+Concerning the mobility of the ground state Si$_{\text{i}}$, an activation energy shortly below \unit[0.7]{eV} was found for the migration of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 1 -1] into a \hkl[1 1 0] DB configuration located at the next neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.\r
+% look for values in literature for neutraly charged Si_i diffusion\r
+\r
+\subsection{Pairs of C$_{\text{i}}$}\r
+\r
+C$_{\text{i}}$ pairs of the \hkl<1 0 0>-type have been considered in the first part.\r
+Fig.~\ref{fig:combos_ci} schematically displays the position of the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB and the various positions for the second defect (1-5) used for investigating the defect pairs.\r
+Table~\ref{table:dc_c-c} summarizes the binding energies for the combination with a second C-Si \hkl<1 0 0> DB obtained for different orientations.\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+%\begin{minipage}{0.49\columnwidth}\r
+\subfigure[]{\label{fig:combos_ci}\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{combos_ci.eps}}\r
+\hspace{0.1cm}\r
+\subfigure[]{\label{fig:combos_si}\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{combos.eps}}\r
+\caption{Positions of the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB (I) (Fig.~\ref{fig:combos_ci}), the lattice site chosen for the initial Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB (Si$_{\text{i}}$) occupying various orientations (Fig.~\ref{fig:combos_si}) and neighbored positions (1-5) for the second defect used for investigating defect pairs.} \r
+\label{fig:combos}\r
+\end{figure}\r
+\begin{table}\r
+\begin{ruledtabular}\r
+\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c }\r
+ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & R \\\r
+\hline\r
+ \hkl[0 0 -1] & -0.08 & -1.15 & -0.08 & 0.04 & -1.66 & -0.19\\\r
+ \hkl[0 0 1] & 0.34 & 0.004 & -2.05 & 0.26 & -1.53 & -0.19\\\r
+ \hkl[0 -1 0] & -2.39 & -0.17 & -0.10 & -0.27 & -1.88 & -0.05\\\r
+ \hkl[0 1 0] & -2.25 & -1.90 & -2.25 & -0.12 & -1.38 & -0.06\\\r
+ \hkl[-1 0 0] & -2.39 & -0.36 & -2.25 & -0.12 & -1.88 & -0.05\\\r
+ \hkl[1 0 0] & -2.25 & -2.16 & -0.10 & -0.27 & -1.38 & -0.06\\\r
+\end{tabular}\r
+\end{ruledtabular}\r
+\caption{Binding energies of C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0>-type defect pairs in eV. Equivalent configurations exhibit equal energies. The first column lists the orientation of the defect, which is combined with the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] dumbbell. The position index of the second defect is given in the first row according to Fig.~\ref{fig:combos}. R corresponds to the position located at $\frac{a_{\text{Si}}}{2}\hkl[3 2 3]$ relative to the initial defect position, which is the maximum realizable distance due to periodic boundary conditions.}\r
+\label{table:dc_c-c}\r
+\end{table}\r
+Most of the obtained configurations result in binding energies well below zero indicating a preferable agglomeration of these type of defects.\r
+For increasing distances of the defect pair the binding energy approaches to zero (R in Table~\ref{table:dc_c-c}) as it is expected for non-interacting isolated defects.\r
+Energetically favorable and unfavorable configurations can be explained by stress compensation and increase respectively based on the resulting net strain of the respective configuration of the defect combination.\r
+Antiparallel orientations of the second defect (\hkl[0 0 1]) at positions located below the \hkl(0 0 1) plane with respect to the initial one (positions 1, 2 and 4) show the energetically most unfavorable configurations.\r
+In contrast, the parallel and particularly the twisted orientations constitute energetically favorable configurations, in which a vast reduction of strain is enabled by combination of these defects.\r
+\r
+Mattoni et al.\cite{mattoni2002} predict the ground state configuration for a \hkl[1 0 0] or equivalently a \hkl[0 1 0] defect created at position 1 with both defects basically maintaining the DB structure, resulting in a binding energy of \unit[-2.1]{eV}.\r
+In this work we found a further relaxation of this defect structure.\r
+The C atom of the second and the Si atom of the initial DB move towards each other forming a bond, which results in a somewhat lower binding energy of \unit[-2.25]{eV}.\r
+Furthermore a more favorable configuration was found for the combination with a \hkl[0 -1 0] and \hkl[-1 0 0] DB respectively, which is assumed to constitute the actual ground state configuration of two C$_{\text{i}}$ DBs in Si.\r
+The atomic arrangement is shown in the bottom right of Fig.~\ref{fig:036-239}.\r
+The two C atoms form a strong C-C bond, which is responsible for the large gain in energy resulting in a binding energy of \unit[-2.39]{eV}.\r
+\r
+Investigating migration barriers enables to predict the probability of formation of the thermodynamic ground state defect complex by thermally activated diffusion processes.\r
+High activation energies are necessary for the migration of low energy configurations, in which the C atom of the second DB is located in the vicinity of the initial DB.\r
+The transition of the configuration, in which the second DB oriented along \hkl[0 1 0] at position 2 (\unit[-1.90]{eV}) into a \hkl[0 1 0] DB at position 1 (\unit[-2.39]{eV}) for instance, revealed a barrier height of more than \unit[4]{eV}.\r
