\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
+\usepackage{color}
\newcommand{\si}{Si$_{\text{i}}${}}
\newcommand{\ci}{C$_{\text{i}}${}}
% additional stuff
\usepackage{miller}
+\newcommand{\prune}[1]{{\color{red} #1}}
+\newcommand{\possprune}[1]{{\color{blue} #1}}
+
\begin{document}
-\title{Combined ab initio and classical potential simulation study on the silicon carbide precipitation in silicon}
+\title{Combined {\em ab initio} and classical potential simulation study on the silicon carbide precipitation in silicon}
\author{F. Zirkelbach}
\author{B. Stritzker}
\affiliation{Experimentalphysik IV, Universit\"at Augsburg, 86135 Augsburg, Germany}
Much progress has been made in 3C-SiC thin film growth by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) on hexagonal SiC\cite{powell90,fissel95,fissel95_apl} and Si\cite{nishino83,nishino87,kitabatake93,fissel95_apl} substrates.
However, the frequent occurrence of defects such as twins, dislocations and double position boundaries remains a challenging problem.
Apart from these methods, high-dose carbon implantation into crystalline silicon (c-Si) with subsequent or in situ annealing was found to result in SiC microcrystallites in Si\cite{borders71}.
-Utilized and enhanced, ion beam synthesis (IBS) has become a promising method to form thin SiC layers of high quality and exclusively of the 3C polytype embedded in and epitactically aligned to the Si host featuring a sharp interface\cite{lindner99,lindner01,lindner02}.
+Utilized and enhanced, ion beam synthesis (IBS) has become a promising method to form thin SiC layers of high quality and exclusively of the 3C polytype embedded in and epitaxially aligned to the Si host featuring a sharp interface\cite{lindner99,lindner01,lindner02}.
However, the process of the formation of SiC precipitates in Si during C implantation is not yet fully understood.
\begin{figure}
A lot of theoretical work has been done on intrinsic point defects in Si\cite{bar-yam84,bar-yam84_2,car84,batra87,bloechl93,tang97,leung99,colombo02,goedecker02,al-mushadani03,hobler05,sahli05,posselt08,ma10}, threshold displacement energies in Si\cite{mazzarolo01,holmstroem08} important in ion implantation, C defects and defect reactions in Si\cite{tersoff90,dal_pino93,capaz94,burnard93,leary97,capaz98,zhu98,mattoni2002,park02,jones04}, the SiC/Si interface\cite{chirita97,kitabatake93,cicero02,pizzagalli03} and defects in SiC\cite{bockstedte03,rauls03a,gao04,posselt06,gao07}.
However, none of the mentioned studies comprehenisvely investigates all the relevant defect structures and reactions concentrated on the specific problem of 3C-SiC formation in C implanted Si.
% but mattoni2002 actually did a lot. maybe this should be mentioned!^M
-In fact, in a combined analytical potential molecular dynamics and ab initio study\cite{mattoni2002} the interaction of substitutional C with Si self-interstitials and C interstitials is evaluated.
+In fact, in a combined analytical potential molecular dynamics and {\em ab initio} study\cite{mattoni2002} the interaction of substitutional C with Si self-interstitials and C interstitials is evaluated.
However, investigations are, first of all, restricted to interaction chains along the \hkl[1 1 0] and \hkl[-1 1 0] direction, secondly lacking combinations of C interstitials and, finally, not considering migration barriers providing further information on the probability of defect agglomeration.
In particular, molecular dynamics (MD) constitutes a suitable technique to investigate their dynamical and structural properties.
It was shown that the Tersoff potential properly describes binding energies of combinations of C defects in Si\cite{mattoni2002}.
However, investigations of brittleness in covalent materials\cite{mattoni2007} identified the short range character of these potentials to be responsible for overestimated forces necessary to snap the bond of two neighbored atoms.
In a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10}, we determined the influence on the migration barrier for C diffusion in Si.
-Using the Erhart/Albe (EA) potential\cite{albe_sic_pot}, an overestimated barrier height compared to ab initio calculations and experiment is obtained.
+Using the Erhart/Albe (EA) potential\cite{albe_sic_pot}, an overestimated barrier height compared to {\em ab initio} calculations and experiment is obtained.
A proper description of C diffusion, however, is crucial for the problem under study.
-In this work, a combined ab initio and empirical potential simulation study on the initially mentioned SiC precipitation mechanism has been performed.
+In this work, a combined {\em ab initio} and empirical potential simulation study on the initially mentioned SiC precipitation mechanism has been performed.
%
By first-principles atomistic simulations this work aims to shed light on basic processes involved in the precipitation mechanism of SiC in Si.
-During implantation defects such as vacancies (V), substitutional C (C$_{\text{s}}$), interstitial C (C$_{\text{i}}$) and Si self-interstitials (Si$_{\text{i}}$) are created, which play a decisive role in the precipitation process.
-A systematic investigation of density functional theory (DFT) calculations of the structure, energetics and mobility of carbon defects in silicon as well as the influence of other point defects in the surrounding is presented.
+During implantation, defects such as vacancies (V), substitutional C (C$_{\text{s}}$), interstitial C (C$_{\text{i}}$) and Si self-interstitials (Si$_{\text{i}}$) are created, which play a decisive role in the precipitation process.
+A systematic investigation of density functional theory (DFT) calculations of the structure, energetics and mobility of C defects in Si as well as the influence of other point defects in the surrounding is presented.
%
Furthermore, highly accurate quantum-mechanical results have been used to identify shortcomings of the classical potentials, which are then taken into account in these type of simulations.
\section{Methodology}
\label{meth}
% ----- DFT ------
-The first-principles DFT calculations have been performed with the plane-wave based Vienna ab initio Simulation package (VASP)\cite{kresse96}.
+The first-principles DFT calculations have been performed with the plane-wave based Vienna {\em ab initio} Simulation package (VASP)\cite{kresse96}.
The Kohn-Sham equations were solved using the generalized-gradient exchange-correlation functional approximation proposed by Perdew and Wang\cite{perdew86,perdew92}.
The electron-ion interaction is described by norm-conserving ultra-soft pseudopotentials\cite{hamann79} as implemented in VASP\cite{vanderbilt90}.
Throughout this work, an energy cut-off of \unit[300]{eV} was used to expand the wave functions into the plane-wave basis.
Reproducing the SiC precipitation was attempted by the successive insertion of 6000 C atoms (the number necessary to form a 3C-SiC precipitate with a radius of $\approx 3.1$ nm) into the Si host, which has a size of 31 Si unit cells in each direction consisting of 238328 Si atoms.
At constant temperature 10 atoms were inserted at a time.
Three different regions within the total simulation volume were considered for a statistically distributed insertion of the C atoms: $V_1$ corresponding to the total simulation volume, $V_2$ corresponding to the size of the precipitate and $V_3$, which holds the necessary amount of Si atoms of the precipitate.
-After C insertion the simulation has been continued for \unit[100]{ps} and is cooled down to \unit[20]{$^{\circ}$C} afterwards.
+After C insertion, the simulation has been continued for \unit[100]{ps} and is cooled down to \unit[20]{$^{\circ}$C} afterwards.
A Tersoff-like bond order potential by Erhart and Albe (EA)\cite{albe_sic_pot} has been utilized, which accounts for nearest neighbor interactions realized by a cut-off function dropping the interaction to zero in between the first and second nearest neighbor distance.
The potential was used as is, i.e. without any repulsive potential extension at short interatomic distances.
Constant pressure simulations are realized by the Berendsen barostat\cite{berendsen84} using a time constant of \unit[100]{fs} and a bulk modulus of \unit[100]{GPa} for Si.
The temperature was kept constant by the Berendsen thermostat\cite{berendsen84} with a time constant of \unit[100]{fs}.
Integration of the equations of motion was realized by the velocity Verlet algorithm\cite{verlet67} and a fixed time step of \unit[1]{fs}.
-For structural relaxation of defect structures the same algorithm was used with the temperature set to 0 K.
+For structural relaxation of defect structures, the same algorithm was used with the temperature set to 0 K.
The formation energy $E-N_{\text{Si}}\mu_{\text{Si}}-N_{\text{C}}\mu_{\text{C}}$ of a defect configuration is defined by choosing SiC as a particle reservoir for the C impurity, i.e. the chemical potentials are determined by the cohesive energies of a perfect Si and SiC supercell after ionic relaxation.
%
\subsection{Carbon and silicon defect configurations}
\label{subsection:sep_def}
+%./visualize_cc_bonds -w 640 -h 480 -d results/c_100_2333_nosym_sp -nll -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -fur 1.20 1.20 1.20 -b 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -c 0.3 -1.7 1.1 -L 0.5 -1.0 0.5 -r 0.6 -A 2 109 217 1.9
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{si110.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{si110_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{Si$_{\text{i}}$ hexagonal}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{sihex.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{sihex_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{Si$_{\text{i}}$ tetrahedral}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{sitet.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{sitet_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{si100.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{si100_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{Vacancy}\\
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{C$_{\text{s}}$}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{csub.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{csub_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c100.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c100_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c110.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c110_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}
\underline{C$_{\text{i}}$ bond-centered}\\
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cbc.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cbc_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
-\caption{Configurations of Si and C point defects in Si. Si and C atoms are illustrated by yellow and gray spheres respectively. Bonds are drawn whenever considered appropriate to ease identifying defect structures for the reader. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB.}
+\caption{Configurations of Si and C point defects in Si. Si and C atoms are illustrated by yellow and gray spheres respectively. Bonds of the defect atoms are drawn in red color. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB.}
\label{fig:sep_def}
\end{figure}
Table~\ref{table:sep_eof} summarizes the formation energies of relevant defect structures for the EA and DFT calculations.
\multicolumn{10}{l}{Present study} \\
VASP & 3.39 & 3.42 & 3.77 & 4.41 & 3.63 & 1.95 & 3.72 & 4.16 & 4.66 \\
Erhart/Albe & 4.39 & 4.48$^*$ & 3.40 & 5.42 & 3.13 & 0.75 & 3.88 & 5.18 & 5.59$^*$ \\
- \multicolumn{10}{l}{Other ab initio studies} \\
+ \multicolumn{10}{l}{Other {\em 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}
\end{ruledtabular}
-\caption{Formation energies of C and Si point defects in c-Si determined by classical potential and ab initio methods. The formation energies are given in electron volts. T denotes the tetrahedral and BC the bond-centered configuration. Subscript i and s indicates the interstitial and substitutional configuration. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB. Formation energies for unstable configurations obtained by classical potential MD are marked by an asterisk and determined by using the low kinetic energy configuration shortly before the relaxation into the more favorable configuration starts.}
+\caption{Formation energies of C and Si point defects in c-Si determined by classical potential and {\em ab initio} methods. The formation energies are given in electron volts. T denotes the tetrahedral and BC the bond-centered configuration. Subscript i and s indicates the interstitial and substitutional configuration. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB. Formation energies for unstable configurations obtained by classical potential MD are marked by an asterisk and determined by using the low kinetic energy configuration shortly before the relaxation into the more favorable configuration starts.}
\label{table:sep_eof}
\end{table*}
Although discrepancies exist, classical potential and first-principles methods depict the correct order of the formation energies with regard to C defects in Si.
Substitutional C (C$_{\text{s}}$) constitutes the energetically most favorable defect configuration.
Since the C atom occupies an already vacant Si lattice site, C$_{\text{s}}$ is not an interstitial defect.
-The quantum-mechanical result agrees well with the result of another ab initio study\cite{dal_pino93}.
+The quantum-mechanical result agrees well with the result of another {\em ab initio} study\cite{dal_pino93}.
Clearly, the empirical potential underestimates the C$_{\text{s}}$ formation energy.
The C interstitial defect with the lowest energy of formation has been found to be the C-Si \hkl<1 0 0> interstitial dumbbell (C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB), which, thus, constitutes the ground state of an additional C impurity in otherwise perfect c-Si.
This finding is in agreement with several theoretical\cite{burnard93,leary97,dal_pino93,capaz94} and experimental\cite{watkins76,song90} investigations.
However, to our best knowledge, no energy of formation based on first-principles calculations has yet been explicitly stated in literature for the ground-state configuration.
%
-Astonishingly EA and DFT predict almost equal formation energies.
+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 neighbored Si atoms, as already reported in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10}.
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.
Regarding intrinsic defects in Si, classical potential and {\em ab initio} methods predict energies of formation that are within the same order of magnitude.
%
-However discrepancies exist.
+However, discrepancies exist.
Quantum-mechanical results reveal the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB to compose the energetically most favorable configuration closely followed by the hexagonal and tetrahedral configuration, which is the consensus view for Si$_{\textrm{i}}$ and compares well to results from literature\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03}.
The EA potential does not reproduce the correct ground state.
-Instead the tetrahedral defect configuration is favored.
+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.
Another DFT calculation without fully accounting for the electron spin results in the smearing of a single electron over two non-degenerate Kohn-Sham states and an increase of the total energy by \unit[0.3]{eV} for the BC configuration.
%
A more detailed description can be found in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10}.
-Next to the C$_{\text{i}}$ BC configuration the vacancy and Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB have to be treated by taking into account the spin of the electrons.
-For the vacancy the net spin up electron density is localized in caps at the four surrounding Si atoms directed towards the vacant site.
-In the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration the net spin up density is localized in two caps at each of the two DB atoms perpendicularly aligned to the bonds to the other two Si atoms respectively.
+Next to the C$_{\text{i}}$ BC configuration, the vacancy and Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB have to be treated by taking into account the spin of the electrons.
+For the vacancy, the net spin up electron density is localized in caps at the four surrounding Si atoms directed towards the vacant site.
+In the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration, the net spin up density is localized in two caps at each of the two DB atoms perpendicularly aligned to the bonds to the other two Si atoms respectively.
No other configuration, within the ones that are mentioned, is affected.
\subsection{Mobility of carbon defects}
\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{zirkelbach10}, 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 neighbored lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.
+As shown in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10}, 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 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 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 sufficient 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}.
+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}
The activation energy of approximately \unit[2.24]{eV} is 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 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 for the path obtained with a time constant of \unit[100]{fs} for the Berendsen thermostat.
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{zirkelbach10}.
-The former diffusion process, however, would more nicely agree with 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 $\exp\left((\unit[2.24]{eV}+\unit[0.90]{eV})/{k_{\text{B}}T}\right)$, which corresponds to a single diffusion barrier that is 3.5 times higher than the barrier obtained by ab initio calculations.
+The former diffusion process, however, would more nicely agree with the {\em 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 $\exp\left((\unit[2.24]{eV}+\unit[0.90]{eV})/{k_{\text{B}}T}\right)$, which corresponds to a single diffusion barrier that is 3.5 times higher than the barrier obtained by {\em 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 otherwise quite promising EA potential.
\subsection{Pairs of C$_{\text{i}}$}
+% prune next
+\prune{
C$_{\text{i}}$ pairs of the \hkl<1 0 0> type have been investigated in the first part.
+}
Fig.~\ref{fig:combos_ci} schematically displays the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB structure and various positions for the second defect (1-5) that have been used for investigating defect pairs.
Table~\ref{table:dc_c-c} summarizes resulting binding energies for the combination with a second C-Si \hkl<1 0 0> DB obtained for different orientations at positions 1 to 5.
\begin{figure}
\label{table:dc_c-c}
\end{table}
Most of the obtained configurations result in binding energies well below zero indicating a preferable agglomeration of this type of defects.
-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.
+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.
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.
Antiparallel orientations of the second defect, i.e. \hkl[0 0 1] for positions located below the \hkl(0 0 1) plane with respect to the initial one (positions 1, 2 and 4) form the energetically most unfavorable configurations.
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.
-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 as-isolated DB structure, resulting in a binding energy of \unit[-2.1]{eV}.
