chosen to be
ten times smaller than m.
We then re-write Eq. (3) so it can be formulated as a global
optimisation problem, where all the sensor measurements y
are related to all the piecewise thicknesses ti as
y = W t̂ + y0 ,

(10)

with y and y0 defined in Eq. (3) and (7). t̂ is the set of the
all the thickness estimates for each value of the piecewiseconstant pipeline profile, defined as
 
t1
 t2 
 
t̂ =  .  .
(11)
 .. 
tn
W is an m × n matrix that contains the relationship
between thickness values and sensor measurements and is
defined by the parameters learned from the direct model. In
practice, each line of W contains the weights w for the local
thickness values and is set to 0 for the others thickness values.
Since there are multiple measurements between the ith and
(i + 1)th values, spatial weights ai and bi are used to define
the influence of the piece proximity as:

a1 w1
 ..
 .

aj w1
W =
 0

 .
 ..
0

b1 w1 + a¯1 w2
..
.

b1 wk
..
.

0
..
.

0
..
.

bj w1 + aj w2
aj+1 w1
..
.

...
..
.
...
...
..
.

bj wk
bj+1 wk−1 + aj+1 wk−1
..
.

0
bj+1 wk
..
.

0
0
..
.

...
..
.
...
...
..
.

0

...

0

0

0

...


0
.. 
. 

0 
,
0 


... 
am wk

(12)

Fig. 2: 3D representation of the 2D axisymmetric simulation.
(1) the air box, present all around the pipe, (2) the exciter coil
as a rectangular cross multi-turn copper coil, (3) the receiver,
simplified as a point measurement, and (4) the cast-iron pipe.

with ai and bi defined as follow,
bi
ai + bi
ai
b¯i ,
ai + bi

a¯i ,

(13)
(14)

where ai is the distance from the point measurement to the
centre of the ith step, and bi the distance from the point
measurement to the centre of the (i+1)th step. We then obtain
the thickness estimates t by solving the linear least squares in
closed form,
t̂ = (W t W )−1 W t (y − y0 ) .
|
{z
}

which is simplified to a point measurement (e.g. it could
simulate a hall effect sensor), and (4) the cast-iron pipe that has
its geometry defined from pipe segments extracted from the
decommissioned pipeline. A schematic of the global system
is shown in Fig. 2 with the thickness gains corresponding to
Bell and Spigot (B&S) joints that link pipe segments together.
All medium are approximated as homogeneous and
isotropic. The air and copper material properties are defined
using built-in materials from the COMSOL library. To get
a realistic 2D axisymmetric modelisation of the pipe, the
pipe’s magnetic properties are obtained by analysing a pipe
sample with a Superconducting QUantum Interference Device
(SQUID). We then have both the geometry and the material
properties that come from a real pipeline. The material properties used in the model are displayed in Tab. I. The conductivity
of the air is set to a non-zero value to avoid computational
singularities. The stability of the simulation has been validated
for different meshing sizes, air box sizes and other parameters.
The meshing size is defined according to the wavelength λ
of the magnetic field in each material (i.e. at least five times
smaller than the wavelength), with λ defined as:
λ= r

(15)

h−1 (y)

III. R ESULTS
FEA simulations with a 2D-axisymmetric geometry have
been used to validate the proposed methods in a controlled
environment. We look here at the performance of both the
direct and inverse model applied to a long pipe section with a
known geometry. Note that although the validation has been
done for a 2D-axisymmetric scenario, the proposed models
can be adapted for any RFEC axisymmetric tool.
A. FEA environment
This section describes how the data for validation was
obtained. In the context of our particular research project that
motivates this paper, we used data from a cast-iron pipeline,
which has been decommissioned and is currently dedicated for
research purposes. This particular pipeline was laid more than
hundred years ago, and some parts of the pipe are significantly
corroded. Some pipes section have been exhumed, grid-blasted
and analysed. The material properties of the cast-iron have
been measured, and the corrosion’s profile have been captured
with a laser scanner, using the process described in [10]. We
generated a 60 m long 1-D profile based on the geometry
of exhumed pipe segments. Once incorporated into a FEA
simulation environment, this realistic profile has provided
sufficient data for validation.
The FEA used here is done using COMSOL Multiphysics in
a 2D-axisymmetric scenario. The FEA geometry is composed
of four different components: (1) the air box defining the limits
of the FEA scenario, (2) the exciter coil, which is modelled
as a rectangular cross multi-turn copper coil, (3) the receiver

2π
.
ω.µ.σ
2

(16)

