-Tersoff as well, considers C$_{\text{i}}$ to be the ground state configuration and believes an artifact due to the abrupt C-Si cut-off used in the potential to be responsible for the small value of the tetrahedral formation energy\cite{tersoff90}.
-It should be noted that EA and DFT predict almost equal formation energies.
-However, there is a qualitative difference: while the C-Si distance of the dumbbell atoms is almost equal for both methods, the position along \hkl[0 0 1] of the dumbbell inside the tetrahedron spanned by the four next neighbored Si atoms differs significantly.
-The dumbbell based on the EA potential is almost centered around the regular Si lattice site as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:defects} whereas for DFT calculations it is translated upwards with the C atom forming an almost collinear bond to the two Si atoms of the top face of the tetrahedron and the bond angle of the Si dumbbell atom to the two bottom face Si atoms approaching \unit[120]{$^\circ$}.
-This indicates predominant sp and sp$^2$ hybridization for the C and Si dumbbell atom respectively.
-Obviously the classical potential is not able to reproduce the clearly quantum-mechanically dominated character of bonding.
-
-Both, EA and DFT reveal the hexagonal configuration unstable relaxing into the C$_{\text{i}}$ ground state structure.
-Tersoff finds this configuration stable, though it is the most unfavorable.
-Thus, the highest formation energy observed by the EA potential is the tetrahedral configuration, which turns out to be unstable in DFT calculations.
-The high formation energy of this defect involving a low probability to find such a defect in classical potential MD acts in concert with finding it unstable by the more accurate quantum-mechnical description.
-
-The \hkl<1 1 0> dumbbell constitutes the second most favorable configuration, reproduced by both methods.
-It is followed by the bond-centered (BC) configuration.
-However, even though EA yields the same difference in energy with respect to the \hkl<1 1 0> defect as DFT does, the BC configuration is found to be a saddle point within the EA description relaxing into the \hkl<1 1 0> configuration.
-Tersoff indeed predicts a metastable BC configuration.
-However, it is not in the correct order and lower in energy than the \hkl<1 1 0> dumbbell.
-Please note, that Capaz et~al.\cite{capaz94} in turn found this configuration to be a saddle point, which is about \unit[2.1]{eV} higher in energy than the C$_{\text{i}}$ configuration.
-This is assumed to be due to the neglection of the electron spin in these calculations.
-Another DFT calculation without fully accounting for the electron spin results in the smearing of a single electron over two non-degenerate states for the BC configuration.
-This problem is resolved by spin polarized calculations resulting in a net spin of one accompanied by a reduction of the total energy by \unit[0.3]{eV} and the transformation into a metastable local minimum configuration.
-All other configurations are not affected.
-
-To conclude, we observed discrepancies between the results from classical potential calculations and those obtained from first principles.
-Within the classical potentials EA outperforms Tersoff and is, therefore, used for further comparative studies.
-Both methods (EA and DFT) predict the \hkl<1 0 0> dumbbell interstitial configuration to be most stable.
-%ref mod: language - energetical order
-%Also the remaining defects and their energetical order are described fairly well.
-Also the remaining defects and their relative energies are described fairly well.
-It is thus concluded that -- so far -- modelling of the SiC precipitation by the EA potential might lead to trustable results.
-
-\subsection{Mobility}
-
-A measure for the mobility of the interstitial carbon is the activation energy for the migration path from one stable position to another.
-The stable defect geometries have been discussed in the previous subsection.
-In the following the migration of the most stable configuration, i.e. C$_{\text{i}}$, from one site of the Si host lattice to a neighboring site has been investigated by both, EA and DFT calculations utilizing the constraint conjugate gradient relaxation technique (CRT)\cite{kaukonen98}.
-Three migration pathways are investigated.
-The starting configuration for all pathways was the \hkl[0 0 -1] dumbbell interstitial configuration.
-In path~1 and 2 the final configuration is a \hkl[0 0 1] and \hkl[0 -1 0] dumbbell interstitial respectively, located at the next neighbored Si lattice site displaced by $\frac{a_{\text{Si}}}{4}\hkl[1 1 -1]$, where $a_{\text{Si}}$ is the Si lattice constant.
-In path~1 the C atom resides in the \hkl(1 1 0) plane crossing the BC configuration whereas in path~2 the C atom moves out of the \hkl(1 1 0) plane.