-In this work we observed a further relaxation of this defect structure.
+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.
+Both defects basically maintain the as-isolated DB structure resulting in a binding energy of \unit[-2.1]{eV}.
+In this work, we observed a further relaxation of this defect structure.
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}.
-Apart from that, we found a more favorable configuration 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.
+The structure is displayed in the bottom right of Fig.~\ref{fig:188-225}.
+Apart from that, we found a more favorable configuration 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.
The atomic arrangement is shown in the bottom right of Fig.~\ref{fig:036-239}.
The two C$_{\text{i}}$ 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}.
+% possibly prune next
+\possprune{
Investigating migration barriers allows to predict the probability of formation of defect complexes by thermally activated diffusion processes.
+}
% ground state configuration, C cluster
-Based on the lowest energy migration path of a single C$_{\text{i}}$ DB the configuration, in which the second C$_{\text{i}}$ DB is oriented along \hkl[0 1 0] at position 2 is assumed to constitute an ideal starting point for a transition into the ground state.
+Based on the lowest energy migration path of a single C$_{\text{i}}$ DB, the configuration, in which the second C$_{\text{i}}$ DB is oriented along \hkl[0 1 0] at position 2, is assumed to constitute an ideal starting point for a transition into the ground state.
In addition, the starting configuration exhibits a low binding energy (\unit[-1.90]{eV}) and is, thus, very likely to occur.
However, a barrier height of more than \unit[4]{eV} was detected resulting in a low probability for the transition.
+% possibly prune next
+\possprune{
The high activation energy is attributed to the stability of such a low energy configuration, in which the C atom of the second DB is located close to the initial DB.
+}
Low barriers have only been identified for transitions starting from energetically less favorable configurations, e.g. the configuration of a \hkl[-1 0 0] DB located at position 2 (\unit[-0.36]{eV}).
-Starting from this configuration, an activation energy of only \unit[1.2]{eV} is necessary for the transition into the ground state configuration.
+Starting from this configuration, an activation energy of only \unit[1.2]{eV} is necessary for the transition into the ground-state configuration.
The corresponding migration energies and atomic configurations are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:036-239}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{036-239.ps}
% should possibly be transfered to discussion section
Since thermally activated C clustering is, thus, only possible by traversing energetically unfavored configurations, extensive C clustering is not expected.
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.
+% possibly prune next until EOP
+\possprune{
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.
Accordingly, lower migration barriers are expected for pathways resulting in larger separations of the C$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.
% acknowledged by 188-225 (reverse order) calc
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.
Configurations, which exhibit both, a low binding energy as well as afferent transitions with low activation energies are, thus, most probable C$_{\text{i}}$ complex structures.
On the other hand, if elevated temperatures enable migrations with huge activation energies, comparably small differences in configurational energy can be neglected resulting in an almost equal occupation of such configurations.
-In both cases the configuration yielding a binding energy of \unit[-2.25]{eV} is promising.
+% EOP
+In both cases,} the configuration yielding a binding energy of \unit[-2.25]{eV} is promising.
First of all, it constitutes the second most energetically favorable structure.
Secondly, a migration path with a barrier as low as \unit[0.47]{eV} exists starting from a configuration of largely separated defects exhibiting a low binding energy (\unit[-1.88]{eV}).
The migration barrier and corresponding structures are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:188-225}.
\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[0.47]{eV} is observed.}
\label{fig:188-225}
\end{figure}
-Finally, this type of defect pair is represented four times (two times more often than the ground state configuration) within the systematically investigated configuration space.
+Finally, this type of defect pair is represented four times (two times more often than the ground-state configuration) within the systematically investigated configuration space.
The latter is considered very important at high temperatures, accompanied by an increase in the entropic contribution to structure formation.
As a result, C defect agglomeration indeed is expected, but only a low probability is assumed for C-C clustering by thermally activated processes with regard to the considered process time in IBS.
% alternatively: ... considered period of time (of the IBS process).
\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.}
\label{fig:dc_110}
\end{figure}
-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.
-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 \unit[1]{nm}.
+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.
+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 \unit[1]{nm}.
The interpolated graph suggests the disappearance of attractive interaction forces, which are proportional to the slope of the graph, in between the two lowest separation distances of the defects.
This finding, in turn, supports the previously established assumption of C agglomeration and absence of C clustering.
\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 3 (left) into a configuration of a twofold coordinated Si$_{\text{i}}$ located in between two C$_{\text{s}}$ atoms occupying the lattice sites of the initial DB and position 3 (right). An activation energy of \unit[0.44]{eV} is observed.}
\label{fig:093-095}
\end{figure}
-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 neighbor.
+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 neighbor.
By a single bond switch, i.e. the breaking of a Si-Si in favor of a Si-C bond, configuration B is obtained, which shows a twofold coordinated Si atom located in between two substitutional C atoms residing on regular Si lattice sites.
This configuration has been identified and described by spectroscopic experimental techniques\cite{song90_2} as well as theoretical studies\cite{leary97,capaz98}.
Configuration B is found to constitute the energetically slightly more favorable configuration.
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}).
Again a single bond switch, i.e. the breaking of the bond of the Si atom bound to the fourfold coordinated C$_{\text{s}}$ atom and the formation of a double bond between the two C atoms, results in configuration b.
The two C atoms form a \hkl[1 0 0] DB sharing the initial C$_{\text{s}}$ lattice site while the initial Si DB atom occupies its previously regular lattice site.
-The transition is accompanied by a large gain in energy as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:026-128}, making it the ground state configuration of a C$_{\text{s}}$ and C$_{\text{i}}$ DB in Si yet \unit[0.33]{eV} lower in energy than configuration B.
-This finding is in good agreement with a combined ab initio and experimental study of Liu et~al.\cite{liu02}, who first proposed this structure as the ground state identifying an energy difference compared to configuration B of \unit[0.2]{eV}.
+The transition is accompanied by a large gain in energy as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:026-128} making it the ground-state configuration of a C$_{\text{s}}$ and C$_{\text{i}}$ DB in Si yet \unit[0.33]{eV} lower in energy than configuration B.
+This finding is in good agreement with a combined {\em ab initio} and experimental study of Liu et~al.\cite{liu02}, who first proposed this structure as the ground state identifying an energy difference compared to configuration B of \unit[0.2]{eV}.
% mattoni: A favored by 0.2 eV - NO! (again, missing spin polarization?)
A net magnetization of two spin up electrons, which are equally localized as in the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB structure is observed.
In fact, these two configurations are very similar and are qualitatively different from the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB that does not show magnetization but a nearly collinear bond of the C DB atom to its two neighbored Si atoms while the Si DB atom approximates \unit[120]{$^{\circ}$} angles in between its bonds.
Configurations a, A and B are not affected by spin polarization and show zero magnetization.
Mattoni et~al.\cite{mattoni2002}, in contrast, find configuration b less favorable than configuration A by \unit[0.2]{eV}.
-Next to differences in the XC functional and plane-wave energy cut-off this discrepancy might be attributed to the neglect of spin polarization in their calculations, which -- as has been shown for the C$_{\text{i}}$ BC configuration -- results in an increase of configurational energy.
-Indeed, investigating the migration path from configurations a to b and, in doing so, reusing the wave functions of the previous migration step the final structure, i.e. configuration b, was obtained with zero magnetization and an increase in configurational energy by \unit[0.2]{eV}.
-Obviously a different energy minimum of the electronic system is obtained indicating hysteresis behavior.
+Next to differences in the XC functional and plane-wave energy cut-off, this discrepancy might be attributed to the neglect of spin polarization in their calculations, which -- as has been shown for the C$_{\text{i}}$ BC configuration -- results in an increase of configurational energy.
+Indeed, investigating the migration path from configurations a to b and, in doing so, reusing the wave functions of the previous migration step, the final structure, i.e. configuration b, was obtained with zero magnetization and an increase in configurational energy by \unit[0.2]{eV}.
+Obviously, a different energy minimum of the electronic system is obtained indicating hysteresis behavior.
