data-label="CheeseRec"}](Cheese15AngMatern "fig:"){width="6.21cm"}]{} (90,30)[(a)]{} (232,30)[(b)]{} (395,30)[(c)]{}

      Target       FBP   Matérn        
  --------------- ----- -------- -- -- --
   Carved cheese   0.1   12604         

  : Computation times of the carved cheese (in seconds)[]{data-label="Computation time cheese"}

Discussion
----------

We have presented x-ray tomography reconstructions from both simulated and real data for limited projections (i.e. sparse sampling) using an approach based on the Gaussian process. However, other limited-data problems such as limited angle tomography could be explored as well. The quality of GP reconstructions using different covariance functions looks rather the same qualitatively. However, quantitatively, the reconstruction using Matérn covariance is the best one: it has the lowest RE $23.26\%$ and the highest PSNR $22.76$. PSNR describes the similarity of the original target with the reconstructioned image (the higher value, the better of the reconstruction). Figures of merit estimates are not available for the real cheese data since there is no comparable ground truth. Nevertheless, the quality of the reconstruction can be observed qualitatively by comparing with the FBP reconstruction obtained with dense $360$ projections from $360$ degrees shown in Figure \[CheeseRec\](a). The corresponding parameter estimates for the chest phantom and the cheese are reported in Table \[GP parameters\] and \[GP parameter cheese\]. For the chest phantom case, the estimate of parameter $\sigma$ using Matérn, Laplacian and Tikhonov kernels tend to be close to the true value $\sigma_{true}$. As for the SE covariance, the standard deviation of noise is overestimated.

The reconstructions produced by the FBP benchmark algorithm using sparse projections are overwhelmed by streak artefacts due to the nature of backprojection reconstruction, as shown in Figure \[fig:ChestPhantomRec\](b) for the chest phantom and Figure \[CheeseRec\](b) the for cheese target. The edges of the target are badly reconstructed. Due to the artefacts, especially for the chest phantom, it is difficult to distinguish the lighter region (which is assumed to be tissue) and the black region (air). The FBP reconstruction has the worst quality and it is confirmed in Table \[Figures of merit\] that it
data - label="CheeseRec"}](Cheese15AngMatern " fig:"){width="6.21 cm " } ] { } (90,30)[(a) ] { } (232,30)[(b) ] { } (395,30)[(c) ] { } 

       Target        FBP    Matérn        
   --------------- ----- -------- -- -- -- 
    Carved cheese    0.1    12604         

  : Computation time of the carve cheese (in seconds)[]{data - label="Computation time cheese " } 

 Discussion 
 ---------- 

 We have present x - ray imaging reconstructions from both simulated and real datum for circumscribed projections (i.e. sparse sampling) use an approach based on the Gaussian process. However, early limited - data trouble such as limited angle imaging could be explored as well. The quality of GP reconstruction using different covariance function looks preferably the same qualitatively. However, quantitatively, the reconstruction using Matérn covariance is the best one: it has the lowest rhenium $ 23.26\%$ and the highest PSNR $ 22.76$. PSNR describes the similarity of the original target with the reconstructioned image (the higher value, the better of the reconstruction). Figures of merit estimates are not available for the real cheese data since there is no comparable ground truth. Nevertheless, the quality of the reconstruction can be observe qualitatively by comparing with the FBP reconstruction obtained with dense $ 360 $ projection from $ 360 $ academic degree shown in Figure   \[CheeseRec\](a). The corresponding parameter estimate for the chest of drawers phantom and the cheese are report in Table   \[GP parameters\ ] and \[GP parameter cheese\ ]. For the chest phantom case, the estimate of parameter $ \sigma$ use Matérn, Laplacian and Tikhonov kernels tend to be close to the true value $ \sigma_{true}$. As for the SE covariance, the standard deviation of randomness is overestimated. 