-Path 3 ends in a \hkl[0 -1 0] configuration at the initial lattice site and, for this reason, corresponds to a reorientation of the dumbbell, a process not contributing to long range diffusion.
+Astonishingly EA and DFT predict almost equal formation energies.
+There are, however, geometric differences with regard to the DB position within the tetrahedron spanned by the four next neighbored Si atoms, as already reported in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10a}.
+Since the energetic description is considered more important than the structural description minor discrepancies of the latter are assumed non-problematic.
+The second most favorable configuration is the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB followed by the C$_{\text{i}}$ bond-centered (BC) configuration.
+For both configurations EA overestimates the energy of formation by approximately \unit[1]{eV} compared to DFT.
+Thus, nearly the same difference in energy has been observed for these configurations in both methods.
+However, we have found the BC configuration to constitute a saddle point within the EA description relaxing into the \hkl<1 1 0> configuration.
+Due to the high formation energy of the BC defect resulting in a low probability of occurence of this defect, the wrong description is not posing a serious limitation of the EA potential.
+A more detailed discussion of C defects in Si modeled by EA and DFT including further defect configurations are presented in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10a}.
+
+Regarding intrinsic defects in Si, both methods predict energies of formation that are within the same order of magnitude.
+However discrepancies exist.
+Quantum-mechanical results reveal the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB to compose the energetically most favorabe configuration, which is the consensus view for Si$_{\text{i}}$\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03}.
+The EA potential does not reproduce the correct ground state.
+Instead the tetrahedral defect configuration is favored.
+This limitation is assumed to arise due to the cut-off.
+In the tetrahedral configuration the second neighbors are only slightly more distant than the first neighbors, which creates the particular problem.
+Indeed an increase of the cut-off results in increased values of the formation energies\cite{albe_sic_pot}, which is most significant for the tetrahedral configuration.
+The same issue has already been discussed by Tersoff\cite{tersoff90} with regard to the description of the tetrahedral C defect using his potential.
+While not completely rendering impossible further, more challenging, empirical potential studies on large systems, the artifact has to be taken into account in the following investigations of defect combinations.
+%This artifact does not necessarily render impossible further challenging empirical potential studies on large systems.
+%However, it has to be taken into account in the following investigations of defect combinations.
+
+\subsection{Formation energies of C$_{\text{i}}$ and C$_{\text{s}}$-Si$_{\text{i}}$}
+
+As has been shown in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10b}, the energetically most favorable configuration of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ is obtained for C$_{\text{s}}$ located at the next neighbored lattice site along the \hkl<1 1 0> bond chain of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB.
+However the energy of formation is slightly higher than that of the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, which constitutes the ground state for a C impurity introduced into otherwise perfect c-Si.
+
+For a possible clarification of the controversial views on the participation of C$_{\text{s}}$ in the precipitation mechanism by classical potential simulations, test calculations need to ensure the proper description of the relative formation energies of combined structures of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ compared to C$_{\text{i}}$.
+This is particularly important since the energy of formation of C$_{\text{s}}$ is drastically underestimated by the EA potential.
+A possible occurence of C$_{\text{s}}$ could then be attributed to a lower energy of formation of the C$_{\text{s}}$-Si$_{\text{i}}$ combination due to the low formation energy of C$_{\text{s}}$, which obviously is wrong.
+
+Since quantum-mechanical calculation reveal the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB as the ground state configuration of Si$_{\text{i}}$ in Si it is assumed to provide the energetically most favorable configuration in combination with C$_{\text{s}}$.
+Empirical potentials, however, predict Si$_{\text{i}}$ T to be the energetically most favorable configuration.
+Thus, investigations of the relative energies of formation of defect pairs need to include combinations of C$_{\text{s}}$ with Si$_{\text{i}}$ T.
+Results of VASP and EA calculations are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:defect_combos}.