However, since the total energy is lower for the magnetic result it is believed to constitute the real, i.e. global, minimum with respect to electronic minimization.
%
% a b transition
The most favorable configuration is found for C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3, which corresponds to the lattice site of one of the upper neighbored Si atoms of the DB structure that is compressively strained along \hkl[1 -1 0] and \hkl[0 0 1] by the C-Si DB.
The substitution with C allows for most effective compensation of strain.
This structure is followed by C$_{\text{s}}$ located at position 2, the lattice site of one of the neighbor atoms below the two Si atoms that are bound to the C$_{\text{i}}$ DB atom.
-As mentioned earlier these two lower Si atoms indeed experience tensile strain along the \hkl[1 1 0] bond chain, however, additional compressive strain along \hkl[0 0 1] exists.
+As mentioned earlier, these two lower Si atoms indeed experience tensile strain along the \hkl[1 1 0] bond chain.
+However, additional compressive strain along \hkl[0 0 1] exists.
The latter is partially compensated by the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom.
Yet less of compensation is realized if C$_{\text{s}}$ is located at position 4 due to a larger separation although both bottom Si atoms of the DB structure are indirectly affected, i.e. each of them is connected by another Si atom to the C atom enabling the reduction of strain along \hkl[0 0 1].
% 2 more migs: 051 -> 128 and 026! forgot why ... probably it's about probability of C clustering
Obviously agglomeration of C$_{\text{i}}$ and C$_{\text{s}}$ is energetically favorable except for separations along one of the \hkl<1 1 0> directions.
The energetically most favorable configuration (configuration b) forms a strong but compressively strained C-C bond with a separation distance of \unit[0.142]{nm} sharing a Si lattice site.
+\possprune{
Again, conclusions concerning the probability of formation are drawn by investigating migration paths.
+}
Since C$_{\text{s}}$ is unlikely to exhibit a low activation energy for migration the focus is on C$_{\text{i}}$.
Pathways starting from the two next most favored configurations were investigated, which show activation energies above \unit[2.2]{eV} and \unit[3.5]{eV} respectively.
-Although lower than the barriers for obtaining the ground state of two C$_{\text{i}}$ defects the activation energies are yet considered too high.
-For the same reasons as in the last subsection, structures other than the ground state configuration are, thus, assumed to arise more likely due to much lower activation energies necessary for their formation and still comparatively low binding energies.
+Although lower than the barriers for obtaining the ground state of two C$_{\text{i}}$ defects, the activation energies are yet considered too high.
+\possprune{
+For the same reasons as in the last subsection, structures other than the ground-state configuration are, thus, assumed to arise more likely due to much lower activation energies necessary for their formation and still comparatively low binding energies.
+}
\subsection{C$_{\text{i}}$ next to V}
+\prune{
In the last subsection configurations of a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB with C$_{\text{s}}$ occupying a vacant site have been investigated.
+}
+\possprune{
Additionally, configurations might arise in IBS, in which the impinging C atom creates a vacant site near a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB, but does not occupy it.
+}
Resulting binding energies of a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB and a nearby vacancy are listed in the second row of Table~\ref{table:dc_c-sv}.
-All investigated structures are preferred compared to isolated largely separated defects.
-In contrast to C$_{\text{s}}$ this is also valid for positions along \hkl[1 1 0] resulting in an entirely attractive interaction between defects of these types.
-Even for the largest possible distance (R) achieved in the calculations of the periodic supercell a binding energy as low as \unit[-0.31]{eV} is observed.
-The ground state configuration is obtained for a V at position 1.
+All investigated structures are preferred compared to isolated, largely separated defects.
+In contrast to C$_{\text{s}}$, this is also valid for positions along \hkl[1 1 0] resulting in an entirely attractive interaction between defects of these types.
+Even for the largest possible distance (R) achieved in the calculations of the periodic supercell, a binding energy as low as \unit[-0.31]{eV} is observed.
+The ground-state configuration is obtained for a V at position 1.
The C atom of the DB moves towards the vacant site forming a stable C$_{\text{s}}$ configuration resulting in the release of a huge amount of energy.
The second most favorable configuration is accomplished for a V located at position 3 due to the reduction of compressive strain of the Si DB atom and its two upper Si neighbors present in the C$_{\text{i}}$ DB configuration.
This configuration is followed by the structure, in which a vacant site is created at position 2.
-Similar to the observations for C$_{\text{s}}$ in the last subsection a reduction of strain along \hkl[0 0 1] is enabled by this configuration.
+Similar to the observations for C$_{\text{s}}$ in the last subsection, a reduction of strain along \hkl[0 0 1] is enabled by this configuration.
Relaxed structures of the latter two defect combinations are shown in the bottom left of Fig.~\ref{fig:314-539} and \ref{fig:059-539} respectively together with their energetics during transition into the ground state.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{314-539.ps}
\label{fig:059-539}
\end{figure}
Activation energies as low as \unit[0.1]{eV} and \unit[0.6]{eV} are observed.
-In the first case the Si and C atom of the DB move towards the vacant and initial DB lattice site respectively.
-In total three Si-Si and one more Si-C bond is formed during transition.
-In the second case the lowest barrier is found for the migration of Si number 1, which is substituted by the C$_{\text{i}}$ atom, towards the vacant site.
+In the first case, the Si and C atom of the DB move towards the vacant and initial DB lattice site respectively.
+In total, three Si-Si and one more Si-C bond is formed during transition.
+In the second case, the lowest barrier is found for the migration of Si number 1, which is substituted by the C$_{\text{i}}$ atom, towards the vacant site.
A net amount of five Si-Si and one Si-C bond are additionally formed during transition.
The direct migration of the C$_{\text{i}}$ atom onto the vacant lattice site results in a somewhat higher barrier of \unit[1.0]{eV}.
In both cases, the formation of additional bonds is responsible for the vast gain in energy rendering almost impossible the reverse processes.
In summary, pairs of C$_{\text{i}}$ DBs and Vs, like no other before, show highly attractive interactions for all investigated combinations independent of orientation and separation direction of the defects.
-Furthermore, small activation energies, even for transitions into the ground state exist.
+Furthermore, small activation energies, even for transitions into the ground state, exist.
Based on these results, a high probability for the formation of C$_{\text{s}}$ must be concluded.
\subsection{C$_{\text{s}}$ next to Si$_{\text{i}}$}
As shown in section~\ref{subsection:sep_def}, C$_{\text{s}}$ exhibits the lowest energy of formation.
Considering a perfect Si crystal and conservation of particles, however, the occupation of a Si lattice site by a slowed down implanted C atom is necessarily accompanied by the formation of a Si self-interstitial.
+\prune{
There are good reasons for the existence of regions exhibiting such configurations with regard to the IBS process.
Highly energetic C atoms are able to kick out a Si atom from its lattice site, resulting in a Si self-interstitial accompanied by a vacant site, which might get occupied by another C atom that lost almost all of its kinetic energy.
%Thus, configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si self-interstitials are investigated in the following.
Provided that the first C atom, which created the V and Si$_{\text{i}}$ pair has enough kinetic energy to escape the affected region, the C$_{\text{s}}$-Si$_{\text{i}}$ pair can be described as a separated defect complex.
+}
The Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB, which was found to exhibit the lowest energy of formation within the investigated self-interstitial configurations, is assumed to provide the energetically most favorable configuration in combination with C$_{\text{s}}$.
\begin{table}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{table:dc_si-s} classifies equivalent configurations of \hkl<1 1 0>-type Si$_{\text{i}}$ DBs created at position I and C$_{\text{s}}$ created at positions 1 to 5 according to Fig.~\ref{fig:combos_si}.
Corresponding formation as well as binding energies and the separation distances of the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom and the Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB lattice site are listed in Table~\ref{table:dc_si-s_e}.
-In total ten different configurations exist within the investigated range.
+In total, ten different configurations exist within the investigated range.
Configuration \RM{1} constitutes the energetically most favorable structure exhibiting a formation energy of \unit[4.37]{eV}.