 The reconstructions produce by the FBP benchmark algorithm use sparse projections are overwhelmed by streak artefacts due to the nature of backprojection reconstruction, as shown in Figure   \[fig: ChestPhantomRec\](b) for the chest phantom and Figure   \[CheeseRec\](b) the for cheese prey. The edges of the target are badly reconstructed. Due to the artifact, especially for the chest phantom, it is difficult to distinguish the easy region (which is wear to be tissue) and the black area (air). The FBP reconstruction has the bad quality and it is confirmed in Table   \[Figures of merit\ ] that it
datw-label="CheeseRec"}](Cheese15AngOatern "fig:"){width="6.21en"}]{} (90,30)[(a)]{} (232,30)[(b)]{} (395,30)[(r)]{}

      Farget       FBP   Matérn        
  --------------- ----- -------- -- -- --
   Cqrved cheese   0.1   12604         

  : Clmputatiin tmmes of the carvxs cheesc (in accondv)[]{vata-label="Computstion time cheese"}

Discusshov
----------

Wz have presented x-ray tomography recjnstrucyilns from both fimukwted and real data for limited projectjons (i.e. sparse samplong) using an approach basef on the Gaussian procfss. However, othqe limited-datx problems such as limjted angle tomography could be dxploxed as well. Tye eoality of GP recogstructions mxing dhffereny covariance fmnctimns looks rather the samx qualitatively. Howeder, quanthtctively, the reconstruxtuon uving Matéfb cuvadiencs is tje uest one: it has the loqest RE $23.26\%$ and the hibhqwt PSNR $22.76$. PSNR descrybqs the similarity of the original targeu witg the reconstructioned umage (the higher valug, the bettqr of the reconstruction). Figures of merit estimatas arx vot ayailxvlf for the real cheese data since there is no skmkarsble ground trmth. Nevertheless, tne qiwlity of the teconstxhcfion can be observfd qualytaticely by cjmpating with the FBP reconstruxtion obtainvd wuth dense $360$ projectnons from $360$ dzgrees showm in Figure \[CheeseRec\](a). Tke cordesponding oarameter dstimates for thd cmesd phantom and the cheese awe reportxd in Table \[GO patameterf\] and \[GP pwramebar cheese\]. For the fhest pvantom casf, the estimate of parameter $\sigma$ using Matérn, Ldpldcian anb Tikhpnov kernels eend to be cloxe to tke trud value $\sifma_{true}$. As for the SE covarianca, the standarv deviatijn od nouse is uxerestimated.

Thr reconstguetions priduced by the FBP nenchozrk algorithm uwint sparse projecyiovs wrv oterwhqnmed by stredk aftewscts aue to uke katjre pf backprojection rewonsfruction, as shown on Figure \[fug:ChestPrantomRec\](b) fot the chest phantol and Fijure \[ChresgRec\](b) the for cheese target. The edges of thc target are fadln resonstructeb. Due to the artefacts, especially for thx chest phantom, it is dufficult to distingoism the lightec regijn (which hs assumed to be tiswue) and the black region (air). The FBP rsconstsuctiln has the worst quality and it is confirmed in Table \[Figures of merit\] thar it
data-label="CheeseRec"}](Cheese15AngMatern "fig:"){width="6.21cm"}]{} (90,30)[(a)]{} (232,30)[(b)]{} (395,30)[(c)]{} Target FBP ----- -- -- Carved cheese 0.1 the cheese (in seconds)[]{data-label="Computation cheese"} Discussion ---------- have presented x-ray tomography reconstructions from simulated and real data for limited projections (i.e. sparse sampling) using an approach on the Gaussian process. However, other limited-data problems such as limited angle tomography be as The of GP reconstructions using different covariance functions looks rather the same qualitatively. However, quantitatively, the reconstruction Matérn covariance is the best one: it has lowest RE $23.26\%$ and highest PSNR $22.76$. PSNR describes similarity the original with reconstructioned (the higher value, better of the reconstruction). Figures of merit estimates are not available for the real cheese data since is no truth. Nevertheless, quality the can be observed comparing with the FBP reconstruction obtained projections from $360$ degrees shown in Figure \[CheeseRec\](a). corresponding parameter for the chest phantom and the are reported in Table \[GP parameters\] and \[GP cheese\]. For the chest phantom case, the estimate of parameter $\sigma$ using Matérn, Laplacian and tend to be close the true value As the covariance, standard deviation noise is overestimated. The reconstructions produced by the FBP benchmark algorithm sparse projections are overwhelmed by streak artefacts due to the backprojection as shown in \[fig:ChestPhantomRec\](b) for the chest and \[CheeseRec\](b) the for cheese edges the reconstructed. to artefacts, especially for the phantom, it is difficult to the lighter region (which and the black region (air). The FBP reconstruction the worst quality and it is confirmed Table \[Figures of merit\] that it
data-label="CheeseRec"}](Cheese15ANgMatern "fiG:"){widtH="6.21cm"}]{} (90,30)[(A)]{} (232,30)[(b)]{} (395,30)[(c)]{}

      taRget       fBP   MAtérn        
  --------------- ----- -------- -- -- --
   Carved cheESe   0.1   12604         