+Low barriers do only exist from energetically less favorable configurations, e.g. the configuration of the \hkl[-1 0 0] DB located at position 2 (\unit[-0.36]{eV}).\r
+Starting from this configuration, an activation energy of only \unit[1.2]{eV} is necessary for the transition into the ground state configuration.\r
+The corresponding migration energies and atomic configurations are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:036-239}.\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{036-239.ps}\r
+\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[-1 0 0] DB at position 2 (left) into a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 -1 0] DB at position 1 (right). An activation energy of \unit[1.2]{eV} is observed.}\r
+\label{fig:036-239}\r
+\end{figure}\r
+% strange mig from -190 -> -2.39 (barrier > 4 eV)\r
+% C-C migration -> idea:\r
+% mig from low energy confs has extremely high barrier!\r
+% low barrier only from energetically less/unfavorable confs (?)! <- prove!\r
+% => low probability of C-C clustering ?!?\r
+%\r
+% should possibly be transfered to discussion section\r
+Since thermally activated C clustering is, thus, only possible by traversing energetically unfavored configurations, mass C clustering is not expected.\r
+Furthermore, the migration barrier of \unit[1.2]{eV} is still higher than the activation energy of \unit[0.9]{eV} observed for a single C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB in c-Si.\r
+The migration barrier of a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB in a complex system is assumed to approximate the barrier of a DB in a separated system with increasing defect separation.\r
+Thus, lower migration barriers are expected for pathways resulting in larger separations of the C$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.\r
+% calculate?!? ... hopefully acknowledged by 188-225 calc\r
+However, if the increase of separation is accompanied by an increase in binding energy, this difference is needed in addition to the activation energy for the respective migration process.\r
+Configurations, which exhibit both, a low binding energy as well as targeting transitions with low activation energies are, thus, most probable C$_{\text{i}}$ complex structures.\r
+On the other hand, if elevated temperatures enable migrations with huge activation energies, the comparably small differences in configurational energy can be neglected resulting in an almost equal occupation of these configurations.\r
+In both cases the configuration yielding a binding energy of \unit[-2.25]{eV} is promising.\r
+First of all it constitutes the second most energetically favorable structure.\r
+Secondly, a migration path with a barrier as low as \unit[?.?]{eV} exists starting from a configuration of largely separated defects exhibiting a low binding energy (\unit[-1.88]{eV}).\r
+The migration barrier and correpsonding structures are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:188-225}.\r
+% 188 - 225 transition in progress\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{188-225.ps}\r
+\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 -1 0] DB at position 5 (left) into a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 0 0] DB at position 1 (right). An activation energy of \unit[?.?]{eV} is observed.}\r
+\label{fig:188-225}\r
+\end{figure}\r
+Finally, this type of defect pair is represented four times (two times more often than the ground state configuration) within the investigated configuration space.\r
+The latter is considered very important for high temperatures, which is accompanied by an increase in the entropic contribution to structure formation.\r
+Thus, C agglomeration indeed is expected but only a low probability is assumed for C clustering by thermally activated processes with regard to the considered period of time.\r
+% ?!?\r
+% look for precapture mechnism (local minimum in energy curve)\r
+% also: plot energy all confs with respect to C-C distance\r
+% maybe a pathway exists traversing low energy confs ?!?\r
+\r
+% point out that configurations along 110 were extended up to the 6th NN in that direction\r
+The binding energies of the energetically most favorable configurations with the seocnd DB located along the \hkl[1 1 0] direction and resulting C-C distances of the relaxed structures are summarized in Table~\ref{table:dc_110}.\r
+\begin{table}\r
+\begin{ruledtabular}\r
+\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c }\r
+ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\\r
+\hline\r
+ $E_{\text{b}}$ [eV] & -2.39 & -1.88 & -0.59 & -0.31 & -0.24 & -0.21 \\\r
+C-C distance [nm] & 0.14 & 0.46 & 0.65 & 0.86 & 1.05 & 1.08 \r
+\end{tabular}\r
+\end{ruledtabular}\r
+\caption{Binding energies $E_{\text{b}}$ and C-C distance of energetically most favorable C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0>-type defect pairs separated along bonds in the \hkl[1 1 0] direction.}\r
+\label{table:dc_110}\r
+\end{table}\r
+The binding energy of these configurations with respect to the C-C distance is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:dc_110}\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{db_along_110_cc_n.ps}\r
+\caption{Minimum binding energy of dumbbell combinations separated along \hkl[1 1 0] with respect to the C-C distance. The blue line is a guide for the eye and the green curve corresponds to the most suitable fit function consisting of all but the first data point.}\r
+\label{fig:dc_110}\r
+\end{figure}\r