+\begin{table}
+\begin{ruledtabular}
+\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
+ & C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> & C$_{\text{s}}$ \& Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> & C$_{\text{s}}$ \& Si$_{\text{i}}$ T\\
+\hline
+ VASP & 3.72 & 4.37 & - \\
+ Erhart/Albe & 3.88 & 4.93 & 5.25$^{\text{a}}$/5.08$^{\text{b}}$/4.43$^{\text{c}}$
+\end{tabular}
+\end{ruledtabular}
+\caption{Formation energies of defect configurations of a single C impurity in otherwise perfect c-Si determined by classical potential and ab initio methods. The formation energies are given in electron volt. T denotes the tetrahedral and the subscripts i and s indicate the interstitial and substitutional configuration. Superscripts a, b and c denote configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ located at the first, second and third next neighbored lattice site with respect to the Si$_{\text{i}}$ atom.}
+\label{tab:defect_combos}
+\end{table}
+Obviously the EA potential properly describes the relative energies of formation.
+Combined structures of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ T are energetically less favorable than the ground state C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration.
+With increasing separation distance the enrgies of formation decrease.
+However, even for non-interacting defects, the energy of formation, which is then given by the sum of the formation energies of the separated defects (\unit[4.15]{eV}) is still higher than that of the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB.
+Unexpectedly, the structure of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB and a next neighbored C$_{\text{s}}$, which is the most favored configuration of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ according to quantum-mechanical caluclations\cite{zirkelbach10b} likewise constitutes an energetically favorable configuration within the EA description, which is even preferred over the two least separated configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ T.
+This is attributed to an effective reduction in strain enabled by the respective combination.
+Thus, a proper description with respect to the relative energies of formation is assumed for the EA potential.
+
+\subsection{Carbon mobility}
+\label{subsection:cmob}
+
+To accurately model the SiC precipitation, which involves the agglomeration of C, a proper description of the migration process of the C impurity is required.
+As shown in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10a} quantum-mechanical results properly describe the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB diffusion resulting in a migration barrier height of \unit[0.90]{eV} excellently matching experimental values of \unit[0.70-0.87]{eV}\cite{lindner06,tipping87,song90} and, for this reason, reinforcing the respective migration path as already proposed by Capaz et~al.\cite{capaz94}.
+During transition a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB migrates towards a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 -1 0] DB located at the next neighbored lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.
+However, it turned out that the description fails if the EA potential is used, which overestimates the migration barrier (\unit[2.2]{eV}) by a factor of 2.4.
+In addition a different diffusion path is found to exhibit the lowest migration barrier.
+A C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB turns into the \hkl[0 0 1] configuration at the next neighbored lattice site.
+The transition involves the C$_{\text{i}}$ BC configuration, which, however, was found to be unstable relaxing into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB configuration.
+If the migration is considered to occur within a single step the kinetic energy of \unit[2.2]{eV} is enough to turn the \hkl<1 0 0> DB into the BC and back into a \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration.
+If, on the other hand, a two step process is assumed the BC configuration will most probably relax into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB configuration resulting in different relative energies of the intermediate state and the saddle point.
+For the latter case a migration path, which involves a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB configuration is proposed and displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mig}.
+\begin{figure}
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{110mig.ps}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the \hkl[0 0 -1] DB (left) to the \hkl[0 -1 0] DB (right) transition involving the \hkl[1 1 0] DB (center) configuration.}
+\label{fig:mig}
+\end{figure}
+Approximately \unit[2.24]{eV} are needed to turn the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB located at the next neighbored lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.
+Another barrier of \unit[0.90]{eV} exists for the rotation into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 -1 0] DB configuration.
+Roughly the same amount would be necessary to excite the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB to the BC configuration (\unit[0.40]{eV}) and a successive migration into the \hkl[0 0 1] DB configuration (\unit[0.50]{eV}) as displayed in our previous study\cite{zirkelbach10a}.
+The former diffusion process, however, would more nicely agree to the ab initio path, since the migration is accompanied by a rotation of the DB orientation.
+By considering a two step process and assuming equal preexponential factors for both diffusion steps, the probability of the total diffusion event is given by $\exp(\frac{\unit[2.24]{eV}+\unit[0.90]{eV}}{k_{\text{B}}T})$, which corresponds to a single diffusion barrier that is 3.5 times higher than the barrier obtained by ab initio calculations.
+
+Accordingly the effective barrier of migration of C$_{\text{i}}$ is overestimated by a factor of 2.4 to 3.5 compared to the highly accurate quantum-mechanical methods.
+This constitutes a serious limitation that has to be taken into account for modeling the C-Si system using the EA potential.
+
+\subsection{Molecular dynamics simulations}