-Obviously the configuration of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB and a neighbored C$_{\text{s}}$ atom along the bond chain, which has the same direction as the alignment of the DB, enables the largest possible reduction of strain.
+Obviously, the configuration of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB and a neighbored C$_{\text{s}}$ atom along the bond chain, which has the same direction as the alignment of the DB, enables the largest possible reduction of strain.
The relaxed structure is displayed in the bottom right of Fig.~\ref{fig:162-097}.
Compressive strain originating from the Si$_{\text{i}}$ is compensated by tensile strain inherent to the C$_{\text{s}}$ configuration.
The Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB atoms are displaced towards the lattice site occupied by the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom in such a way that the Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB atom closest to the C atom does no longer form bonds to its top Si neighbors, but to the next neighbored Si atom along \hkl[1 1 0].
\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of a \hkl[1 1 0] Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB next to C$_{\text{s}}$ (right) into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB configuration (left). An activation energy of \unit[0.12]{eV} and \unit[0.77]{eV} for the reverse process is observed.}
\label{fig:162-097}
\end{figure}
-An activation energy as low as \unit[0.12]{eV} is necessary for the migration into the ground state configuration.
+An activation energy as low as \unit[0.12]{eV} is necessary for the migration into the ground-state configuration.
Accordingly, the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration is assumed to occur more likely.
However, only \unit[0.77]{eV} are needed for the reverse process, i.e. the formation of C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB out of the ground state.
-Due to the low activation energy this process must be considered to be activated without much effort either thermally or by introduced energy of the implantation process.
+Due to the low activation energy, this process must be considered to be activated without much effort either thermally or by introduced energy of the implantation process.
\begin{figure}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c_sub_si110.ps}
%The LJ fit estimates almost zero interaction already at \unit[0.6]{nm}, indicating a low interaction capture radius of the defect pair.
As can be seen, the interaction strength, i.e. the absolute value of the binding energy, quickly drops to zero with increasing separation distance.
Almost zero interaction may be assumed already at distances about \unit[0.5-0.6]{nm}, indicating a low interaction capture radius of the defect pair.
-In IBS highly energetic collisions are assumed to easily produce configurations of defects exhibiting separation distances exceeding the capture radius.
-For this reason C$_{\text{s}}$ without a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB located within the immediate proximity, which is, thus, unable to form the thermodynamically stable C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, constitutes a most likely configuration to be found in IBS.
+In IBS, highly energetic collisions are assumed to easily produce configurations of defects exhibiting separation distances exceeding the capture radius.
+For this reason, C$_{\text{s}}$ without a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB located within the immediate proximity, which is, thus, unable to form the thermodynamically stable C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, constitutes a most likely configuration to be found in IBS.
Similar to what was previously mentioned, configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB might be particularly important at higher temperatures due to the low activation energy necessary for its formation.
At higher temperatures the contribution of entropy to structural formation increases, which might result in a spatial separation even for defects located within the capture radius.
-Indeed, an ab initio molecular dynamics run at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} starting from configuration \RM{1}, which -- based on the above findings -- is assumed to recombine into the ground state configuration, results in a separation of the C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB by more than 4 neighbor distances realized in a repeated migration mechanism of annihilating and arising Si$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.
+Indeed, an {\em ab initio} molecular dynamics run at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} starting from configuration \RM{1}, which -- based on the above findings -- is assumed to recombine into the ground-state configuration, results in a separation of the C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB by more than 4 neighbor distances realized in a repeated migration mechanism of annihilating and arising Si$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.
The atomic configurations for two different points in time are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:md}.
Si atoms 1 and 2, which form the initial DB, occupy Si lattice sites in the final configuration while Si atom 3 is transferred from a regular lattice site into the interstitial lattice.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\columnwidth}
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{md01.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{md01_bonds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\columnwidth}
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{md02.eps}\\
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{md02_bonds.eps}\\
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}{0.49\columnwidth}
\begin{center}
$t=\unit[2900]{fs}$
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
-\caption{Atomic configurations of an ab initio molecular dynamics run at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} starting from a configuration of C$_{\text{s}}$ located next to a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB (atoms 1 and 2). Equal atoms are marked by equal numbers. Bonds are drawn for substantial atoms only.}
+\caption{Atomic configurations of an {\em ab initio} molecular dynamics run at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} starting from a configuration of C$_{\text{s}}$ located next to a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB (atoms 1 and 2). Equal atoms are marked by equal numbers.}
\label{fig:md}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mobility of silicon defects}
Separated configurations of \cs{} and \si{} become even more likely if Si diffusion exhibits a low barrier of migration.
-Concerning the mobility of the ground state Si$_{\text{i}}$, an activation energy of \unit[0.67]{eV} for the transition of the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 1 -1] to \hkl[1 1 0] DB located at the neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction is obtained by first-principles calculations.
+Concerning the mobility of the ground-state Si$_{\text{i}}$, an activation energy of \unit[0.67]{eV} for the transition of the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 1 -1] to \hkl[1 1 0] DB located at the neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction is obtained by first-principles calculations.
Further quantum-mechanical investigations revealed a barrier of \unit[0.94]{eV} for the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB to Si$_{\text{i}}$ H, \unit[0.53]{eV} for the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB to Si$_{\text{i}}$ T and \unit[0.35]{eV} for the Si$_{\text{i}}$ H to Si$_{\text{i}}$ T transition.
-These are of the same order of magnitude than values derived from other ab initio studies\cite{bloechl93,sahli05}.
+These are of the same order of magnitude than values derived from other {\em ab initio} studies\cite{bloechl93,sahli05}.
The low barriers indeed enable configurations of further separated \cs{} and \si{} atoms by the highly mobile \si{} atom departing from the \cs{} defect as observed in the previously discussed MD simulation.
\subsection{Summary}
Obtained results for separated point defects in Si are in good agreement to previous theoretical work on this subject, both for intrinsic defects\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03} as well as for C point defects\cite{dal_pino93,capaz94}.
-The ground state configurations of these defects, i.e. the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> and C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, have been reproduced and compare well to previous findings of theoretical investigations on Si$_{\text{i}}$\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03} as well as theoretical\cite{dal_pino93,capaz94,burnard93,leary97,jones04} and experimental\cite{watkins76,song90} studies on C$_{\text{i}}$.
+The ground-state configurations of these defects, i.e. the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> and C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, have been reproduced and compare well to previous findings of theoretical investigations on Si$_{\text{i}}$\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03} as well as theoretical\cite{dal_pino93,capaz94,burnard93,leary97,jones04} and experimental\cite{watkins76,song90} studies on C$_{\text{i}}$.
A quantitatively improved activation energy of \unit[0.9]{eV} for a qualitatively equal migration path based on studies by Capaz et.~al.\cite{capaz94} to experimental values\cite{song90,lindner06,tipping87} ranging from \unit[0.70-0.87]{eV} reinforce their derived mechanism of diffusion for C$_{\text{i}}$ in Si.
The investigation of defect pairs indicated a general trend of defect agglomeration mainly driven by the potential of strain reduction.
Obtained results for the most part compare well with results gained in previous studies\cite{leary97,capaz98,mattoni2002,liu02} and show an astonishingly good agreement with experiment\cite{song90}.
-For configurations involving two C impurities the ground state configurations have been found to consist of C-C bonds, which are responsible for the vast gain in energy.
+For configurations involving two C impurities, the ground-state configurations have been found to consist of C-C bonds, which are responsible for the vast gain in energy.
However, based on investigations of possible migration pathways, these structures are less likely to arise than structures, in which both C atoms are interconnected by another Si atom, which is due to high activation energies of the respective pathways or alternative pathways featuring less high activation energies, which, however, involve intermediate unfavorable configurations.
Thus, agglomeration of C$_{\text{i}}$ is expected while the formation of C-C bonds is assumed to fail to appear by thermally activated diffusion processes.
Comparatively high energies necessary for the reverse process reveal this configuration to be extremely stable.
