for the different particle beds. The porosity radial profile through the reconstructed sample was systematically compared for the true XCT data (e.g. Experiment #1) and input data containing irregular spheres (e.g. Experiment #2). Figure and demonstrates the radial porosity for input data (e.g. original) and 2-, 3-, and 6-view reconstructions. The real XCT data (e.g. Experiment #1) demonstrates wide porosity variations between the different views (Fig. ) and capture the sub-surface variability in the learning exercise. The standard deviation of localized porosity distribution is between 3.14-4.85% for the synthetic data with irregular spheres (Fig. , Experiment #2) and 10.05-12.43% for the real XCT sample (Fig. , Experiment #1) Synthetic data was constructed with irregular shaped spheres of varying sizes (e.g. Experiment #2). The 3D ground truth (Figure ) and predicted images (Figure ) demonstrate that all the reconstructions (2-, 4-and 6-views) demonstrate similar packing densities as the ground truth. As the number of projection views increases, the details of the particles' shape are more accurate and the surface is smoother. The adhesion between some of the particles is attenuated since the reconstructed particles' shape is more accurately represented. The 2D predictions in the validation views (Figure ) shows a high similarity to the input view (Figure ) at the same projection angle (0 deg) in all reconstructions except for the high contrast particle overlapping region in the two-view reconstruction. The novel view projections define more clearly particle boundaries as the number of views increases to four (Figure ).