## 3 Inversion of Geodetic Data--Fault Model  
As an immediate observation, the distribution, the shape and direction of the fringes, of both orbital geometries, supported a dominant normal mechanism with a fault located in the N-E of the pattern, dipping SW, with a strike parallel to the elongated axis of the fringes and a length comparable with the extension along the low curvature fringes on the N-E side. Accordingly, we inverted the InSAR geodetic data, assuming a half-space elastic model with uniform slip along a rectangular fault surface, using the modified code inverse6 [28]. The same weight was assigned to both the ascending and descending picks. We sampled the ascending track 102 at 34 points (fringe pickings) and the descending track 7 at 29 points. The 63 total data points were compared against the model in Appendix A, Table 11.  
The geodetic observations presented in the previous section clearly and unambiguously imply that the seismic fault plane is the one dipping towards the south-west. Indeed, there is no solution with the antithetic plane that can fit correctly the InSAR data. Moreover, the south-dipping plane is consistent with the geological observations in [18], that reported exposed surfaces related to Kallithea fault, very close to the geodetically inferred one, and the tectonic context of the area. Finally, considering the higher normal component and the denser fringes to the NE of the deformed area, we suggest a fault lying beneath, with its top located towards the dense fringes area and, thus, dipping SW. Since the pattern of the deformation was consistent, well-shaped, with a high coherence, small contribution of tropospheric disturbances and with full spatial coverage, we could invert all the parameters, except dip. We tested a control group with a range of fixed dip angles (35-55\({}^{\circ}\), at 5\({}^{\circ}\) intervals) and a number of 3553 inversions. The convergence diagrams declare high confidence of the coordinates, the depth (of the upper edge of the fault), the length and the strike (see Appendix A, Figure 10(b)-f). The latter was calculated as N120\({}^{\circ}\) E and could also be extracted and confirmed by the inclination of the solution field of the diagram of Figure 11(a), as well as from [18]. The test diagram on different dip values (Figure 11(g)) reveals an overall minimum at \(\sim\)48\({}^{\circ}\). Existing focal mechanism solutions from seismology provided a dip angle at 33\({}^{\circ}\). Thus, we preceded with two groups of inversions. For the first group, we locked the azimuth at N120\({}^{\circ}\)E and dip at 48\({}^{\circ}\) for 33 inversions, ending up with a dip angle favored by geodesy, provided in Table 1. For the second group we locked the azimuth at N120\({}^{\circ}\)E and the dip at 33\({}^{\circ}\) for 33 iterations, to acquire the dip angle favored by seismology in Table 1. The uncertainties were estimated from the inversion of the control group (Figure 11(g)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Favored Geodesy Dip Angle** & **Favored Seismology Dip Angle** & **Uncertainties** \\ \hline Coordinates (\({}^{\circ}\)E, \({}^{\circ}\)N) of the upper center & 23.4378, 38.3051 & 23.4381, 38.3045 & \(\pm\)0.2 km \\ Centroid location (\({}^{\circ}\)E, \({}^{\circ}\)N) & 23.4353, 38.3022 & 23.4339, 38.2990 & \(\pm\)0.2 km \\ Centroid Depth (km) & 1.1 & 1.0 & \(\pm\)0.2 km \\ M\({}_{0}\) (10\({}^{16}\) N\(\cdot\)m) & 1.6 & 1.9 & \(\pm\)0.3 \\ Azimuth (N\({}^{\circ}\) E) (locked) & 120 & 120 & \(\pm\)3 \\ Depth of upper edge (km) & 0.7 & 0.5 & \(\pm\)0.2 \\ Length (km) & 2.0 & 2.0 & \(\pm\)0.2 \\ Width (km) & 1.0 & 1.7 & \(\pm\)0.6 \\ Dip angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) (locked) & 48 & 33 & - \\ Slip (mm) & 240 & 180 & \(\pm\)50 \\ Rake (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)74 & \(-\)65 & \(\pm\)5 \\ Standard deviation (mm) & 2.6 & 3.9 & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Parameters of the two geodetic models, for the dip angle favoring geodesy and for the dip angle favoring seismology (bold line).