Investigating configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$, formation energies higher than that of the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB were obtained keeping up previously derived assumptions concerning the ground state of C$_{\text{i}}$ in otherwise perfect Si.
-However, a small capture radius was identified for the respective interaction that might prevent the recombination of defects exceeding a separation of \unit[0.6]{nm} into the ground state configuration.
+However, a small capture radius was identified for the respective interaction that might prevent the recombination of defects exceeding a separation of \unit[0.6]{nm} into the ground-state configuration.
In addition, a rather small activation energy of \unit[0.77]{eV} allows for the formation of a C$_{\text{s}}$-Si$_{\text{i}}$ pair originating from the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB structure by thermally activated processes.
Thus, elevated temperatures might lead to configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ and a remaining Si atom in the near interstitial lattice, which is supported by the result of the molecular dynamics run.
This is particularly important since the energy of formation of C$_{\text{s}}$ is drastically underestimated by the EA potential.
A possible occurrence 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 is obviously wrong.
-Since quantum-mechanical calculations 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$_{\text{s}}$.
+Since quantum-mechanical calculations 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}.
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 volts. 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 nearest neighbored lattice site with respect to the Si$_{\text{i}}$ atom.}
+\caption{Formation energies of defect configurations of a single C impurity in otherwise perfect c-Si determined by classical potential and {\em ab initio} methods. The formation energies are given in electron volts. 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 nearest 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 energies of formation decrease.
+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 energies 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 neighbored C$_{\text{s}}$, which is the most favored configuration of a C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB according to the quantum-mechanical calculations, 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.
However, this configuration is unstable involving a structural transition into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> interstitial, thus, not maintaining the tetrahedral Si nor the substitutional C defect.
Thus, the underestimated energy of formation of C$_{\text{s}}$ within the EA calculation does not pose a serious limitation in the present context.
-Since C is introduced into a perfect Si crystal and the number of particles is conserved in simulation, the creation of C$_{\text{s}}$ is accompanied by the creation of Si$_{\text{i}}$, which is energetically less favorable than the ground state, i.e. the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration, for both, the EA and ab initio treatment.
+Since C is introduced into a perfect Si crystal and the number of particles is conserved in simulation, the creation of C$_{\text{s}}$ is accompanied by the creation of Si$_{\text{i}}$, which is energetically less favorable than the ground state, i.e. the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration, for both, the EA and {\em ab initio} treatment.
In either case, no configuration more favorable than the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB has been found.
Thus, a proper description with respect to the relative energies of formation is assumed for the EA potential.
In the low C concentration simulation the number of C-C bonds is small, as can be seen in the upper part of Fig.~\ref{fig:450:a}.
On average, there are only 0.2 C atoms per Si unit cell.
-By comparing the Si-C peaks of the low concentration simulation with the resulting Si-C distances of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB in Fig.~\ref{fig:450:b} it becomes evident that the structure is clearly dominated by this kind of defect.
+By comparing the Si-C peaks of the low concentration simulation with the resulting Si-C distances of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB in Fig.~\ref{fig:450:b}, it becomes evident that the structure is clearly dominated by this kind of defect.
One exceptional peak at \unit[0.26]{nm} (marked with an arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig:450:b}) exists, which is due to the Si-C cut-off, at which the interaction is pushed to zero.
Investigating the C-C peak at \unit[0.31]{nm}, which is also available for low C concentrations as can be seen in the upper inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:450:a}, reveals a structure of two concatenated, differently oriented C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DBs to be responsible for this distance.
Additionally, in the inset of the bottom part of Fig.\ref{fig:450:a} the Si-Si radial distribution shows non-zero values at distances around \unit[0.3]{nm}, which, again, is due to the DB structure stretching two neighbored Si atoms.
On closer inspection two reasons for describing this obstacle become evident.
First of all, there is the time scale problem inherent to MD in general.
-To minimize the integration error the discretized time step must be chosen smaller than the reciprocal of the fastest vibrational mode resulting in a time step of \unit[1]{fs} for the investigated materials system.
+To minimize the integration error, the discretized time step must be chosen smaller than the reciprocal of the fastest vibrational mode resulting in a time step of \unit[1]{fs} for the investigated materials system.
Limitations in computer power result in a slow propagation in phase space.
Several local minima exist, which are separated by large energy barriers.
Due to the low probability of escaping such a local minimum, a single transition event corresponds to a multiple of vibrational periods.
\subsection{Increased temperature simulations}
-Due to the problem of slow phase space propagation, which is enhanced by the employed potential, pushing the time scale to the limits of computational resources or applying one of the above mentioned accelerated dynamics methods exclusively might not be sufficient.
+Due to the problem of slow phase space propagation, which is enhanced by the employed potential, pushing the time scale to the limits of computational resources or applying one of the above mentioned accelerated dynamics methods exclusively, might not be sufficient.
Instead, higher temperatures are utilized to compensate overestimated diffusion barriers.
These are overestimated by a factor of 2.4 to 3.5.
Scaling the absolute temperatures accordingly results in maximum temperatures of \unit[1460-2260]{$^{\circ}$C}.
Comparing the radial distribution at \unit[2050]{$^{\circ}$C} to the resulting bonds of C$_{\text{s}}$ in c-Si excludes all possibility of doubt.
The phase transformation is accompanied by an arising Si-Si peak at \unit[0.325]{nm} in Fig.~\ref{fig:tot:si-si}, which corresponds to the distance of next neighbored Si atoms along the \hkl<1 1 0> bond chain with C$_{\text{s}}$ in between.
-Since the expected distance of these Si pairs in 3C-SiC is \unit[0.308]{nm} the existing SiC structures embedded in the c-Si host are stretched.
+Since the expected distance of these Si pairs in 3C-SiC is \unit[0.308]{nm}, the existing SiC structures embedded in the c-Si host are stretched.
According to the C-C radial distribution displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:tot:c-c}, agglomeration of C fails to appear even for elevated temperatures, as can be seen on the total amount of C pairs within the investigated separation range, which does not change significantly.
However, a small decrease in the amount of neighbored C pairs can be observed with increasing temperature.
However, huge amounts of damage hamper identification.
The alignment of the investigated structures to the c-Si host is lost in many cases, which suggests the necessity of much more time for structural evolution to maintain the topotactic orientation of the precipitate.
-\subsection{Summary}
+\subsection{Summary of classical potential calculations}
Investigations are targeted at the initially stated controversy of SiC precipitation, i.e. whether precipitation occurs abruptly after enough C$_{\text{i}}$ agglomerated or after a successive agglomeration of C$_{\text{s}}$ on usual Si lattice sites (and Si$_{\text{i}}$) followed by a contraction into incoherent SiC.
-Results of the previous ab initio study on defects and defect combinations in C implanted Si suggest C$_{\text{s}}$ to play a decisive role in the precipitation of SiC in Si.
-To support previous assumptions MD simulations, which are capable of modeling the necessary amount of atoms, i.e. the precipitate and the surrounding c-Si structure, have been employed in the current study.
+Results of the previous {\em ab initio} study on defects and defect combinations in C implanted Si suggest C$_{\text{s}}$ to play a decisive role in the precipitation of SiC in Si.
+To support previous assumptions, MD simulations, which are capable of modeling the necessary amount of atoms, i.e. the precipitate and the surrounding c-Si structure, have been employed in the current study.
-In a previous comparative study\cite{zirkelbach10} we have shown that the utilized empirical potential fails to describe some selected processes.
+In a previous comparative study\cite{zirkelbach10}, we have shown that the utilized empirical potential fails to describe some selected processes.
Thus, limitations of the employed potential have been further investigated and taken into account in the present study.
We focussed on two major shortcomings: the overestimated activation energy and the improper description of intrinsic and C point defects in Si.
Overestimated forces between nearest neighbor atoms that are expected for short range potentials\cite{mattoni2007} have been confirmed to influence the C$_{\text{i}}$ diffusion.
However, we observed a phase transition of the C$_{\text{i}}$-dominated into a clearly C$_{\text{s}}$-dominated structure.