  : CoMputation times of the carVed chEeSE (in sECoNds)[]{daTa-label="cOmPUTatIoN tIme ChEEsE"}

DiscUssIon
----------

We haVe presenteD x-rAy Tomography reCOnStructions FroM both simulatEd aNd real DaTa fOR limiTed ProjeCtions (I.E. sparsE sampling) UsINg an apPRoach baSED oN the gaussian process. HoWEvER, other limited-dAta proBlEMs SUCh aS liMited angle ToMograPHy could BE eXPLOreD As well. The qualIty of GP recoNStrUctionS uSinG DifferEnt coVaRIanCe functions LookS rather thE same qUAlitatiVEly. HoweVer, quaNtiTatIvelY, ThE rEcoNsTRucTIoN usINg MAtérn covArIaNce is The bEST ONe: it Has The lOwest rE $23.26\%$ and the higheSt PsNR $22.76$. PsnR dEscriBes thE simIlArity Of the oRiginAl Target with the reConsTructioneD imAgE (thE hIgher VAlue, thE beTteR of the rEconstrUCtiOn). fIGUrEs of merit estimates ArE NOt AvailablE for thE ReAl CHeese datA sIncE theRE Is no cOmpaRAbLe ground Truth. NEVeRtHeless, tHe QualitY oF thE reConstRUctiOn can bE observeD qualITatively by compARing with the FBp ReCONsTRuctIon Obtained witH denSE $360$ proJectIOnS frOM $360$ degrEes shOwN In fIgure \[CheeseRec\](a). The cOrResponDing pArameter estimAtes for the CHESt phantoM and THe CHeese are reportEd in TAble \[GP paraMEters\] and \[gP parAmeter chEese\]. For thE CHest phanTom CasE, thE esTIMaTe of parameter $\SIGma$ uSiNg MatérN, LaPlacian And tikHonOv kErNels tend tO be close To ThE tRuE vaLue $\siGMa_{true}$. As FoR thE Se coVariaNCe, the sTandaRd deViAtIOn oF noise iS OvEREstiMaTeD.

The RecOnStrucTionS ProDuced by The FBP benChmARk alGoRiThm usinG sparse projecTiOns are overWhElmEd by stREAk artefaCts due to the nature of backPRojectiOn rEconsTrucTion, as shoWn iN FigurE \[fiG:chestPHantomrec\](b) fOr The CHEst phANToM anD FIgure \[CheesErEc\](b) The foR cHeesE target. the edges of the targeT Are Badly reconstrUctEd. DuE TO tHe aRTeFActS, eSPecIALly for the chest pHantom, it is DiFFiCult to distINguIsH the ligHter regIon (whICh is assUmed to be tIssue) and tHe BlacK REgiOn (air). The FBp reconstRuction haS The woRSt QualiTy aNd it is CoNfiRmed iN Table \[fIguRes of Merit\] tHaT it
data-label="CheeseRec"}](C heese15Ang Mater n " fig :" ){wi dth= "6.21cm"}]{} ( 9 0,30 )[(a)]{} (232,30)[(b)] {} (3 95 , 30)[ ( c) ]{}
      T a rg e t     FBP  Ma térn      
 ---------- --- --  ----- ----- - --  -- -- --  Carved chees e  0.1  1 260 4        

