deletions | additions       diff --git a/chapter_Methodology_section_Objective_1__.tex b/chapter_Methodology_section_Objective_1__.tex  index 6f91b3e..c9b73cf 100644  --- a/chapter_Methodology_section_Objective_1__.tex  +++ b/chapter_Methodology_section_Objective_1__.tex 
...
\subsection{Focal Mechanisms}  \cite{Rubinstein_2010} \cite{Pugh_2016}  \section{Objective 3}  Match filter detection techniques are computationally expensive when applied across large datasets. The expense is multiplied as more earthquakes are added to the list of desired template events (referred to by Barrett and Beroza as the design set) \cite{Barrett_2014} and as larger seismograph networks, with more channels of data, are used. At the same time, it is important that a design set effectively represent the variety of sources present in a given study area or risk missing what might be important seismicity. Subspace detection has been used to address these considerations (e.g. \cite{Harris_2006}, \cite{Harris_2006a}, \cite{Gibbons_2006}, \cite{Barrett_2014}). Subspace detection tries to represent a design set of template events, which would be used as individual detectors for matched filtering, as a single subspace detector. These detectors are subspaces made up of n eigenvectors representing the design set space, where n is some integer less than the number of templates. Detection is performed within the subspace defined by each detector. Continuous data is projected into this subspace, producing a detection statistic of between 0 and 1.