+\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of the initial \ci{} \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.
+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.
+However, the gain in energy due to the significantly lower energy of a Si-C compared to a Si-Si bond turns out to be smaller than expected due to a large compensation by introduced strain as a result of the Si interstitial structure.
+Present results show a difference in energy of states A and B, which exactly matches the experimental value of \unit[0.02]{eV} \cite{song90_2}, reinforcing qualitatively correct results of previous theoretical studies on these structures.
+% mattoni: A favored by 0.4 eV - NO, it is indeed B (reinforce Song and Capaz)!
+%
+% AB transition
+The migration barrier ss identified to be \unit[0.44]{eV}, almost three times higher than the experimental value of \unit[0.16]{eV} \cite{song90_2} estimated for the neutral charge state transition in p- and n-type Si.
+Keeping in mind the formidable agreement of the energy difference with experiment, the overestimated activation energy is quite unexpected.
+Obviously, either the CRT algorithm fails to seize the actual saddle point structure or the influence of dopants has exceptional effect in the experimentally covered diffusion process being responsible for the low migration barrier.
+% not satisfactory!
+
+% a b
+\begin{figure}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{026-128.ps}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB and C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 1 (left) into a C-C \hkl[1 0 0] DB occupying the lattice site at position 1 (right). An activation energy of \unit[0.1]{eV} is observed.}
+\label{fig:026-128}
+\end{figure}
+Configuration a is similar to configuration A, except that the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom at position 1 is facing the C DB atom as a neighbor resulting in the formation of a strong C-C bond and a much more noticeable perturbation of the DB structure.
+Nevertheless, the C and Si DB atoms remain threefold coordinated.
+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}.
+% 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, is 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
+A low activation energy of \unit[0.1]{eV} is observed for the a$\rightarrow$b transition.
+Thus, configuration a is very unlikely to occur in favor of configuration b.
+
+% repulsive along 110
+A repulsive interaction is observed for C$_{\text{s}}$ at lattice sites along \hkl[1 1 0], i.e. positions 1 (configuration a) and 5.
+This is due to tensile strain originating from both, the C$_{\text{i}}$ DB and the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom residing within the \hkl[1 1 0] bond chain.
+This finding agrees well with results by Mattoni et~al.~\cite{mattoni2002}.
+% all other investigated results: attractive interaction. stress compensation.
+In contrast, all other investigated configurations show attractive interactions.
+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.
+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].
+\begin{figure}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-0.51\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:051}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/0-51.eps}}
+\hspace{0.2cm}
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-0.15\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:015}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/0-15.eps}}
+\hspace{0.2cm}
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=0.49\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:049}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/0-49.eps}}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Relaxed structures of defect combinations obtained by creating \cs{} at positions 2 (a), 4 (b) and 5 (c) in the \ci{} \hkl[0 0 -1] DB configuration.}
+\label{fig_defects:245csub}
+\end{figure}
+Fig.~\ref{fig_defects:245csub} lists the remaining configurations and binding energies of the relaxed structures obtained by creating a \cs{} at positions 2, 4 and 5 in the \ci{} \hkl[0 0 -1] DB configuration.
+
+% c agglomeration vs c clustering ... migs to b conf
+% 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.
+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.
+
+% old c_int - c_substitutional stuff
+
+%Figures \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_04} and \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_05} show relaxed structures of substitutional carbon in combination with the \hkl<0 0 -1> dumbbell for several positions.
+%In figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_04} positions 1 (a)), 3 (b)) and 5 (c)) are displayed.
+%A substituted carbon atom at position 5 results in an energetically extremely unfavorable configuration.
+%Both carbon atoms, the substitutional and the dumbbell atom, pull silicon atom number 1 towards their own location regarding the \hkl<1 1 0> direction.
+%Due to this a large amount of tensile strain energy is needed, which explains the high positive value of 0.49 eV.
+%The lowest binding energy is observed for a substitutional carbon atom inserted at position 3.
+%The substitutional carbon atom is located above the dumbbell substituting a silicon atom which would usually be bound to and displaced along \hkl<0 0 1> and \hkl<1 1 0> by the silicon dumbbell atom.
+%In contrast to the previous configuration strain compensation occurs resulting in a binding energy as low as -0.93 eV.
+%Substitutional carbon at position 2 and 4, visualized in figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_05}, is located below the initial dumbbell.
+%Silicon atom number 1, which is bound to the interstitial carbon atom is displaced along \hkl<0 0 -1> and \hkl<-1 -1 0>.
+%In case a) only the first displacement is compensated by the substitutional carbon atom.
+%This results in a somewhat higher binding energy of -0.51 eV.
+%The binding energy gets even higher in case b) ($E_{\text{b}}=-0.15\text{ eV}$), in which the substitutional carbon is located further away from the initial dumbbell.
+%In both cases, silicon atom number 1 is displaced in such a way, that the bond to silicon atom number 5 vanishes.
+%In case of \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_04} a) the carbon atoms form a bond with a distance of 1.5 \AA, which is close to the C-C distance expected in diamond or graphit.
+%Both carbon atoms are highly attracted by each other resulting in large displacements and high strain energy in the surrounding.
+%A binding energy of 0.26 eV is observed.
+%Substitutional carbon at positions 2, 3 and 4 are the energetically most favorable configurations and constitute promising starting points for SiC precipitation.
+%On the one hand, C-C distances around 3.1 \AA{} exist for substitution positions 2 and 3, which are close to the C-C distance expected in silicon carbide.
+%On the other hand stretched silicon carbide is obtained by the transition of the silicon dumbbell atom into a silicon self-interstitial located somewhere in the silicon host matrix and the transition of the carbon dumbbell atom into another substitutional atom occupying the dumbbell lattice site.
+
+
+\subsection[Combinations of a \ci{} \hkl<1 0 0> DB and vacancy]{\boldmath Combinations of a \ci{} \hkl<1 0 0> DB and a vacancy}
+\label{subsection:defects:c-v}
+
+In the last section, configurations of a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB with C$_{\text{s}}$ occupying a vacant site have been investigated.
+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.
+These structures are investigated in the following.
+Resulting binding energies of a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB and a nearby vacancy are listed in the second row of Table~\ref{tab:defects:c-v}.
+\begin{table}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
+\hline
+\hline
+1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & R \\
+\hline
+-5.39 ($\rightarrow$ C$_{\text{S}}$) & -0.59 & -3.14 & -0.54 & -0.50 & -0.31\\
+\hline
+\hline
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Binding energies of combinations of the \ci{} \hkl[0 0 -1] defect with a vacancy located at positions 1 to 5 according to Fig.~\ref{fig:defects:combos_ci}. R corresponds to the position located at $\frac{a_{\text{Si}}}{2}\hkl[3 2 3]$ relative to the initial defect position, which is the maximum realizable distance due to periodic boundary conditions.}
+\label{tab:defects:c-v}
+\end{table}
+\begin{figure}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-0.59\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:059}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/0-59.eps}}
+\hspace{0.7cm}
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-3.14\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:314}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/3-14.eps}}\\
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-0.54\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:054}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/0-54.eps}}
+\hspace{0.7cm}
+\subfigure[\underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-0.50\,\text{eV}$}]{\label{fig:defects:050}\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{00-1dc/0-50.eps}}