+The interaction is found to be proportional to the reciprocal cube of the C-C distance for extended separations of the C$_{\text{i}}$ and saturates for the smallest possible separation, i.e. the ground state configuration.\r
+Not considering the previously mentioned elevated barriers for migration an attractive interaction between the C$_{\text{i}}$ defects indeed is detected with a capture radius that clearly exceeds the \unit[1]{nm} mark.\r
+\r
+\begin{table}\r
+\begin{ruledtabular}\r
+\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c }\r
+ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & R \\\r
+\hline\r
+C$_{\text{s}}$ & 0.26$^a$/-1.28$^b$ & -0.51 & -0.93$^A$/-0.95$^B$ & -0.15 & 0.49 & -0.05\\\r
+V & -5.39 ($\rightarrow$ C$_{\text{S}}$) & -0.59 & -3.14 & -0.54 & -0.50 & -0.31\r
+\end{tabular}\r
+\end{ruledtabular}\r
+\caption{Binding energies of combinations of the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] defect with a substitutional C or vacancy located at positions 1 to 5 according to Fig.~\ref{fig:combos_ci}. R corresponds to the position located at $\frac{a_{\text{Si}}}{2}\hkl[3 2 3]$ relative to the initial defect position, which is the maximum realizable distance due to periodic boundary conditions.}\r
+\label{table:dc_c-sv}\r
+\end{table}\r
+\r
+\subsection{C$_{\text{i}}$ next to C$_{\text{s}}$}\r
+\r
+The first row of Table~\ref{table:dc_c-sv} lists the binding energies of C$_{\text{s}}$ next to the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB.\r
+For C$_{\text{s}}$ located at position 1 and 3 the configurations a and A correspond to the naive relaxation of the structure by substituting a Si atom with C in the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB structure at positions 1 and 3 respectively.\r
+However, small displacements of the involved atoms near the defect result in different stable structures labeled b and B respectively.\r
+\r
+% A B\r
+Configuration A consists of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB with threefold coordinated Si and C DB atoms slightly disturbed by the C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3, facing the Si DB atom as a next neighbor.\r
+By breaking a Si-Si in favor of a Si-C bond configuration B is obtained, which shows a twofold coordinated Si atom located inbetween two substitutional C atoms residing on regular Si lattice sites.\r
+This configuration has been identified and described by spectroscopic experimental techniques\cite{song90_2} as well as theoretical studies\cite{leary97,capaz98}.\r
+Configuration B is found to constitute the energetically more favorable configuration.\r
+However, the gain in energy due to the significantly lower energy of a Si-C compared to a Si-Si bond turns out to be smaller than expected due to a large compensation by introduced strain as a result of the Si interstitial structure.\r
+Present results show a difference in energy of states A and B, which exactly matches the experimental value of \unit[0.02]{eV}\cite{song90_2} reinforcing qualitatively correct results of previous theoretical studies on these structures.\r
+% mattoni: A favored by 0.4 eV - NO, it is indeed B (reinforce Song and Capaz)!\r
+%\r
+% AB transition\r
+%Figure~\ref{fig:AB} displays the two configurations and migration barrier for the transition among the two states.\r
+\r
+% a b\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{026-128.ps}\r
+\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB and C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 1 (left) into a C-C \hkl[1 0 0] DB occupying the lattice site at position 1 (right). An activation energy of \unit[0.1]{eV} is observed.}\r
+\label{fig:026-128}\r
+\end{figure}\r
+Configuration a is similar to configuration A except that the C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 1 is facing the C DB atom as a next neighbor resulting in the formation of a strong C-C bond and a much more noticeable perturbation of the DB structure.\r
+Nevertheless, the C and Si DB atoms remain threefold coordinated.\r
+Although the C-C bond exhibiting a distance of \unit[0.15]{nm} close to the distance expected in diamond or graphite should lead to a huge gain in energy, a repulsive interaction with a binding energy of \unit[0.26]{eV} is observed due to compressive strain of the Si DB atom and its top neighbors (\unit[0.230]{nm}/\unit[0.236]{nm}) along with additional tensile strain of the C$_{\text{s}}$ and its three neighboring Si atoms (\unit[0.198-0.209]{nm}/\unit[0.189]{nm}).\r
+\r
+...\r
+\r
+Liu et~al.\cite{liu02} propose a similar structure \unit[0.2]{eV} lower than configuration B, thus, constituting the ground state configuration.\r
+The structure labeld b indeed is the ground state configuration, in which the two C atoms form a \hkl[1 0 0] DB sharing the C$_{\text{s}}$ lattice site and the initial Si DB atom occupying the lattice site shared by the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ DB.\r
+\r
+Spin polarization for C-C Int resulting spin up electrons located as in the case of the Si 100 int.\r
+% mattoni: A favored by 0.2 eV - NO! (again, missing spin polarization?)\r
+\r
+% mig a-b\r
+% 2 more migs: 051 -> 128 and 026! forgot why ... probably it's about probability of C clustering\r
+\r
+\subsection{C$_{\text{i}}$ next to V}\r
+\r
+\subsection{C$_{\text{s}}$ next to Si$_{\text{i}}$}\r
+\r
+Non-zeor temperature, entropy, spatial separation of these defects possible, indeed observed in ab initio MD run.\r