 : Comp u tation  times of  t h e carv e d chees e (i n se conds)[]{data-lab e l= " Computation ti me che es e "} Dis cus sion
----- -- ---
W e havep re s e n ted x-ray tomogra phy reconst r uct ions f ro m b o th sim ulate da ndreal data f or l imited pr ojecti o ns (i.e .  sparse  sampl ing ) u sing an  a ppr oa c h b a se d o n  th e Gaussi an  p roces s. H o w e v er,oth er l imite d-data proble mssuch aslimit ed an gleto mogra phy co uld b eexplored as wel l. T he qualit y o fGPre const r uction s u sin g diffe rent co v ari an c e fu nctions looks rath er t he  same qu alitat i ve ly .  However ,qua ntit a t ively , th e  r econstru ctionu si ng  Matérn  c ovaria nc e i s t he be s t on e: ithas thelowes t  RE $23.26\%$a nd the highes t  P S N R$ 22.7 6$.  PSNR descr ibes thesimi l ar ity of th e ori gi n al target with the rec on struct ioned  image (the h igher valu e , the bett er o f  t h e reconstructi on).Figures of merit es timat es are n ot availa b l e for th e r eal  ch ees e da ta since ther e is n ocompara ble  ground  tr uth . N eve rt heless, t he quali ty  o fth e r econs t ructionca n b eobs erved qualit ative ly b yco m par ing wit h  t h e  FBP  r ec onst ruc ti on ob tain e d w ith den se $360$pro j ecti on sfrom $3 60$ degrees s ho wn in Figu re  \[ Cheese R e c\](a).The corresponding param e ter est ima tes f or t he chestpha ntom a ndt he che ese ar e rep or ted i n Tab l e  \ [GP  p arameters\ ] and  \[GP  p aram eter ch eese\]. For the ch e stphantom case,  th e es t i ma teo fp ara me t er$ \ sigma$ using Ma térn, Lapl ac i an  and Tikho n ovke rnels t end tobe cl o se to t he true v alue $\si gm a_{t r u e}$ . As for t he SE co variance, the s t an darddev iation  o f n oiseis ove r est imate d.

Th erecons truct io ns produ ced by the FBP benchmar k algo rithm  us ing spars e p r oje ctions ar e ov erwhelmedbystr eak a rte f actsduet othe natur e of backproje c ti onr e co nstruction, a s  sh own i n F i gure \ [fig :ChestPhantomRec\ ] (b) for the ch estp h ant oma nd F ig ure \[CheeseRe c\] (b ) the forch eese target . The ed ge s  of t he tar get ar e badly r ec o nstruc ted.  Du e to theart ef a cts, es pe ci a lly fo r th echestphanto m , it i s difficult to d istin g u ish t h e l ighte rregion( whic h is assum ed to be ti ssue)andthe b lack re gi on (ai r).  T he FBP rec o nstructio n has  the wo rs t qu ali ty and  iti s  conf irme dinTable \[F i g ur e sof mer it\]  that  i t
data-label="CheeseRec"}](Cheese15AngMatern "fig:"){width="6.21cm"}]{}_(90,30)[(a)]{} (232,30)[(b)]{}_(395,30)[(c)]{}

   _ _Target_ __  _FBP  _Matérn   _  __
  --------------- ----- -------- -- -- --
   Carved cheese  _0.1_ _12604__    _  

  :_Computation times_of the carved cheese (in seconds)[]{data-label="Computation time cheese"}

Discussion
----------

We_have_presented x-ray tomography_reconstructions from both simulated and real data for limited_projections (i.e. sparse sampling) using an_approach based on_the_Gaussian_process. However, other limited-data_problems such as limited angle tomography_could be explored as well. The_quality of GP reconstructions using different covariance_functions looks rather the same qualitatively._However, quantitatively, the reconstruction using_Matérn covariance_is the best one: it_has the lowest_RE $23.26\%$_and the highest_PSNR $22.76$. PSNR describes the similarity_of the original_target with the reconstructioned image (the_higher_value, the better_of_the_reconstruction). Figures_of merit estimates_are_not available_for_the real cheese data since there_is_no comparable ground truth. Nevertheless, the quality_of the reconstruction can_be_observed qualitatively by comparing_with the FBP reconstruction obtained_with dense $360$ projections from $360$_degrees shown_in Figure \[CheeseRec\](a)._The corresponding parameter estimates for the chest phantom and the cheese_are reported in Table \[GP parameters\] and_\[GP parameter cheese\]. For_the chest_phantom_case, the estimate_of_parameter $\sigma$_using Matérn, Laplacian and Tikhonov kernels tend_to be_close to the true value $\sigma_{true}$._As for the SE_covariance,_the standard deviation of noise is_overestimated.

The reconstructions produced by the FBP_benchmark algorithm using sparse projections_are_overwhelmed_by streak artefacts due to_the nature of backprojection reconstruction, as_shown in Figure \[fig:ChestPhantomRec\](b)_for the chest phantom and Figure \[CheeseRec\](b) the_for_cheese target. The edges of the_target_are badly reconstructed. Due to the_artefacts,_especially_for the chest phantom, it_is difficult to distinguish the lighter_region (which is assumed to be tissue) and the_black region (air)._The FBP reconstruction has the_worst_quality_and it is confirmed in Table \[Figures of merit\] that it