## 3 Inversion of Geodetic Data--Fault Model
The standard deviation of the measured and modeled deformation values (plotting in Figure 4) are mentioned. The uncertainties of the parameters are also included. The solution with the geodetically constrained dip angle has a lower standard deviation of 2.6 mm, compared to the 3.9 mm for the one constrained by the seismological dip. The two solutions are similar, mainly differing, apart from the dip angle, at the rake angle and the width. The distance between the two centroids is short, \(\sim\)0.4 km. As in all elastic models, it was not possible to solve independently for all parameters of the modeled fault. This is the reason why we had to lock the dip and azimuth angles. To test the trade-offs between related parameters during the inversion, the convergence diagrams of the width versus dip angle, rake angle, and slip are considered (see also Figure 2 in Appendix A). After constraining the strike and dip, these trade-offs ceased. Although the azimuth could be sharply estimated, the optimum dip angle is hardly distinguishable (Figure 2g) compared with the other parameters. Therefore, due to the marginal preference of InSAR for the dip at 48\({}^{\circ}\), the forward model was calculated accordingly and used for the comparison with the measured values and the calculation of their residuals in this section. We discuss both models in the corresponding section. The forward wrapped interferograms along with the residuals from the measurements are shown in Figure 2. The forward unwrapped decomposed vertical E-W and N-S deformation fields, along with the residuals for the first two components, are shown in Figure 3. Concerning the participation of each deformation component of the model to the observed deformation along the LOS, we use the LOS unit vectors and the maximum values for each component. We obtain a percentage of 26%, 6% and 68% for the E-W, N-S and vertical component, respectively. Thus, as expected, the LOS values are primarily dominated by the vertical component, secondly by the E-W component and least from the north-south one. This is the reason why, in the decomposition process, omitting this component leads to neglectable errors. Of course, this may not be true for other earthquakes and fault orientations, as was the case of the Samos (Greece) 2020 Earthquake. In a recent publication [20] on an effort to decompose the LOS values, from mean interferograms, using both orbital geometries, the modeled N-S component was considered in the equation. In Figure 4, the modeled and picked deformation values are shown for the ascending and descending orbits, where the misfit of the model and the measurements could be controlled. In terms of earthquake size, the geodetic moment was calculated to 1.6 \(\times\) 10\({}^{16}\) N\(\cdot\)m and 1.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{16}\) N\(\cdot\)m, for the fault parameters favoring the geodetic and seismological dip angle, respectively, assuming a rigidity of the medium of 3.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{10}\) Pa. With the dip angle of 48\({}^{\circ}\), the top-edge of the fault at 0.7 km, and a width of 1.0 km, the root of the fault was located at a depth of 1.5 km and the geodetic centroid depth was at 1.1 km. Regarding the model with the dip angle of 33\({}^{\circ}\), the top-edge of the fault at 0.5 km and a width of 1.7 km, the root of the fault was located at a depth of 1.4 km, and the geodetic centroid depth was at 1.0 km. Figure 4: The picked and modeled values of the: (**a**) ascending and (**b**) descending orbits.