## 5 Discussion  
The projection of the fault to the surface at dip angle is parallel, at a distance of \(\sim\)0.5 km SW, to the Kallithea fault, as the latter is noted in the NOAFaults v3.0 database (Figures 5 and 6). Horizontally, the seismicity forms a well-defined linear area parallel to the Kallithea fault. Moreover, all epicenters are located SW of the suggested fault trace; this confirms that the earthquakes are related to the SW-dipping fault. Concerning the vertical distribution, foci are generally located in shallow depths, down to approximately 5 km, as shown in the cross-section perpendicular to the rupture plane, (its trace is plotted in Figure 6) in Figure 7a. This plane and, by extension, the aligned Kallithea fault, indicates a very vague SW-dipping structure, with the mainshock located shallow and the largest aftershock (M\({}_{\rm L}\) = 3.3) being at the deepest end. The mainshock is located close to the InSAR-inferred rupture plane. The seismological centroid is east of the geodetic one, right beneath the top edge of the inferred rupture plane (Figures 6 and 7). The model is plotted with contour lines, every 14 mm (half a fringe), with the same color-coding as the underlying wrapped ascending interferogram (Figure 6). They coincide in the optimum way. Figure 6: The ascending interferogram of track 102, spanning the dates 21 November 2020 to 3 December 2020 and the model in contour lines every half fringe (14 mm) with the same color coding. The seismological centroid is depicted with the yellow polygon. The mainshock (star), aftershocks (red circles), the faults (black dashed lines), along with the projection of the ruptured fault on the surface and its dip-up one (black rectangle and solid line) are shown. Fault names as in Figure 5.  
The released seismic moment is well-defined, as both geodetic (M\({}_{0}\) = \(\sim\)1.7\(\cdot\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{16}\) N\(\cdot\)m) and seismological (M\({}_{0}\) = 0.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{16}\) N\(\cdot\)m) estimated values in the same order of magnitude, corresponding to M\({}_{\rm w}\) = 4.6. According to the determined magnitude, modern empirical laws indicate that the rupture area has a length of 3.2 km, width of 4.5 km and surface of 14.7 km\({}^{2}\), as estimated from the relations proposed by [41]. However, the classic relations of [42] suggest smaller rupture dimensions, i.e., a surface length of 2.0 km, down-dip width of 3.0 km and a total ruptured surface of 8.0 km. Our geodetic modelling revealed a smaller area with dimensions of width of 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.6 km and length of 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 km. The geodynamic regime declares a transition zone with extensional stress at an axis with azimuth of N22\({}^{\circ}\)E. The latter, in combination with the strike of the rupture, leads to a normal mechanism with a small left-lateral component, as both methods suggest. The rake from seismology was calculated as \(-\)87\({}^{\circ}\), suggesting a dip-slip mechanism. Figure 7: **(a)** Cross-section perpendicular to the inferred rupture plane, striking N120\({}^{\circ}\) E (trace of A–A\({}^{\prime}\) in Figure 5), with the hypocentral distribution of the mainshock (star), aftershocks (circles) and seismic centroid (blue polygon). The inferred fault for dip angle at 33\({}^{\circ}\) (favored by seismology) and 48\({}^{\circ}\) (favored by geodesy) are plotted by solid and dashed red line, respectively. The red polygon is the geodetic centroid. The red solid curve is the vertical component of the model with dip angle favored by geodesy and the dashed one is the measurement (Figure 3). **(b)** The ascending interferogram rotated to the same orientation as the cross section, the projection of the inferred fault (its dip favored by geodesy) and with A–A\({}^{\prime}\) the cross-section line. Faults (black lines) and their names as in Figure 5. The focal mechanism is projected to the cross-section plane. The two fault planes that resulted from geodesy (Figure 7a) are similar (Table 1).