The amount of substitutionally occupied C atoms increases with increasing temperature.
Entropic contributions are assumed to be responsible for these structures at elevated temperatures that deviate from the ground state at 0 K.
-Indeed, in the ab initio MD simulation performed at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} we observed the departing of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB located next to a C$_{\text{s}}$ atom instead of a recombination into the ground state configuration, i.e. a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB.
+Indeed, in the {\em ab initio} MD simulation performed at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C}, we observed the departing of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB located next to a C$_{\text{s}}$ atom instead of a recombination into the ground-state configuration, i.e. a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that C interstitials in Si tend to agglomerate, which is mainly driven by a reduction of strain.
Investigations of migration pathways, however, allow to conclude that C clustering is hindered due to high activation energies of the respective diffusion processes.
A highly attractive interaction and a large capture radius has been identified for the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB and the vacancy indicating a high probability for the formation of C$_{\text{s}}$.
-In contrast, a rapidly decreasing interaction with respect to the separation distance has been identified for C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB resulting in a low probability of defects exhibiting respective separations to transform into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, which constitutes the ground state configuration for a C atom introduced into otherwise perfect Si.
+In contrast, a rapidly decreasing interaction with respect to the separation distance has been identified for C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB resulting in a low probability of defects exhibiting respective separations to transform into the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, which constitutes the ground-state configuration for a C atom introduced into otherwise perfect Si.
An increased participation of \cs{} during implantation at elevated temperatures is concluded.
Results of the classical potential MD simulations reinforce conclusions drawn from first-principles calculations.
% --------------------------------- references -------------------
-\bibliography{../../bibdb/bibdb}{}
-\bibliographystyle{h-physrev3}
+%\bibliography{../../bibdb/bibdb}{}
+%\bibliographystyle{h-physrev3}
-\end{document}
+\begin{thebibliography}{100}
+
+\bibitem{edgar92}
+J.~H. Edgar,
+\newblock J. Mater. Res. {\bf 7}, 235 (1992).
+
+\bibitem{morkoc94}
+H.~Morko\c{c}, S.~Strite, G.~B. Gao, M.~E. Lin, B.~Sverdlov, and M.~Burns,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 76}, 1363 (1994).
+
+\bibitem{wesch96}
+W.~Wesch,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 116}, 305 (1996).
+
+\bibitem{capano97}
+M.~A. Capano and R.~J. Trew,
+\newblock MRS Bull. {\bf 22}, 19 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{park98}
+Y.~S. Park,
+\newblock {\em Si{C} Materials and Devices} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998).
+
+\bibitem{fischer90}
+G.~R. Fisher and P.~Barnes,
+\newblock Philos. Mag. B {\bf 61}, 217 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{powell90}
+J.~A. Powell, D.~J. Larkin, L.~G. Matus, W.~J. Choyke, J.~L. Bradshaw,
+ L.~Henderson, M.~Yoganathan, J.~Yang, and P.~Pirouz,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 56}, 1353 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{fissel95}
+A.~Fissel, U.~Kaiser, E.~Ducke, B.~Schr{\"{o}}ter, and W.~Richter,
+\newblock J. Cryst. Growth {\bf 154}, 72 (1995).
+
+\bibitem{fissel95_apl}
+A.~Fissel, B.~Schr{\"{o}}ter, and W.~Richter,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 66}, 3182 (1995).
+
+\bibitem{nishino83}
+S.~Nishino, J.~A. Powell, and H.~A. Will,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 42}, 460 (1983).
+
+\bibitem{nishino87}
+S.~Nishino, H.~Suhara, H.~Ono, and H.~Matsunami,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 61}, 4889 (1987).
+
+\bibitem{kitabatake93}
+M.~Kitabatake, M.~Deguchi, and T.~Hirao,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 74}, 4438 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{borders71}
+J.~A. Borders, S.~T. Picraux, and W.~Beezhold,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 18}, 509 (1971).
+
+\bibitem{lindner99}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 147}, 249 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{lindner01}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 178}, 44 (2001).
+
+\bibitem{lindner02}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. A {\bf 77}, 27 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{lindner99_2}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 148}, 528 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{werner96}
+P.~Werner, R.~K{\"{o}}gler, W.~Skorupa, and D.~Eichler,
+\newblock in {\em Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ion Implantation Technology}, pp. 675--678, 1996.
+
+\bibitem{werner97}
+P.~Werner, S.~Eichler, G.~Mariani, R.~K{\"{o}}gler, and W.~Skorupa,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 70}, 252 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{eichhorn99}
+F.~Eichhorn, N.~Schell, W.~Matz, and R.~K{\"{o}}gler,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 86}, 4184 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{koegler03}
+R.~K{\"{o}}gler, F.~Eichhorn, J.~R. Kaschny, A.~M{\"{u}}cklich, H.~Reuther,
+ W.~Skorupa, C.~Serre, and A.~Perez-Rodriguez,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. {\bf 76}, 827 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{strane94}
+J.~W. Strane, H.~J. Stein, S.~R. Lee, S.~T. Picraux, J.~K. Watanabe, and J.~W.
+ Mayer,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 76}, 3656 (1994).
+
+\bibitem{guedj98}
+C.~Guedj, M.~W. Dashiell, L.~Kulik, J.~Kolodzey, and A.~Hairie,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 84}, 4631 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{nejim95}
+A.~Nejim, P.~L.~F. Hemment, and J.~Stoemenos,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 66}, 2646 (1995).
+
+\bibitem{strane96}
+J.~W. Strane, S.~R. Lee, H.~J. Stein, S.~T. Picraux, J.~K. Watanabe, and J.~W.
+ Mayer,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 79}, 637 (1996).
+
+\bibitem{laveant2002}
+P.~Lav\'eant, G.~Gerth, P.~Werner, and U.~G{\"{o}}sele,
+\newblock Mater. Sci. Eng., B {\bf 89}, 241 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{bar-yam84}
+Y.~Bar-Yam and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1129 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{bar-yam84_2}
+Y.~Bar-Yam and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 30}, 1844 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{car84}
+R.~Car, P.~J. Kelly, A.~Oshiyama, and S.~T. Pantelides,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1814 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{batra87}
+I.~P. Batra, F.~F. Abraham, and S.~Ciraci,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35}, 9552 (1987).
+
+\bibitem{bloechl93}
+P.~E. Bl{\"o}chl, E.~Smargiassi, R.~Car, D.~B. Laks, W.~Andreoni, and S.~T.
+ Pantelides,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 2435 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{tang97}
+M.~Tang, L.~Colombo, J.~Zhu, and T.~Diaz de~la Rubia,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 14279 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{leung99}
+W.-K. Leung, R.~J. Needs, G.~Rajagopal, S.~Itoh, and S.~Ihara,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 2351 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{colombo02}
+L.~Colombo,
+\newblock Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. {\bf 32}, 271 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{goedecker02}
+S.~Goedecker, T.~Deutsch, and L.~Billard,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 235501 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{al-mushadani03}
+O.~K. Al-Mushadani and R.~J. Needs,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 235205 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{hobler05}
+G.~Hobler and G.~Kresse,
+\newblock Mater. Sci. Eng., B {\bf 124-125}, 368 (2005).
+
+\bibitem{sahli05}
+B.~Sahli and W.~Fichtner,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72}, 245210 (2005).
+
+\bibitem{posselt08}
+M.~Posselt, F.~Gao, and H.~Bracht,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 78}, 035208 (2008).
+
+\bibitem{ma10}
+S.~Ma and S.~Wang,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 81}, 193203 (2010).
+
+\bibitem{mazzarolo01}
+M.~Mazzarolo, L.~Colombo, G.~Lulli, and E.~Albertazzi,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 195207 (2001).
+
+\bibitem{holmstroem08}
+E.~Holmstr{\"o}m, A.~Kuronen, and K.~Nordlund,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 78}, 045202 (2008).
