## 3 Results
Thus, it is very likely that some events that did not fall into the FCAZ zones may not be missed targets of recognition. Let us consider the case where \(M_{0}=6.0\). In turn, four (14.8%) out of 27 events with \(M\geq 6.0\) are errors of the \"missed target\" type. Here, all missed earthquakes occurred before 1930. The coordinates of their epicenters were determined with an error of \(\pm 0.5\)-1\({}^{\circ}\), and the magnitudes--\(\pm 0.5\). The latter is also confirmed by the work [55], where for these events the estimates of magnitudes are given that are 0.2-0.4 less than in [15] (Table 1). It should also be noted that three of the four missed epicenters are located within a fairly small area (the maximum distance between the epicenters is \(\approx\)80 km). These events have the same magnitude estimates and occurred within three and a half months (the first two with a difference of less than five hours). These three events should likely be considered as one missed target of recognition. Thus, interpreting the result (Figure 3) for earthquakes with \(M\geq 6.0\), we can speak of only two (8.0%) misses. Considering only strong events that occurred after the start of systematic seismological observations in 1962 (the beginning of the used instrumental catalog), and which have reliable instrumental estimates of the magnitude and coordinates of the epicenter, we have the following positive results. Out of 95 earthquakes with \(M\geq 5.0\), epicenters of five (5.26%) are located outside the FCAZ zones, and for earthquakes with \(M\geq 5.5\) and \(M\geq 6.0\), in this case, there are no \"missed target\" errors. It should be noted that, according to the ANSS and EMSC catalogs, after the end of the integrated catalog used for FCAZ recognition, events with \(M\geq 5.0\) have not yet occurred in the continental part of the studied region (the catalog ends in 2020). Therefore, the use of a direct control sample to assess the reliability of this recognition is impossible. Figure 3 shows that the recognized FCAZ zones contain not only the epicenters of earthquakes with \(M\geq 5.0\), which are directly confined to the boundaries of the Eurasian, North American, and Okhotsk tectonic plates; they also contain some events that occurred at a sufficient distance from the main tectonic structures of the studied region. This emphasizes the nontriviality of the result of the performed FCAZ recognition. Note that the FCAZ zones occupy only \(\approx 10\)% of the continental part of the region within which recognition was performed (shown by the white frame in Figures 1 and 2) and contain 68.4% of events with \(M\geq 3.0\), 68.9% with \(M\geq 3.5\), 70.5% with \(M\geq 4.0\), and 69.8% with \(M\geq 4.5\) from those available in the instrumental catalog used for recognition. This once again indicates the nontriviality of the obtained result of FCAZ recognition (Figure 3). Note that FCAZ zones for \(M_{0}=5.0\), \(M_{0}=5.5\), and \(M_{0}=6.0\) declare the same territory as hazardous. Moreover, if the percentage of \"missed target\" errors is equal when considering all strong events from Table 1 their number is reduced to zero for earthquakes with \(M\geq 5.5\) and \(M\geq 6.0\) when the historical part of the catalog (which contains possible significant errors in determining the coordinates of epicenters and estimating magnitudes) is discarded. The foregoing allows us to interpret the recognized FCAZ zones (Figure 3) as areas prone to earthquakes with \(M\geq 5.5\) in the eastern sector of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Note that the result of FCAZ recognition shown in Figure 3 can be interpreted in another way. For example, the territory of the studied region not covered by recognized high seismicity zones can be considered as areas where only earthquakes with a magnitude \(M<5.0\) can occur. Thus, according to the results of this work, strong earthquakes cannot occur in \(\approx\)90% of the territory of the eastern sector of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.