## 3 Results  
The displacement maps show a peak of about 0.17 and 0.13 m, from ascending and descending orbits, respectively (Figure 2). Positive values indicate a displacement toward the satellite, in the LoS, which reflect the presence of the uplift typical of thrust earthquakes. In fact, a few centimeters of variation in LoS displacement measurements might also be related to the different viewing angles between the ascending and descending satellite observations, and the contribution of the horizontal (mainly E-W) motion component. In addition, the important difference between the two LoS, ascending and descending, witnesses the existence of an important horizontal component, as expected for this type of rupture that occurs along a low-dip plane. Table 3 shows the source parameters for the deformation constrained by the non-linear inversion of two maps containing the effects of the M\({}_{W}\) 5.8 mainshock; it shows that the deformation was caused by a fault with 9.5 km in length, 5 km in width, 20\({}^{\circ}\) in dip, and 313\({}^{\circ}\) in strike with a prevalently inverse rupture mechanism with an average slip of about 0.7 m, consistent with the focal mechanism determined by USGS, as discussed in the next section. To calculate the slip distribution of the source, using the linear inversion described in the previous section, we firstly extended the fault planes so that the source could include the entire slip distribution, from the peak value to zero, at the edges; the fault was then subdivided into patches of 1 \(\times\) 1 km. According to the slip distribution (Figure 4), the maximum slip of approximately 1 m was located at a depth of 4.5 km; the slip distribution is constrained between a depth of 2.5 km and 6.0 km, thus confirming that the rupture did not reach the surface. The comparison of the observed and modeled displacements after the linear inversion is shown in Figure 5, along with a map of residuals; observed and predicted displacements differ by less than a centimeter on most of the map, but with very  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Width** & **Length** & **Depth** & **Strike (\({}^{\circ}\))** & **Dip (\({}^{\circ}\))** & **Longitude** & **Latitude** & **Rake (\({}^{\circ}\))** & **Slip (m)** & **Focal** \\  **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **(km)** \\ \hline
5.0 & 9.5 & 4.0 & 313 & 20 & 50.650 & 29.773 & 100 & 0.7 & \\ (0.3) & (0.1) & (0.1) & (1) & (1) & (0.001) & (0.001) & (2) & (0.1) & \\ \hline \hlinelocalized fluctuations up to 3 cm, due to the unavoidable approximations introduced by the elastic model. The geodetic moment corresponding to the slip distribution is 1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{18}\) Nm, close to the reported value of 6.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{17}\) Nm by the USGS; the strike, dip and rake values retrieved through inversion (313\({}^{\circ}\), 20\({}^{\circ}\), 100\({}^{\circ}\)) are also in a good agreement with those calculated by the USGS (308\({}^{\circ}\), 28\({}^{\circ}\), 80\({}^{\circ}\)) and the Global CMT catalog (310\({}^{\circ}\), 26\({}^{\circ}\), 94\({}^{\circ}\)). Additionally, we considered the hypothesis of constraining the source of the biggest aftershock, the M\({}_{\rm W}\) 5.0 event occurred May 21 st, for which some deformation patterns were observed in both ascending and descending displacement maps (Figure 3). Though the displacement, from both orbits, has very low intensity (about 3 cm of maximum displacement), the location is close to the epicenter (Figure 3), suggesting a possible correlation of the signal with the seismic source. We therefore adopted the same modeling scheme used for the mainshock, in order to verify the compatibility of the detected signal with that predicted from a dislocation source. Unfortunately, no clear indications arose from the inversion: no fault configuration was found to unambiguously attribute the observed signal to a shear source.