## 4 Discussion  
### Justification of Reliability of FCAZ Recognition Results  
Simultaneously with the pure experiment (see above) or in the absence of the same, reliability was assessed based on the computational control experiments. FCAZ recognition employs two types of control experiments--individual seismic history and complete seismic history. In the individual seismic history experiment, FCAZ zones are constructed based on findings from the DPS clustering of the earthquake epicenters (with \(M\geq M_{\text{R}}\)) only for 20 years preceding the events with \(M\geq M_{0}\). The experiment ends with an analysis of the relative position of the recognized zones and the epicenter of the earthquake with \(M\geq M_{0}\), for which the zones were constructed. The complete seismic history experiment excludes from the used instrumental catalog the epicenters for the past few years during which events with \(M\geq M_{0}\) have occurred. FCAZ zones are recognized through the use of DPS clustering of the epicenters remaining in the catalog. The experiment ends with an analysis of the location of the earthquake epicenters with \(M\geq M_{0}\) from the discarded part of the catalog relative to the recognized FCAZ zones. It should be noted that to improve the objectivity of computational experiments, they are conducted using the same values of the FCAZ method parameters (\(q\), \(\beta\), \(\delta\), \(\omega\), \(v\), \(C\)) (i.e., the DPS and E\({}^{2}\)XT algorithms) as for the main recognition variant. The values \(\beta\), \(\omega\), and \(v\) in the main recognition variant (see above) were computed in an automated manner by the artificial intelligence blocks [21]. Series of control experiments were conducted for the mountain belt of the South American Andes, the Pacific Coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula, California, and the Caucasus. Figure 11 shows typical results of experiments in California as an example. A comparative analysis of the spatial location of 29 FCAZ zones recognized in the individual seismic history experiments and the main results of FCAZ recognitions (see above) demonstrated a high degree of their similarity. That said, the epicenters of 27 out of 29 earthquakes involved in the experiments are located inside or at the boundaries of the recognized zones. The FCAZ zones recognized in the course of complete seismic history experiments in terms of their forms and spatial location are close to the FCAZ zones of the main recognition variants. The zones include 25 out of 27 epicenters of earthquakes with \(M\geq M_{0}\), which occurred years later (in particular, 10-25 years) after the date of the last recognition object (earthquake epicenter). For instance, in California, the epicenter of the earthquake with \(M=7.1\) (white star in Figure 11b), which occurred 28.5 years after the end of the catalog used in the experiment is located strictly inside FCAZ zones. The results of control experiments demonstrate the stability of FCAZ recognition in time and space. This confirms the reliability of the main recognition variants in the studied regions as the zones prone to the strongest, strong, and significant earthquakes. A comparative analysis of FCAZ zones and the EPA zones recognized earlier [4; 62; 63; 64] was conducted in the mountain belt of the Andes, on the Pacific Coast of Kamchatka, in California, and the Caucasus. FCAZ zones typically occupy a smaller area than EPA zones. An exception is the mountain belt of the Andes, where FCAZ recognition covered a larger area. Figure 12 shows the comparison of FCAZ zones and EPA zones in Kamchatka and California. In Kamchatka, high seismicity territories identified by both methods have a common, northeastern strike due to the subduction zone (Figure 12a). That said, FCAZ zones are typically located northwest of EPA zones. This is because most objects recognized as high seismicity ones using the EPA method were formed by the intersection of a deep-water trench with the morphstructural lineaments of rank II and III.