Using Eq.(16) with the magnetic properties of each material
we can define the minimum size for the meshing at each part
of the scenario. The minimum size of each element in the
meshing is given in Tab. I.
The pipeline’s inspection has been simulated using a parameter sweep for the position of the RFEC tool within the pipe
for the 60m length. The amplitude and the phase-lag of the
electromagnetic phase have been recorded for each position of
the parameter sweep.
B. Application of the direct model
We now consider the direct problem applied to a dataset
generated from the FEA environment described previously.
The aim here is to learn the parameters defined in Eq. (5).
As shown in Fig. 2, note that to make it more realistic the
simulated thickness profile contains B&S joints. The thickness
of the B&S joints are much larger than the other parts of the
pipe, hence, due to the linear nature of proposed model, these
data that relate to the B&S are expected to perform poorly. We
solve the direct model for three datasets: (a) the first dataset
include the complete set of data, (b) the data with a B&S joint
located near the receiver have been removed in the second
dataset, and (c) the data near both the exciter and receiver
have been removed in the third dataset.
TABLE I: Properties of each material
material
Air
Cast-Iron
Copper (coil)

µr
1
4.96
1

r
1
1
1

ρ [S/m]
10
1.12e7
5.99e7

l [m]
0.1
0.012
0.0115

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3: Due to the presence of the B&S joints inducing a sort of non-linearity in the data, the model described in Eq. (8) is
not longer valid. Therefore, we remove data where the B&S joint has an impact on the exciter coil (a), and where it has an
impact on the receivers (b). The model learned from the filtered data is shown in (c).

We compared the estimated ŷ and the actual sensor measurement y in Fig. 3 with each sub-figure dedicated to each
dataset. In Fig. 3(a), we set the colour information to reflect
the impact of the B&S joints located near the receiver (the
yellow points are more influenced by the B&S). In Fig. 3(a),
the blue points represent the estimation with the B&S located
on top of the receiver. The third dataset shown in Fig. 3(c)
shows a better regression.
Since the simulations are done in a controlled environment,
the locations of the B&S joints are known, thus removing these
particular data is a trivial task. In the case of an unknown
environment, one could classify the construction features of
the pipeline, which can be done using a Support Vector
Machine (SVM) classifier such as in [11]. An alternative
would consist of automating the data selection with methods
such as Peirce’s [12] or Chauvenet’s [13] criterion.
The parameter α from Eq. (8) is chosen using ten-fold crossvalidation. The estimated parameters w and measurements

Fig. 4: Evolution of the Mean Square Error (MSE) versus
the value of the α parameter (using cross-validation). The α
indicated in blue corresponds to the sparsest solution within
one standard error of the MSE (it is the chosen one).

of the goodness of fitting (Mean Square Error MSE and the
coefficient of determination R2 ) are available in Tab. II. As
expected, the constant is a positive term, and the attenuation
coefficients are negative terms. Moreover, we can see that the
geometry near to the receiver and near to the exciter coil have
a more important role which is reflected by higher weights.
C. Application of the inverse problem
After solving the direct problem, all the parameters required
for the inverse problem are known. We consider recovering the
60 metres of pipe thickness as a global problem and the full
geometry is recovered from the set of all the measurement
using the formulation established in Eq. (15).
The inverse problem relies on the parameters learnt for
the direct problem. In the case where all the parameters
from the RFEC tool and the magnetic properties of the
pipe specimen are known, it is possible to obtain direct and
inverse models through FEA simulation. Otherwise, multiple
thickness measurements have to be collected from the studied
pipe. These thickness measurements at specific locations are
needed to learn the parameters. In practice, collecting such
measurements is a feasible task considering the few parameters
that are present in the proposed model.
A zoom-in of the pipe profile reconstructed is shown in
Fig. 5. The estimation is shown in blue, and the ground
truth is shown in orange. The spikes in the ground-truth
correspond to the B&S joints. As predicted, the proposed
inverse model cannot recover these thicknesses due to the nonlinear behaviour of the magnetic field in these regions.
The estimation error for the thickness of the 60 metre-long
pipe is of 0.1mm for the MSE and 10.3mm for RMSE (with
the average thickness of the pipe being around 30mm). If
we remove the areas with the B&S joints, the RMSE falls
to 2.6mm.

TABLE II: Output of the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operation. The localised increase of thickness (e.g. B&S joints)
lead to the spread the weights. This is visible by comparing the lines of the table.
coef
dataset (a)
dataset (b)
dataset (c)

