Figure shows the results obtained from the sequential Rietveld analysis of both FBP and ParallaxNet reconstructed volumes using the TOPAS software which is guided by inhouse developed Python scripts. As presented in Figure , the maps of Ni scale factor, crystallite size, and lattice parameter a from ParallaxNet are almost identical to the ground truth maps while the FBP significantly diverge; this is apparent when one observes specifically the lattice parameter and crystallite size maps. This suggests that the diffraction peak positions and shapes reconstructed by ParallaxNet closely match the ground truth patterns. The differences between the crystallite size and lattice parameter maps and their ground truth values are presented in Supplementary Figure . Their accuracy is also confirmed by the R wp maps from the Rietveld analysis and the distribution of lattice parameters for all pixels, as shown in Supplementary Figure . The mean image and diffraction patterns, along with selected channels of maps, are shown in Supplementary Figures . By visually inspecting the maps reconstructed by FBP and ParallaxNet, we can conclude that ParallaxNet accurately reconstructs the signals in the correct positions and addresses the parallax artefacts present in the simulated data. The distribution of lattice parameters obtained by the three methods are shown in Supplementary Figure . In a pixel-wise analysis, we select one region of interest as depicted in Figure corresponding to one particle. It can be seen that in the simulated dataset this particle has one value for lattice parameter and crystallite size. As illustrated in Figure , the parallax artefact causes the FBP reconstructed patterns to exhibit significant shifts in peak positions, broadening, and some instances of splitting when reconstructed using the conventional 0-180 °CT acquisition. However, the ParallaxNet can accurately reconstruct the volume without these artefacts and the reconstructed diffraction peaks are well aligned with the ground truth data.