Torus computed tomography for experimental data

By the Fourier slice theorem 2.1, it holds that

for any v \in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus \{0\}, in the sense of distributions, with a slight abuse of notation. Furthermore, from the fact f \in \mathcal{T}', one notices that \mathcal{I}_vf \in \mathcal{T}' for any v \in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus \{0\}. Since Q_N is a finite set, it follows that f_N \in \mathcal{T}' as a finite sum of distributions for any N \in \mathbb{N}.

Let now k \in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus \{0\}. We show that there exists N_k \geq 0 such that for any N \geq N_k it holds that \hat{f}_N(k)=\hat{f}(k). It follows from the definition of Q_N that for any N \geq |k|_\infty there exists v \in Q_N such that v \cdot k = 0. One may now compute, using the Fourier slice theorem 2.1 and the definition of f_N, that \hat{f}_N(k)=\hat{f}(k) for any N \geq N_k := |k|_{\infty}. On the other hand, one can compute that

for any N \in \mathbb{N}. In particular, \hat{f}_N(k) = \hat{f}(k) for all k\in\mathbb{Z}^2_N.

Since f\in\mathcal{T}', there exists t\in\mathbb{R} such that f\in H^t(\mathbb{T}^2). For \xi\neq 0, at most one v\in Q_N is orthogonal to \xi, so \hat{f}_N(\xi) attains either value \hat{f}(\xi) or zero. We can now estimate

Hence, the limit [\lim_{N\to\infty}f_N](\varphi) := \lim_{N \to \infty} \langle f_N, \varphi \rangle, where \varphi \in \mathcal{T} is a test function, defines a distribution in \mathcal{T}', which agrees with f as they have the same Fourier series coefficients.

By [IKR19, Theorem 2], the minimizer of (?) is f^{\alpha,s}=P_{\alpha}^{s-r}\mathcal{I}^*g.

We next identify P_{\alpha}^{s-r} as a convolution operator. By definition

Now, the convolution theorem implies

Next, we show that g_N-E_N\rightarrow\mathcal{I}^*g in H^r(\mathbb{T}^2). On the Fourier side, when k\neq0, we can split directions according to whether they are orthogonal, which gives

The only direction orthogonal to k in Q is \hat{k}^\perp which is in Q_N whenever N\geq |k|_{\infty}. Now by (?), we have, (g_N-E_N)^{\wedge}(k)=\hat{g}(k,\hat{k}^\perp)=\widehat{\mathcal{I}^*g}(k) for N\geq|k|_{\infty}, and (g_N-E_N)^{\wedge}(k)\in\{0,\widehat{\mathcal{I}^*g}(k)\} for all N. For k=0, we have \hat{E}_N(0)=0, and all averages of g equal \hat{g}(0,0), so (g_N-E_N)^{\wedge}(0)=\hat{g}(0,0)=\widehat{\mathcal{I}^*g}(0). Therefore

since \mathcal{I}^*g\in H^r(\mathbb{T}^2). In particular g_N-E_N\rightarrow \mathcal{I}^*g in H^r(\mathbb{T}^2).

The filter multiplies the k’th Fourier coefficient by (1+\alpha\langle k \rangle^{2(s-r)})^{-1}, and

Therefore, for every h\in H^{r}(\mathbb{T}^2), one has \| h*p_{\alpha}^{s-r} \|_{H^{2s-r}(\mathbb{T}^2)}\leq\alpha^{-1}\| h\|_{H^r(\mathbb{T}^2)}. With h=g_N-E_N-\mathcal{I}^*g and f^{\alpha,s}=\mathcal{I}^*g*p_{\alpha}^{s-r}, this gives

If e\equiv 0, then E_N=0 for every N, which gives the last claim and thus concludes the proof.

By linearity, g_N*p^{s-r}_\alpha - f^{\alpha,s} = E_N*p_{\alpha}^{s-r} + h_N, where h_N:=(g_N-E_N)*p_\alpha^{s-r} - f^{\alpha,s}. By Theorem 2.5, h_N\rightarrow0 in H^{2s-r}(\mathbb{T}^2). Since E_N\in H^{r}(\mathbb{T}^2), by (?), E_N*p_{\alpha}^{s-r}\in H^{2s-r}(\mathbb{T}^2). By the reverse triangle inequality, we have

which concludes the proof.

By (?), \mathcal{I}f(\cdot,v) is constant along geodesics in direction v and by Theorem 2.1 \widehat{\mathcal{I}f}(k,v)=0 when k\cdot v \neq 0. Thus, \mathcal{I}f does not contribute to e or E_N. Since \mathcal{I}f\in H^r(\mathbb{T}^2\times Q) [IKR19, Proposition 10], we have g\in H^r(\mathbb{T}^2\times Q). If \eta is constant along geodesics, e\equiv 0. Theorem 2.5 gives g_N*p_{\alpha}^{s-r}\rightarrow f^{\alpha,s} in H^{2s-r}(\mathbb{T}^2). By linearity and \mathcal{I}^*\mathcal{I}=\text{Id} [IKR19, Proposition 11] we get f^{\alpha, s}=P^{s-r}_\alpha f + P^{s-r}_\alpha\mathcal{I}^* \eta. Since \| \mathcal{I} \| = \|\mathcal{I}^*\|=1 [IKR19, Propositions 10 and 11], the first inequality follows from \|P^{s-r}_\alpha\|_{H^r\rightarrow H^r}\leq 1, and the second from \|P^{s-r}_\alpha\|_{H^r\rightarrow H^{2s-r}}\leq \alpha^{-1} by (?).

The constant terms in (?) give \widehat{f_{\mathrm{TBP}}}(0)=\frac{1}{|Q_N|}\sum_{v\in Q_N}\bar{g}_v, and since \langle 0\rangle=1, for the filtered case the zero mode is multiplied by (1+\alpha)^{-1}. Thus

Taking expectations and using that the errors have zero mean gives the unbiasedness. Since the errors have zero mean and are pairwise uncorrelated, \mathbb{E}(\bar{g}_v - \hat{f}(0))\overline{(\bar{g}_w-\hat{f}(0))}=0 for v\neq w, v,w \in Q_N, and since \mathbb{E}|\bar{g}_v - \hat{f}(0)|^2\leq C, we get

Now dividing by (1+\alpha)^2|Q_N|^2 gives the mean squared error estimate.