-\begin{table*}
-\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c}
- & Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB & Si$_{\text{i}}$ H & Si$_{\text{i}}$ T & Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB & V & C$_{\text{s}}$ & C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB & C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB & C$_{\text{i}}$ BC \\
-\hline
- Present study & 3.39 & 3.42 & 3.77 & 4.41 & 3.63 & 1.95 & 3.72 & 4.16 & 4.66 \\
- \multicolumn{10}{c}{Other ab initio studies} \\
- Ref.\cite{al-mushadani03} & 3.40 & 3.45 & - & - & 3.53 & - & - & - & - \\
- Ref.\cite{leung99} & 3.31 & 3.31 & 3.43 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
- Ref.\cite{dal_pino93,capaz94} & - & - & - & - & - & 1.89\cite{dal_pino93} & x & - & x+2.1\cite{capaz94}
-\end{tabular}
-\caption{Formation energies of silicon and carbon point defects in crystalline silicon given in eV. T denotes the tetrahedral, H the hexagonal and BC the bond-centered interstitial configuration. V corresponds to the vacancy configuration. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB.}
-\label{table:sep_eof}
-\end{table*}
-Results obtained by the present study compare well with results from literature\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03,dal_pino93,capaz94}.
-Regarding intrinsic defects in Si, the \hkl<1 1 0> self-interstitial dumbbell (Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB) is found to be the ground state configuration closely followed by the hexagonal and tetrahedral configuration, which is consensus for Si$_{\text{i}}$\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03}.
-In the case of a C impurity, next to the C$_{\text{s}}$ configuration, in which a C atom occupies an already vacant Si lattice site, the C \hkl<1 0 0> interstitial dumbbell (C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB) constitutes the energetically most favorable configuration, in which the C and Si dumbbell atoms share a regular Si lattice site.
-This finding is in agreement with several theoretical\cite{burnard93,leary97,dal_pino93,capaz94,jones04} and experimental\cite{watkins76,song90} investigations, which all predict this configuration to be the ground state.
-%However, to our best knowledge, no energy of formation for this type of defect based on first-principles calculations has yet been explicitly stated in literature.
-However, to our best knowledge, no energy of formation for this type of defect based on first-principles calculations is available.
+
+Regarding intrinsic defects in Si, classical potential and {\em ab initio} methods predict energies of formation that are within the same order of magnitude.
+The EA potential does not reproduce the correct ground state, i.e. the interstitial Si (Si$_{\text{i}}$) \hkl<1 1 0> dumbbell (DB), which is consensus for Si$_{\text{i}}$ \cite{leung99,al-mushadani03}.
+Instead, the tetrahedral configuration is favored, a limitation assumed to arise due to the sharp cut-off as has already been discussed by Tersoff \cite{tersoff90}.
+
+In the case of C impurities, although discrepancies exist, classical potential and first-principles methods depict the correct order of the formation energies.
+Next to the substitutional C (C$_{\text{s}}$) configuration, which is not an interstitial configuration since the C atom occupies an already vacant Si lattice site, the interstitial C (C$_{\text{i}}$) \hkl<1 0 0> DB constitutes the energetically most favorable configuration, in which the C and Si dumbbell atoms share a regular Si lattice site.
+This finding is in agreement with several theoretical \cite{dal_pino93,capaz94,burnard93,leary97,jones04} and experimental \cite{watkins76,song90} investigations, which all predict this configuration to be the ground state.
+It is worth to note that the bond-centered (BC) configuration constitutes a real local minimum in spin polarized calculations in contrast to results \cite{capaz94} without spin predicting a saddle point configuration as well as to the empirical description, which shows a relaxation into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB ground-state configuration.
+
+\section{Mobility of the carbon defect}