+
+\bibitem{tersoff90}
+J.~Tersoff,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 1757 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{dal_pino93}
+A.~{Dal Pino}, A.~M. Rappe, and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 12554 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{capaz94}
+R.~B. Capaz, A.~{Dal Pino}, and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 7439 (1994).
+
+\bibitem{burnard93}
+M.~J. Burnard and G.~G. DeLeo,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 10217 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{leary97}
+P.~Leary, R.~Jones, S.~{\"O}berg, and V.~J.~B. Torres,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 2188 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{capaz98}
+R.~B. Capaz, A.~{Dal Pino}, and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 9845 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{zhu98}
+J.~Zhu,
+\newblock Comput. Mater. Sci. {\bf 12}, 309 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{mattoni2002}
+A.~Mattoni, F.~Bernardini, and L.~Colombo,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 195214 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{park02}
+S.~Y. Park, J.~D'Arcy-Gall, D.~Gall, J.~A. N.~T. Soares, Y.-W. Kim, H.~Kim,
+ P.~Desjardins, J.~E. Greene, and S.~G. Bishop,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 91}, 5716 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{jones04}
+R.~Jones, B.~J. Coomer, and P.~R. Briddon,
+\newblock J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 16}, S2643 (2004).
+
+\bibitem{chirita97}
+V.~Chirita, L.~Hultman, and L.~R. Wallenberg,
+\newblock Thin Solid Films {\bf 294}, 47 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{cicero02}
+G.~Cicero, L.~Pizzagalli, and A.~Catellani,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 156101 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{pizzagalli03}
+L.~Pizzagalli, G.~Cicero, and A.~Catellani,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 195302 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{bockstedte03}
+M.~Bockstedte, A.~Mattausch, and O.~Pankratov,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 205201 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{rauls03a}
+E.~Rauls, T.~Frauenheim, A.~Gali, and P.~De\'ak,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 155208 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{gao04}
+F.~Gao, W.~J. Weber, M.~Posselt, and V.~Belko,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 245205 (2004).
+
+\bibitem{posselt06}
+M.~Posselt, F.~Gao, and W.~J. Weber,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 125206 (2006).
+
+\bibitem{gao07}
+F.~Gao, J.~Du, E.~J. Bylaska, M.~Posselt, and W.~J. Weber,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 90}, 221915 (2007).
+
+\bibitem{stillinger85}
+F.~H. Stillinger and T.~A. Weber,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 31}, 5262 (1985).
+
+\bibitem{brenner90}
+D.~W. Brenner,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 9458 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{tersoff_si3}
+J.~Tersoff,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 9902 (1988).
+
+\bibitem{bazant96}
+M.~Z. Bazant and E.~Kaxiras,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 4370 (1996).
+
+\bibitem{bazant97}
+M.~Z. Bazant, E.~Kaxiras, and J.~F. Justo,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56}, 8542 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{justo98}
+J.~F. Justo, M.~Z. Bazant, E.~Kaxiras, V.~V. Bulatov, and S.~Yip,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 2539 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{balamane92}
+H.~Balamane, T.~Halicioglu, and W.~A. Tiller,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 2250 (1992).
+
+\bibitem{huang95}
+H.~Huang, N.~M. Ghoniem, J.~K. Wong, and M.~Baskes,
+\newblock Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. {\bf 3}, 615 (1995).
+
+\bibitem{godet03}
+J.~Godet, L.~Pizzagalli, S.~Brochard, and P.~Beauchamp,
+\newblock J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 15}, 6943 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{lucas10}
+G.~Lucas, M.~Bertolus, and L.~Pizzagalli,
+\newblock J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 22}, 035802 (2010).
+
+\bibitem{tersoff_m}
+J.~Tersoff,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 5566 (1989).
+
+\bibitem{gao02}
+F.~Gao and W.~J. Weber,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 191}, 487 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{albe_sic_pot}
+P.~Erhart and K.~Albe,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}, 035211 (2005).
+
+\bibitem{mattoni2007}
+A.~{Mattoni}, M.~{Ippolito}, and L.~{Colombo},
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 76}, 224103 (2007).
+
+\bibitem{zirkelbach10}
+F.~Zirkelbach, B.~Stritzker, K.~Nordlund, J.~K.~N. Lindner, W.~G. Schmidt, and
+ E.~Rauls,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 82}, 094110 (2010).
+
+\bibitem{kresse96}
+G.~Kresse and J.~Furthm{\"{u}}ller,
+\newblock Comput. Mater. Sci. {\bf 6}, 15 (1996).
+
+\bibitem{perdew86}
+J.~P. Perdew and Y.~Wang,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 8800 (1986).
+
+\bibitem{perdew92}
+J.~P. Perdew, J.~A. Chevary, S.~H. Vosko, K.~A. Jackson, M.~R. Pederson, D.~J.
+ Singh, and C.~Fiolhais,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 6671 (1992).
+
+\bibitem{hamann79}
+D.~R. Hamann, M.~Schl{\"u}ter, and C.~Chiang,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43}, 1494 (1979).
+
+\bibitem{vanderbilt90}
+D.~Vanderbilt,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 7892 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{berendsen84}
+H.~J.~C. Berendsen, J.~P.~M. Postma, W.~F. van Gunsteren, A.~DiNola, and J.~R.
+ Haak,
+\newblock J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 81}, 3684 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{verlet67}
+L.~Verlet,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf 159}, 98 (1967).
+
+\bibitem{kaukonen98}
+M.~Kaukonen, P.~K. Sitch, G.~Jungnickel, R.~M. Nieminen, S.~P{\"o}ykk{\"o},
+ D.~Porezag, and T.~Frauenheim,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, 9965 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{watkins76}
+G.~D. Watkins and K.~L. Brower,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 36}, 1329 (1976).
+
+\bibitem{song90}
+L.~W. Song and G.~D. Watkins,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 5759 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{zirkelbach09}
+F.~Zirkelbach, J.~K.~N. Lindner, K.~Nordlund, and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Mater. Sci. Eng., B {\bf 159-160}, 149 (2009).
+
+\bibitem{lindner06}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner, M.~H{\"a}berlen, G.~Thorwarth, and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Mater. Sci. Eng., C {\bf 26}, 857 (2006).
+
+\bibitem{tipping87}
+A.~K. Tipping and R.~C. Newman,
+\newblock Semicond. Sci. Technol. {\bf 2}, 315 (1987).
+
+\bibitem{song90_2}
+L.~W. Song, X.~D. Zhan, B.~W. Benson, and G.~D. Watkins,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 5765 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{liu02}
+C.-L. Liu, W.~Windl, L.~Borucki, S.~Lu, and X.-Y. Liu,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 80}, 52 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{voter97}
+A.~F. Voter,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3908 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{voter97_2}
+A.~F. Voter,
+\newblock J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 106}, 4665 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{voter98}
+A.~F. Voter,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, R13985 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{sorensen2000}
+M.~R. S{\o }rensen and A.~F. Voter,
+\newblock J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 112}, 9599 (2000).
+
+\bibitem{wu99}
+X.~Wu and S.~Wang,
+\newblock J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 110}, 9401 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{tang95}
+M.~Tang and S.~Yip,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 15150 (1995).
+
+\bibitem{kimura82}
+T.~Kimura, S.~Kagiyama, and S.~Yugo,
+\newblock Thin Solid Films {\bf 94}, 191 (1982).
+
+\bibitem{eichhorn02}
+F.~Eichhorn, N.~Schell, A.~M{\"{u}}cklich, H.~Metzger, W.~Matz, and
+ R.~K{\"{o}}gler,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 91}, 1287 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{deguchi92}
+M.~Deguchi, M.~Kitabatake, T.~Hirao, N.~Arai, and T.~Izumi,
+\newblock Japanese J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 31}, 343 (1992).
+
+\bibitem{strane93}
+J.~W. Strane, H.~J. Stein, S.~R. Lee, B.~L. Doyle, S.~T. Picraux, and J.~W.
+ Mayer,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 63}, 2786 (1993).
+
+\end{thebibliography}
+
+\end{document}
projects / lectures / latex.git / blobdiff