cst
y0

w1

w2

Exciter
w3
w4

-17.6

-26.0

-20.9

-5.7

-16.7

-22.4

-19.9

-3.3

-16.0

-48.3

-103.0

0

w19

w20

w21

w22

-5.7

-3.2

-0.2

-2.0

-2.7

-7.8

-10.3

-5.5

-1.9

-1.1

-1.6

0

-6.2

-41.5

0

0

0

0

0

-2.9

-11.2

IV. D ISCUSSION
In this paper, we tackle the direct and inverse problems for
a 2D-axisymmetric RFEC tool composed of a single exciter
coil and a single receiver. We have shown, using FEA, that
both direct and inverse model are accurate for recovering pipe
sections with organic geometry (which is often the case for
corroded cast-iron pipes). The FEA model used to generate the
dataset is based on a realistic geometry and material properties
obtained from old cast-iron pipes.
The proposed direct model is solved using LASSO. The
L1 -regularisation allows selecting automatically the important
thickness areas for the model while reducing the number of
parameters. This result into a simplistic model, with most
important thicknesses located next to the exciter coil and the
receiver. The inverse problem relies on the parameters from
the direct problem and is solved using least squares. For
training the proposed inverse model, thickness measurements
have to be collected from the pipe. In practice, collecting such
measurements is a feasible task considering the few parameters
of the proposed model.
The main limitation of the proposed method lies in the form
of the proposed model. The linear model allows solving the
inverse problem in a closed-form. The model gives accurate
results apart for the B&S joints. For these extremely thick
thicknesses, the magnetic field would flow through the path of
least resistance which cannot be captured by a linear model.
Furthermore, to the outstanding thicknesses, the magnetic
properties are considered constant for the full pipeline. In
practice, pipes can have a variation of magnetic properties;
this case is not studied here.
In future work, we are planning to apply this method for
a tool with a sensor array (3D case). It can be shown that

Thickness (mm)

50

estimation
ground-truth

40
30
20
10
0
36

38

40

42

44

Receiver
w23
w24

w5

46

48

50

52

distance (m)

Fig. 5: Thickness estimated in closed-form. The estimation is
shown in blue, and the ground-truth in orange.

w25

w26

w27

-19.6

-19.1

-8.6

-9.1

-24.5

-63.1

-2.5

0

-46.3

-36.9

-29.0

-3.9

Goodness of Fit
MSE
R2
0.296
0.5754
0.174
0.6391
0.016
0.8779

the attenuation from the exciter behaves as a circumferential
offset [14]. Therefore, it is possible to deconvolute the signal
in a similar fashion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication is an outcome from the Critical Pipes
Project funded by Sydney Water Corporation, Water Research
Foundation of the USA, Melbourne Water, Water Corporation
(WA), UK Water Industry Research Ltd, South Australia Water
Corporation, South East Water, Hunter Water Corporation,
City West Water, Monash University, University of Technology
Sydney and University of Newcastle. The research partners are
Monash University (lead), University of Technology Sydney
and University of Newcastle.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. L. Atherton, “Remote field eddy current inspection,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4142–4147, 1995.
[2] M.-È. Davoust, L. Brusquet, and G. Fleury, “Robust estimation of flaw
dimensions using remote field eddy current inspection,” Measurement
Science and Technology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3006–3014, nov 2006.
[3] M.-È. Davoust, L. Brusquet, and G. Fleury, “Robust Estimation of Hidden Corrosion Parameters Using an Eddy Current Technique,” Journal
of Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 155–167, jun 2010.
[4] A. Tao, W. Zhang, Z. Wang, and Q. Luo, “Design on forward modeling
of RFEC inspection for cracks,” Proceedings - 2014 International Conference on Information Science, Electronics and Electrical Engineering,
ISEEE 2014, vol. 1, pp. 579–584, 2014.
[5] E. Cardelli, N. Esposito, and M. Raugi, “Electromagnetic Analysis of
RFEC Differential Probes,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 29,
no. 2, pp. 1849–1852, 1993.
[6] A. Skarlatos, G. Pichenot, D. Lesselier, M. Lambert, and B. Duchêne,
“Electromagnetic Modeling of a Damaged Ferromagnetic Metal Tube
by a Volume Integral Equation Formulation,” IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 623–632, 2008.
[7] W. Lord, Y. S. Sun, S. Udpa, and S. Nath, “A Finite Element Study
of the Remote Field Eddy Current Phenomen,” IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 435–438, 1988.
[8] Y. S. Sun, D. Cooley, H. Han, S. Udpa, and W. Lord, “Efforts
towards gaining a better understanding of the remote field eddy current
phenomenon and expanding its applications,” IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1589–1592, may 1996.
[9] R. Tibshirani, “Regression Selection and Shrinkage via the Lasso,”
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288,
1996.
[10] B. Skinner, T. Vidal-calleja, J. Valls Miro, F. D. Bruijn, and R. Falque,
“3D Point Cloud Upsampling for Accurate Reconstruction of Dense
2.5D Thickness Maps 3D Point Cloud Acquisition,” in Australasian
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ACRA), 2014.
[11] T. Vidal-calleja, J. V. Miro, and F. Mart, “Automatic Detection and
Verification of Pipeline Construction Elements with Multi-modal data,”
in IROS, 2014.
[12] B. Peirce, “Criterion for the rejection of doubtful observations,” The
Astronomical Journal, vol. 2, no. 45, pp. 161–163, 1852.
[13] C. William, A Manual of Spherical and Practical Astronomy. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott {&} co.; London, Trubner {&} co., 1863.
[14] R. Falque, T. Vidal-calleja, J. Valls Miro, D. C. Lingnau, and D. E.
Russell, “Background Segmentation to Enhance Remote Field Eddy Current Signals,” in Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ACRA), 2014, pp. 1–9.

