1: \begin{abstract}

2: We present 

3: one-dimensional

4: simulation results 

5: for

6: the cold atom tunneling experiments

7: by the Heidelberg group

8: [G. Z\"urn {\em{et al.}}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{108}}, 075303 (2012) and 

9: G. Z\"urn {\em{et al.}}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{111}}, 175302 (2013)] 

10: on one or two $^6$Li atoms confined by a potential 

11: that consists of an approximately harmonic optical trap plus a linear 

12: magnetic field gradient.

13: At the non-interacting 

14: particle level, we find that the WKB (Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin)

15: approximation may not be used as a reliable tool to extract the 

16: trapping potential parameters from the experimentally measured tunneling data.

17: We use our numerical calculations along with the experimental tunneling rates 

18: for the non-interacting system to reparameterize the trapping potential.

19: The reparameterized trapping potentials serve as input for our 

20: simulations of two interacting particles.

21: For two interacting (distinguishable) atoms on the upper branch, we

22: reproduce the experimentally measured tunneling rates,

23: which vary over several orders of magnitude, 

24: fairly well. 

25: For infinitely strong interaction strength, 

26: we compare the time dynamics with that of two identical fermions and 

27: discuss the implications of fermionization on the dynamics.

28: For two attractively-interacting atoms on the molecular branch, we find

29: that 

30: single-particle tunneling dominates for weakly-attractive interactions

31: while pair tunneling dominates for strongly-attractive interactions.

32: Our first set of calculations yields

33: qualitative but not quantitative agreement 

34: with the experimentally measured tunneling rates. 

35: We obtain quantitative agreement 

36: with the experimentally measured tunneling rates if we

37: allow for a weakened radial confinement. 

38: \end{abstract}

39: