Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: many important problems in the theory of integrable systems and approximation theory can be recast as riemann - hilbert problems for a matrix - valued unknown . via the connection with approximation theory , and specifically the theory of orthogonal polynomials , one can also study problems from the theory of random matrix ensembles and combinatorics . roughly speaking , solving a riemann - hilbert problem amounts to reconstructing a sectionally meromorphic matrix from given homogeneous multiplicative `` jump conditions '' at the boundary contours of the domains of meromorphy , from `` principal part data '' given at the prescribed singularities , and from a normalization condition . so , many asymptotic questions in integrable systems ( _ e.g. _ long time behavior and singular perturbation theory ) and approximation theory ( _ e.g. _ behavior of orthogonal polynomials in the limit of large degree ) amount to determining asymptotic properties of the solution matrix of a riemann - hilbert problem from given asymptotics of the jump conditions and principal part data .    in recent years a collection of techniques has emerged for studying certain asymptotic problems of this sort . these techniques are analogous to familiar asymptotic methods for expanding oscillatory integrals , and we often refer to them as `` steepest - descent '' methods . the basic method first appeared in the work of deift and zhou @xcite . the first applications were to riemann - hilbert problems without poles , in which the solution matrix is sectionally holomorphic . later , some problems were studied in which there were a number of poles  a number held fixed in the limit of interest  in the solution matrix ( see , for example , the paper @xcite on the long - time behavior of the toda lattice with rarefaction initial data ) . the previous methods were extended to these more complicated problems through the device of making a local change of variable near each pole in some small domain containing the pole . the change of variable is chosen so that it has the effect of removing the pole at the cost of introducing an explicit jump on the boundary of the domain around the pole in which the transformation is made . the result is a riemann - hilbert problem for a sectionally holomorphic matrix , which can be solved asymptotically by pre - existing `` steepest - descent '' methods . recovery of an approximation for the original sectionally meromorphic matrix unknown involves putting back the poles by reversing the explicit change of variables that was designed to get rid of them to begin with . yet another category of riemann - hilbert problems consists of those problems where the number of poles is not fixed , but becomes large in the limit of interest , with the poles accumulating on some closed set @xmath0 in the finite complex plane . a problem of this sort has been addressed @xcite by making an explicit transformation of the type described above in a single fixed domain @xmath1 that contains the locus of accumulation @xmath0 of all the poles . the transformation is chosen to get rid of all the poles at once . in order to specify it , discrete data related to the residues of the poles must be interpolated at the corresponding poles by a function that is analytic and nonvanishing in all of @xmath1 . once the poles have been removed in this way , the riemann - hilbert problem becomes one for a sectionally holomorphic matrix , with a jump at the boundary of @xmath1 given in terms of the explicit change of variables . in this way , the poles are `` swept out '' from @xmath0 to the boundary of @xmath1 resulting in an analytic jump . there is a strong analogy in this procedure with the concept of balayage ( meaning `` sweeping out '' ) from potential theory .    in establishing asymptotic formulae for such riemann - hilbert problems , it is essential that one make judicious use of the freedom to place the boundary of the domain in which one removes the poles from the problem . placing this boundary contour in the correct position in the complex plane allows one to convert oscillations into exponential decay in such a way that the errors in the asymptotics can be rigorously controlled . if the poles accumulate with some smooth density on @xmath2 , the characterization of the correct location of the boundary of @xmath1 can be determined by first passing to a continuum limit of the pole distribution in the resulting jump matrix on the boundary of @xmath1 , and then applying analytic techniques or variational methods . the continuum limit is justified as long as the boundary of @xmath1 remains separated from @xmath0 . this idea leads to an interesting question . what happens if the boundary of @xmath1 as determined from passing to the continuum limit turns out to intersect @xmath0 ? far from being a hypothetical possibility , this situation is known to occur in at least three different problems :    1 .   * the semiclassical limit of the focusing nonlinear schrdinger hierarchy with decaying initial data . * see @xcite . this is an inverse - scattering problem for the nonselfadjoint zakharov - shabat operator . on an _ ad hoc _ basis , one replaces the true spectral data for the given initial condition with a formal wkb approximation . there is no jump in the riemann - hilbert problem associated with inverse - scattering for the modified spectral data , but there are poles accumulating asymptotically with the wkb density of states on an interval @xmath0 of the imaginary axis in the complex plane of the eigenvalue . the methods described above turn out to yield rigorous asymptotics for this modified inverse - scattering problem as long as the independent time variable in the equation is not zero . for @xmath3 , the argument of passing to the continuum limit in the pole density leads one to choose the boundary of @xmath1 to _ coincide _ in part with the interval @xmath0 . strangely , if one sets @xmath3 in the problem from the beginning , an alternative method due to lax and levermore @xcite and extended to the nonselfadjoint zakharov - shabat operator with real potentials by ercolani , jin , levermore , and macevoy @xcite can be used to carry out the asymptotic analysis in this special case ; this alternative method is not based on matrix riemann - hilbert problems , and therefore when taken together with the methods described in @xcite does not result in a uniform treatment of the semiclassical limit for all @xmath4 and @xmath5 . at the same time , the lax - levermore method that applies when @xmath3 fails in this problem when @xmath6 . 2 .   * the zero - dispersion limit of the korteweg - de vries equation with potential well initial data . * as pointed out above , the original treatment of this problem by lax and levermore @xcite was not based on asymptotic analysis for a matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problem . but it is possible to pose the inverse - scattering problem with modified ( wkb ) spectral data as a matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problem and ask whether the `` steepest descent '' techniques for such problems could be used to reproduce and/or strengthen the original asymptotic results of lax and levermore . in particular , we might point out that the lax - levermore method only gives weak limits of the conserved densities , and that a modification due to venakides @xcite is required to extract any pointwise asymptotics ( _ i.e. _ to reconstruct the microstruture of the modulated and rapidly oscillatory wavetrains giving rise to the leading - order weak asymptotics ) . on the other hand , `` steepest descent '' techniques for matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problems typically give pointwise asymptotics automatically . it would therefore be most useful if these techniques could be applied to provide a new and unified approach to this problem . + if one tries to enclose the locus of accumulation of poles ( wkb eigenvalues for the schrdinger operator with a potential well ) with a contour and determine the optimal location of this contour for zero - dispersion asymptotics , it turns out that the contour must contain the support of a certain weighted logarithmic equilibrium measure . it is a well - known consequence of the lax - levermore theory that the support of this measure is a subset of the interval of accumulation of wkb eigenvalues . consequently , the enclosing contour `` wants '' to lie right on top of the poles in this problem , and the approach fails . in a sense this failure of the `` steepest descent '' method is more serious than in the analogous problem for the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation because the contour is in the wrong place for all values of @xmath4 and @xmath5 ( the independent variables of the problem ) , whereas in the focusing nonlinear schrdinger problem the method fails generically only for @xmath3 . * the large degree limit of certain systems of discrete orthogonal polynomials . * fokas , its , and kitaev @xcite have shown that the problem of reconstructing the orthogonal polynomials associated with a given continuous weight function can be expressed as a matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problem . it is not difficult to modify their construction to the case when the weight function is a sum of dirac masses . the corresponding matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problem has no jump , but has poles at the support nodes of the weight . the solution of this riemann - hilbert problem gives in this case the associated family of discrete orthogonal polynomials . if one takes the nodes of support of the discrete weight to be distributed asymptotically in some systematic way , then it is natural to ask whether `` steepest descent '' methods applied to the corresponding riemann - hilbert problem with poles could yield accurate asymptotic formulae for the discrete orthogonal polynomials in the limit of large degree . indeed , similar asymptotics were obtained in the continuous weight case @xcite using precisely these methods . + unfortunately , when the poles are encircled and the optimal contour is sought , it turns out again to be necessary that the contour contain the support of a certain weighted logarithmic equilibrium measure ( see @xcite for a description of this measure ) which is supported on a subset of the interval of accumulation of the nodes of orthogonalization ( _ i.e. _ , the poles ) . for this reason , the method based on matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problems would appear to fail .    in this paper , we present a new technique in the theory of `` steepest descent '' asymptotic analysis for matrix riemann - hilbert problems that solves all three problems mentioned above in a general framework . we illustrate the method in detail for the first case described above : the inverse - scattering problem for the nonselfadjoint zakharov - shabat operator with modified ( wkb ) spectral data , which amounts to a treatment of the semiclassical limit for the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation at the initial instant @xmath3 . this work thus fills in a gap in the arguments in @xcite connecting the rigorous asymptotic analysis carried out there with the initial - value problem for the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation . application of the same techniques to the zero dispersion limit of the korteweg - de vries equation will be the topic of a future paper , and a study of asymptotics for discrete orthogonal polynomials using these methods is already in preparation @xcite . the initial - value problem for the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation is @xmath7 subject to the initial condition @xmath8 . in @xcite , this problem is considered for cases when the initial data @xmath9 where @xmath10 is some positive real function @xmath11 $ ] . the function @xmath10 is taken to decay rapidly at infinity and to be even in @xmath4 with a single genuine maximum at @xmath12 . thus @xmath13 , @xmath14 , and @xmath15 . also , the function @xmath10 is taken to be real - analytic . with this given initial data , one has a unique solution of ( [ eq : nls ] ) for each @xmath16 . to study the semiclassical limit then means determining asymptotic properties of the family of solutions @xmath17 as @xmath18 . this problem is associated with the scattering and inverse - scattering theory for the nonselfadjoint zakharov - shabat eigenvalue problem @xcite : @xmath19 for auxiliary functions @xmath20 and @xmath21 . the complex number @xmath22 is a spectral parameter . under the conditions on @xmath10 described above , it is known only that for each @xmath16 the discrete spectrum of this problem is invariant under complex conjugation and reflection through the origin . however , a formal wkb method applied to ( [ eq : zs ] ) suggests for small @xmath23 a distribution of eigenvalues that are confined to the imaginary axis . the same method suggests that the reflection coefficient for scattering states obtained for real @xmath22 is small beyond all orders . it is therefore natural to propose a modification of the problem . rather than studying the inverse - scattering problem for the true spectral data ( which is not known ) , simply replace the true spectral data by its formal wkb approximation in which the eigenvalues are given by a quantization rule of bohr - sommerfeld type , and in which the reflection coefficient is neglected entirely . for each @xmath16 , this modified spectral data is the _ true _ spectral data for some other ( @xmath23-dependent ) initial condition @xmath24 . since there is no reflection coefficient in the modified problem , it turns out that for each @xmath23 the solution of ( [ eq : nls ] ) corresponding to the modified initial data @xmath24 is an exact @xmath25-soliton solution , with @xmath26 . we call such a family of @xmath25-soliton solutions , all obtained from the same function @xmath10 by a wkb procedure , a _ semiclassical soliton ensemble _ , or sse for short . we will be more precise about this idea in   [ sec : sses ] . in @xcite , the asymptotic behavior of sses was studied for @xmath6 . although the results were rigorous , it was not possible to deduce anything about the _ true _ initial - value problem for ( [ eq : nls ] ) with @xmath27 because the asymptotic method failed for @xmath3 . in this paper , we will explain the following new result . let @xmath10 be real - analytic , even , and decaying with a single genuine maximum at @xmath12 . let @xmath28 be for each @xmath16 the exact initial value of the sse corresponding to @xmath10 ( see   [ sec : sses ] ) . then , there exists a sequence of values of @xmath23 , @xmath29 for @xmath30 , such that @xmath31 and such that for all @xmath32 , there exists a constant @xmath33 such that @xmath34 for all @xmath35 . [ theorem : mainresult ]    as @xmath28 is obtained by an inverse - scattering procedure applied to wkb spectral data , this theorem establishes in a sense the validity of the wkb approximation for the zakharov - shabat eigenvalue problem ( [ eq : zs ] ) . it says that the true spectral data and the formally approximate spectral data generate , via inverse - scattering , potentials in the zakharov - shabat problem that are pointwise close . the omission of @xmath12 is merely technical ; a procedure slightly different from that we will explain in this paper is needed to handle this special case . we will indicate as we proceed the modifications that are necessary to extend the result to the whole real line . the pointwise nature of the asymptotics is important ; the variational methods used in @xcite suggest convergence only in the @xmath36 sense . rigorous statements about the nature of the wkb approximation for the zakharov - shabat problem are especially significant because the operator in ( [ eq : zs ] ) is nonselfadjoint and the spectrum is not confined to any axis ; furthermore sturm - liouville oscillation theory does not apply . each @xmath25-soliton solution of the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation ( [ eq : nls ] ) can be found as the solution of a meromorphic riemann - hilbert problem with no jumps ; that is , a problem whose solution matrix is a rational function of @xmath37 . the @xmath25-soliton solution depends on a set of discrete data . given @xmath25 complex numbers @xmath38 in the upper half - plane ( these turn out to be discrete eigenvalues of the spectral problem ( [ eq : zs ] ) ) , and @xmath25 nonzero constants @xmath39 ( which turn out to be related to auxiliary discrete spectrum for ( [ eq : zs ] ) ) , and an index @xmath40 , one considers the matrix @xmath41 solving the following problem :    find a matrix @xmath41 with the following two properties :    1 .   * rationality : * @xmath41 is a rational function of @xmath22 , with simple poles confined to the values @xmath42 and the complex conjugates . at the singularities : @xmath43\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\\\\ \displaystyle \mathop{\rm res}_{\lambda=\lambda_k^ * } { \bf m}(\lambda)&=&\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\lambda_k^*}{\bf m}(\lambda ) \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 & -c_k(x , t)^*\\0 & 0\end{array } \right]\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \end{array } \label{eq : residuerelation}\ ] ] for @xmath44 , with @xmath45 2 . * normalization : * @xmath46    [ rhp : meromorphic ]    here , @xmath47 denotes one of the pauli matrices : @xmath48\ , , \hspace{0.2 in } \sigma_2:=\left[\begin{array}{cc } 0 & -i\\i & 0\end{array}\right]\ , , \hspace{0.2 in } \sigma_3:=\left[\begin{array}{cc } 1 & 0\\0 & -1\end{array}\right]\,.\ ] ] the function @xmath17 defined from @xmath41 by the limit @xmath49 is the @xmath25-soliton solution of the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation ( [ eq : nls ] ) corresponding to the data @xmath42 and @xmath50 . the index @xmath51 will be present throughout this work , so it is worth explaining its role from the start . it turns out that if @xmath52 , then the solution @xmath41 of riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] has the property that for all fixed @xmath22 distinct from the poles , @xmath53 as @xmath54 . likewise , if @xmath55 , then @xmath56 as @xmath57 . so as far as scattering theory is concerned , the index @xmath51 indicates an arbitrary choice of whether we are performing scattering `` from the right '' or `` from the left '' . both versions of scattering theory yield the same function @xmath17 via the relation ( [ eq : potentialrecovery ] ) , and are in this sense equivalent . however , the inverse - scattering problem involves the independent variables @xmath4 and @xmath5 for ( [ eq : nls ] ) as parameters , and it may be the case that for different choices of @xmath4 and @xmath5 , different choices of the parameter @xmath51 may be more convenient for asymptotic analysis of the matrix @xmath41 solving riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] . that this is indeed the case was observed and documented in @xcite . so we need the freedom to choose the index @xmath51 , and therefore we need to carry it along in our calculations .    a _ semiclassical soliton ensemble _ ( sse ) is a family of particular @xmath25-soliton solutions of ( [ eq : nls ] ) indexed by @xmath58 that are formally associated with given initial data @xmath59 via an _ ad hoc _ wkb approximation of the spectrum of ( [ eq : zs ] ) . note that the initial data @xmath59 may not exactly correspond to a pure @xmath25-soliton solution of ( [ eq : nls ] ) for any @xmath23 , and similarly that typically none of the @xmath25-soliton solutions making up the sse associated with @xmath59 will agree with this given initial data at @xmath3 . we will now describe the discrete data @xmath42 and @xmath50 that generate , via the solution of riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] and the subsequent use of the formula ( [ eq : potentialrecovery ] ) , the sse associated with a function @xmath59 . we suppose that @xmath10 is an even function of @xmath4 that has a single maximum at @xmath12 , and is therefore `` bell - shaped '' . we will need @xmath10 to be rapidly decreasing for large @xmath4 , and we will suppose that the maximum @xmath60 is genuine in that @xmath15 . most importantly in what follows , we will assume that @xmath10 is a real - analytic function of @xmath4 . the starting point is the definition of the wkb eigenvalue density function @xmath61 : @xmath62 defined for positive imaginary numbers @xmath63 in the interval @xmath64 , where @xmath65 and @xmath66 are the ( unique by our assumptions ) negative and positive values of @xmath4 for which @xmath67 . the wkb eigenvalues asymptotically fill out the interval @xmath64 , and @xmath61 is their asymptotic density . this function inherits analyticity properties in @xmath63 from those of @xmath10 via the functions @xmath68 . our assumption that @xmath10 is real - analytic makes @xmath61 an analytic function of @xmath63 in its imaginary interval of definition . also , our assumption that @xmath10 should be rapidly decreasing makes @xmath61 analytic at @xmath69 , and our assumption that @xmath10 have nonvanishing curvature at its maximum makes @xmath61 analytic at @xmath70 . from this function it is convenient to define a measure of the number of wkb eigenvalues between a point @xmath71 on the imaginary axis and @xmath72 : @xmath73    now , each @xmath25-soliton solution in the sse for @xmath10 will be associated with a particular value @xmath29 , namely @xmath74 where @xmath75 . in this sense we are taking the values of @xmath23 themselves to be `` quantized '' . clearly for any given @xmath10 , @xmath76 which goes to zero as @xmath25 becomes large . for each @xmath75 , we then define the wkb eigenvalues formally associated with @xmath10 according to the bohr - sommerfeld rule @xmath77 and the auxiliary scattering data by @xmath78 here , @xmath79 is an arbitrary integer . clearly the bohr - sommerfeld rule ( [ eq : bs ] ) implies that choosing different integer values of @xmath79 in ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) will yield the same set of numbers @xmath50 . however , we take the point of view that the right - hand side of ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) furnishes an analytic function that interpolates the @xmath50 at the @xmath42 ; for different @xmath80 these are different interpolating functions which is a freedom that we will exploit to our advantage . in fact , we will only need to consider @xmath81 or @xmath82 .    for @xmath10 given as above , the sse is a sequence of exact solutions of ( [ eq : nls ] ) such that the @xmath25th element @xmath83 of the sse ( i ) solves ( [ eq : nls ] ) with @xmath29 as given by ( [ eq : quantization ] ) and ( ii ) is defined as the @xmath25-soliton solution corresponding to the eigenvalues @xmath42 given by ( [ eq : bs ] ) and the auxiliary spectrum @xmath50 given by ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) via the solution of riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] with @xmath29 . for each @xmath25 , we restrict the sse to @xmath3 to obtain functions @xmath84 it is this sequence of functions that is the subject of theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] . in the following sections we will set up a new framework for the asymptotic analysis of sses in the limit @xmath85 , a problem closely related to the computation of asymptotics of solutions of ( [ eq : nls ] ) for fixed initial data @xmath59 in the semiclassical limit . the asymptotic method we will now develop for studying riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] for sses is especially well - adapted to studying the case of @xmath3 , where the method described in detail in @xcite fails . to illustrate the new method , we therefore set @xmath3 in the rest of this paper . also , we anticipate the utility of tying the value of the parameter @xmath86 to the remaining independent variable @xmath4 by setting @xmath87 in all subsequent formulae in which the index @xmath51 appears it should be assumed to be assigned a definite value according to ( [ eq : jdef ] ) .    we now want to convert riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] into a new riemann - hilbert problem for a sectionally holomorphic matrix so that the `` steepest - descent '' methods can be applied . as mentioned in the introduction , in @xcite this transformation can be accomplished by encircling the locus of accumulation of the poles , here the imaginary interval @xmath64 , with a loop contour in the upper half - plane and making a specific change of variables based on the interpolation formula ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) for some value of @xmath80 in the interior of the region enclosed by the loop and also in the complex - conjugate region . one then tries to choose the position of the loop contour in the complex plane that is best adapted to asymptotic analysis of the resulting holomorphic riemann - hilbert problem . the trouble with this approach is that it turns out that for @xmath3 the `` correct '' placement of the contour requires that part of it should lie on a subset of the imaginary interval @xmath64 , that is , right on top of the accumulating poles ! for such a choice of the loop contour , the boundary values taken by the transformed matrix on the outside of the loop would be singular and the `` steepest descent '' theory would not apply . so taking the point of view that making any particular choice of @xmath80 in ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) leads to problems , we propose to simultaneously make use of _ two distinct values of @xmath79 _ in passing to a riemann - hilbert problem for a sectionally holomorphic matrix . consider the contours illustrated in figure  [ fig : twohalves ] ,    arranged such that @xmath88 . for @xmath89 , set @xmath90\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : lefttransform}\ ] ] for @xmath91 , set @xmath92\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : righttransform}\ ] ] for @xmath93 set @xmath94 , and for all other complex @xmath22 set @xmath95 . so rather than enclosing the poles in a loop and making a single change of variables inside , we are splitting the region inside the loop in half , and we are using different interpolants ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) of the @xmath50 at the @xmath42 in each half of the loop . some of the properties of the transformed matrix @xmath96 are the following . the matrix @xmath96 is analytic in @xmath97 where @xmath98 is the union of the contours @xmath99 , @xmath100 , and @xmath101 , and their complex conjugates . moreover , @xmath96 takes continuous boundary values on @xmath98 . [ prop : manalytic ]    _ proof : _ the function @xmath102 is analytic in @xmath103 and @xmath104 if @xmath99 and @xmath100 are chosen close enough to the imaginary axis since @xmath61 is analytic there . by using the residue relation ( [ eq : residuerelation ] ) and the interpolation formula ( [ eq : gammainterpolate ] ) alternatively for @xmath81 and @xmath82 , one checks directly that the poles of @xmath41 are canceled by the explicit blaschke factors in ( [ eq : lefttransform ] ) and ( [ eq : righttransform ] ) . @xmath105    let @xmath106 denote the boundary values taken on the oriented contour @xmath98 , where the subscript `` @xmath107 '' ( respectively `` @xmath108 '' ) indicates the boundary value taken from the left ( respectively from the right ) . then for @xmath109 , @xmath110\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : mjumpcl}\ ] ] for @xmath111 , @xmath112\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : mjumpcr}\ ] ] for @xmath113 , @xmath114\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : mjumpcm}\ ] ] on the contours in the lower half - plane the jump relations are determined by the symmetry @xmath115 . all jump matrices are analytic functions in the vicinity of their respective contours . [ prop : mjump ]    _ proof : _ this is also a direct consequence of ( [ eq : lefttransform ] ) and ( [ eq : righttransform ] ) . the analyticity is clear on @xmath99 and @xmath100 since @xmath102 is analytic there , while on @xmath101 one observes that as a consequence of the bohr - sommerfeld quantization condition ( [ eq : bs ] ) , the cosine factor precisely cancels the poles on @xmath101 contributed by the product of blaschke factors . although we have specified the contour @xmath101 to coincide with a segment of the imaginary axis , the reader will see that the same statements concerning the analyticity of @xmath96 and the continuity of the boundary values on @xmath98 also hold when @xmath101 is taken to be absolutely any smooth contour in the upper half - plane connecting @xmath116 to @xmath117 . given a choice of @xmath101 , the contours @xmath99 and @xmath100 must be such that the topology of figure  [ fig : twohalves ] is preserved . we also have specified that @xmath99 and @xmath100 should lie sufficiently close to @xmath101 ( a distance independent of @xmath118 ) so that @xmath102 is analytic in @xmath103 and @xmath104 . later we will also exploit the proximity of these two contours to @xmath101 to deduce decay properties of certain analytic functions on these contours from their oscillation properties on @xmath101 by the cauchy - riemann equations . taken together , proposition  [ prop : manalytic ] and proposition  [ prop : mjump ] indicate that the matrix @xmath119 satisfies a riemann - hilbert problem without poles , but instead having explicit homogeneous jump relations on @xmath98 given by the matrix functions on the right - hand sides of ( [ eq : mjumpcl ] ) , ( [ eq : mjumpcr ] ) , and ( [ eq : mjumpcm ] ) . the normalization of @xmath96 at infinity is the same as that of @xmath120 since no transformation has been made outside a compact set , so if @xmath96 can be recovered from its jump relations and normalization condition , then the sse itself can be obtained for @xmath3 from ( [ eq : potentialrecovery ] ) with @xmath41 replaced by @xmath96 . we now introduce a further change of dependent variable involving a scalar function that is meant to capture the dominant asymptotics for the problem . let @xmath121 be a complex - valued function that is independent of @xmath23 , analytic for @xmath122 taking continuous boundary values , satisfies @xmath123 , and @xmath124 . setting @xmath125 we find that for @xmath109 , @xmath126 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \label{eq : cljumpn}\ ] ] where @xmath127 similarly , for @xmath111 , we find @xmath128 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \label{eq : crjumpn}\ ] ] where @xmath129 finally , for @xmath113 , @xmath130 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \label{eq : cmjumpn}\ ] ] where @xmath131 and @xmath132    this means that given a function @xmath121 with the properties described above , one finds that the matrix @xmath133 satisfies another holomorphic riemann - hilbert problem with jump conditions determined from ( [ eq : cljumpn ] ) , ( [ eq : crjumpn ] ) , and ( [ eq : cmjumpn ] ) . because @xmath124 and @xmath121 is analytic near infinity , it follows that the correct normalization condition for @xmath133 is again that @xmath134 as @xmath135 . these same conditions on @xmath121 show that if @xmath133 can be found from its jump conditions and normalization condition , then the sse can be found via ( [ eq : potentialrecovery ] ) with @xmath120 replaced by @xmath133 . the function @xmath121 is called a _ complex phase function_. the advantage of introducing it into the problem is that by choosing it correctly , the jump matrices ( [ eq : cljumpn ] ) , ( [ eq : crjumpn ] ) , and ( [ eq : cmjumpn ] ) can be cast into a form that is especially convenient for analysis in the semiclassical limit of @xmath136 . the idea of introducing the complex phase function to assist in finding the leading - order asymptotics and controlling the error in this way first appeared in the paper @xcite as a modification of the `` steepest - descent '' method proposed in @xcite . for our purposes , we would like to have each element of the jump matrix for @xmath133 of the form @xmath137 for some appropriate function @xmath138 that is independent of @xmath118 . while this is not true strictly speaking , it becomes a good approximation in the limit @xmath136 with @xmath22 held fixed ( the approximation is not uniform near @xmath116 or @xmath117 ) . in this section , we describe the pointwise asymptotics of the jump matrix for @xmath133 with the aim of writing all nonzero matrix elements asymptotically in the form @xmath137 with a small relative error whose magnitude we can estimate .    roughly speaking , the intuition is that the product over @xmath139 of blaschke factors should be replaced with an exponential of a sum over @xmath139 of logarithms . the latter sum goes over to an integral that scales like @xmath140 in the semiclassical limit . on the contour @xmath101 , the cosine that cancels the poles must also be encorporated into the asymptotics . the branch of the logarithm that is convenient to use here is most conveniently viewed as a function of two complex variables : @xmath141 as a function of @xmath22 for fixed @xmath63 , it is a logarithm that is cut downwards in the negative imaginary direction from the logarithmic pole at @xmath142 . equivalently , @xmath143 can be viewed as the branch of the multivalued function @xmath144 for which @xmath145 . suppose @xmath146 . the boundary value of @xmath147 taken on @xmath101 as @xmath22 approaches from the left ( respectively right ) side is denoted by @xmath148 ( respectively @xmath149 ) . the average of these two boundary values is denoted by @xmath150 . all the results we need will come from studying the asymptotic behavior of two quotients : @xmath151 and @xmath152 the function @xmath153 is analytic and nonvanishing for @xmath154 . let us denote by @xmath155 the domain of analyticity of @xmath156 restricted to the upper half - plane , so that by our assumptions on @xmath10 , @xmath157 . then , due to the zeros of the cosine on the imaginary axis , which match the poles of the product below @xmath117 and are not cancelled above @xmath117 , @xmath158 is analytic and nonvanishing for @xmath159 , where @xmath160 is the vertical ray from @xmath117 to infinity along the positive imaginary axis . the domain of analyticity for @xmath158 is a subset of @xmath161 rather than of the whole upper half - plane due to the presence of the averages of the logarithms in the integrand of ( [ eq : t ] ) . whereas these are boundary values defined _ a priori _ only on @xmath101 , the integrals extend from @xmath101 to analytic functions in the domain @xmath162 via the introduction of the function @xmath102 ( _ cf . _ equation ( [ eq : logjump ] ) ) .    for all @xmath22 in the upper half - plane with latexmath:[$\hbar_n\le    sufficiently small , but fixed as @xmath136 , @xmath164 [ lemma : souter ]    _ proof : _ let us define the function @xmath165 by @xmath166 this analytic function takes the imaginary interval @xmath167 $ ] to the real interval @xmath168 $ ] where @xmath169 since @xmath170 does not vanish on @xmath101 , we have the inverse function @xmath171 defined for @xmath172 near the real interval @xmath168 $ ] . using these tools , we get the following representation for @xmath153 : @xmath173 and @xmath174\,dm - \left[l^0_{-e(m_k)}(\lambda)-l^0_{e(m_k)}(\lambda)\right]\,,\ ] ] with @xmath175 . expanding the logarithms , we find that @xmath176\ , . \label{eq : integralformula}\ ] ] this quantity is clearly @xmath177 for @xmath22 fixed away from @xmath101 . now , when @xmath178 as @xmath179 , we can estimate the denominator in the integrand to obtain two different bounds : @xmath180 and @xmath181    the idea is to use the estimate ( [ eq : lambdadenominator ] ) when @xmath182 is close to @xmath183 and to use the estimate ( [ eq : xidenominator ] ) for the remaining terms . suppose first @xmath184 is bounded between @xmath185 and @xmath186 , _ i.e. _ there are small fixed positive numbers @xmath187 and @xmath188 so that @xmath189 , and let @xmath190 be a small positive scale tied to @xmath23 and satisfying @xmath191 , and let @xmath192 be chosen from @xmath193 so that @xmath194 is as close as possible to @xmath195 , and likewise let @xmath196 be chosen from @xmath193 so that @xmath197 is as close as possible to @xmath198 . using ( [ eq : lambdadenominator ] ) we then find that @xmath199 because the sum contains @xmath200 terms and the volume of the region of integration for each term is @xmath201 , and we must take into account the overall factor of @xmath202 . now in each of the remaining terms @xmath203 , we have @xmath204 so using ( [ eq : xidenominator ] ) and summing over @xmath139 we get both @xmath205 the total estimate of @xmath206 is then optimized by a dominant balance among the three partial sums . this balance requires taking @xmath207 , upon which we deduce that under our assumptions on @xmath22 , we indeed have @xmath208 when @xmath184 is bounded between @xmath185 and @xmath186 . when @xmath209 or @xmath210 , the estimate ( [ eq : lambdadenominator ] ) should be used only for those terms that correspond to @xmath172 near zero or @xmath172 near @xmath211 respectively . in both of these exceptional cases , the same estimate is found . when @xmath184 is bounded below by @xmath186 , there is no need to use the estimate ( [ eq : lambdadenominator ] ) at all , and the relative error is of order @xmath118 uniformly in @xmath212 . this completes the proof . we now use this information about @xmath153 to effectively replace the sums of logarithms by integrals , at least on some portions of the contour @xmath98 . suppose that the contour @xmath99 is independent of @xmath118 and that for some sufficiently small positive number @xmath213 , @xmath99 lies in the strip @xmath214 and meets the imaginary axis only at its endpoints and does so transversely . then @xmath215 as @xmath118 goes to zero through positive values , for all @xmath216 with @xmath217 and @xmath218 . [ proposition : clout ]    suppose that the contour @xmath100 is independent of @xmath118 and that for some sufficiently small positive number @xmath213 , @xmath100 lies in the strip @xmath219 and meets the imaginary axis only at its endpoints and does so transversely . then @xmath220 as @xmath118 goes to zero through positive values , for all @xmath221 with @xmath217 and @xmath218 . [ proposition : crout ]    _ proof of propositions  [ proposition : clout ] and  [ proposition : crout ] : _ these propositions follow directly from lemma  [ lemma : souter ] upon using the transversality of the intersections with the imaginary axis to replace @xmath222 by @xmath223 . @xmath105    we notice that the first factor on the second line in ( [ eq : lasymp ] ) and the first factor on the second line in ( [ eq : rasymp ] ) are both exponentially small as @xmath118 goes to zero through positive values , as a consequence of the fact that @xmath224 is an analytic negative real measure on @xmath101 . this follows from the cauchy - riemann equations and the geometry of figure  [ fig : twohalves ] . it will be a very useful fact for us shortly . now we turn our attention to the function @xmath158 . the result analogous to lemma  [ lemma : souter ] is the following .    for all @xmath22 in the upper half - plane with latexmath:[$\hbar_n\le    sufficiently small , but fixed as @xmath136 , @xmath225 [ lemma : touter ]    _ proof : _ we begin with the jump condition @xmath226 relating the boundary values of the logarithm @xmath143 on the imaginary axis . using this jump relation and the definition of @xmath150 as the average of the boundary values of @xmath227 and @xmath228 , we see that for @xmath229 , we have @xmath230 while for @xmath231 , we have @xmath232 now , using the fact that @xmath61 is an analytic function satisfying @xmath233 for @xmath234 , we see by the cauchy - riemann equations that in both cases , the exponential relative error term is of the order @xmath235 for some @xmath236 . since this is negligible compared with the relative error associated with the asymptotic approximation of @xmath153 given in lemma  [ lemma : souter ] , the proof is complete . @xmath105    unfortunately , we need asymptotic information about @xmath158 right on the imaginary axis , which contains the contour @xmath101 , so we need to improve upon lemma  [ lemma : touter ] . we begin to extract this additional information by noting that under some circumstances , it is easy to show that @xmath158 remains bounded in the vicinity of the imaginary axis .    if either ( i ) @xmath22 is real or ( ii ) @xmath237 and @xmath238 , and if for some @xmath239 sufficiently small @xmath240 , then @xmath158 is uniformly bounded as @xmath136 . [ lemma : tbounded ]    _ proof : _ it suffices to show that @xmath153 is bounded under the same assumptions , because from ( [ eq : tleft ] ) and ( [ eq : tright ] ) and the cauchy - riemann equations , we see easily that @xmath241 .    using the function @xmath242 and its inverse @xmath243 , we have the following @xmath244 where @xmath245 when @xmath246 , we see immediately that @xmath247 , and therefore @xmath248 and hence @xmath249 . now consider @xmath250 with @xmath251 sufficiently small independent of @xmath118 . the idea is that of the terms on the right - hand side of ( [ eq : difference ] ) , the discrete sum is a riemann sum approximation to the integral . the riemann sum is constructed using the midpoints of @xmath25 equal subintervals as sample points . if @xmath252 is bounded uniformly , then this sort of riemann sum provides an approximation to the integral that is of order @xmath253 or equivalently @xmath254 . in this case , we deduce that @xmath255 and in particular this is bounded as @xmath118 tends to zero . but as @xmath22 approaches the imaginary axis , the accuracy of the approximation is lost . for @xmath250 , the function @xmath256 satisfies @xmath257 and takes its maximum when @xmath258 , with a maximum value @xmath259 therefore , as @xmath251 tends to zero , @xmath256 becomes unbounded , growing logarithmically in @xmath251 . as a consequence of this blowup the approximation of the integral by the riemann sum based on midpoints for @xmath237 fails to be second - order accurate uniformly in @xmath251 . however , because the maximum of @xmath256 always occurs at the right endpoint , it is easy to see that when the error becomes larger than @xmath177 in magnitude its sign is such that the riemann sum is always an _ underestimate _ of the value of the integral , and consequently the right - hand side of ( [ eq : difference ] ) is negative . this is concretely illustrated in figure  [ fig : riemannsums ]    where we have taken the example of the gaussian function @xmath260 in order to supply the function @xmath61 and therefore the function @xmath261 needed to build @xmath256 . in this case , @xmath262 and @xmath263 . the error of the riemann sum is worst when @xmath264 . in this case it is easy to see that the discrepancy contributed by only the subinterval adjacent to the logarithmic singularity of @xmath256 is @xmath265 , which clearly dominates the @xmath177 error contributed by the majority of the subintervals bounded away from @xmath258 . consequently , for those @xmath22 on the circle @xmath237 for which @xmath266 is not asymptotically small in @xmath118 , it is negative , and therefore @xmath153 is uniformly bounded for @xmath237 , as is @xmath158 . @xmath105    using this information , we can finally extract enough information about @xmath158 on the imaginary axis to approximate @xmath267 for @xmath113 . let @xmath101 be a fixed contour from @xmath116 to @xmath117 lying between @xmath99 and @xmath100 , possibly coinciding with the imaginary axis . then , for @xmath268 arbitrarily small , @xmath269 as @xmath118 goes to zero through positive values , for all @xmath113 with @xmath217 and @xmath218 . [ prop : a_m ]    _ proof : _ let @xmath270 be the closed contour illustrated in figure  [ fig : c ] . this counter - clockwise oriented contour consists of two vertical segments , one horizontal segment that lies on the real axis , and an arc of the circle of radius @xmath186 centered at the origin . the function @xmath158 is analytic on the interior of @xmath270 and is continuous on @xmath270 itself . in fact it is analytic on most of the boundary , failing to be analytic only at @xmath116 and @xmath117 . therefore for any @xmath22 in the interior , we may write @xmath271 if we let @xmath272 denote the part of @xmath270 with @xmath273 , and let @xmath274 denote the remaining portion of @xmath270 , then we get @xmath275 using the estimate guaranteed by lemma  [ lemma : touter ] in the integral over @xmath274 , and the uniform boundedness of @xmath276 ( and therefore of @xmath277 ) guaranteed by lemma  [ lemma : tbounded ] in the integral over @xmath272 , we find @xmath278 for some positive constants @xmath279 and @xmath280 . replacing the logarithm by a slightly cruder estimate of @xmath281 for arbitrarily small positive @xmath282 completes the proof . we have therefore succeeded in showing that , at least away from the self - intersection points of the contour @xmath98 , the jump matrices for @xmath133 as defined by ( [ eq : cljumpn ] ) for @xmath216 , ( [ eq : crjumpn ] ) for @xmath111 , and ( [ eq : cmjumpn ] ) for @xmath113 are well - approximated in the semiclassical limit @xmath136 by matrices in which all nonzero matrix elements are of the form @xmath137 with @xmath138 being independent of @xmath118 . the fact that this approximation is valid even when the `` active '' contour @xmath101 is taken to be right on top of the poles of the meromorphic riemann - hilbert problem for @xmath120 is an advantage over the approach taken in @xcite .    using these approximations , we can introduce an _ ad hoc _ approximation of the matrix @xmath133 . first , define @xmath283 and for @xmath109 or @xmath100 , define @xmath284 then we pose the following problem .    given a complex phase function @xmath121 find a matrix @xmath285 satisfying :    1 .   * analyticity : * @xmath286 is analytic for @xmath287 . * boundary behavior : * @xmath286 assumes continuous boundary values on @xmath98 . 3 .   * jump conditions : * the boundary values taken on @xmath98 satisfy @xmath288\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ ] ] for @xmath109 , @xmath289\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ ] ] for @xmath111 , and @xmath290\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2 } } \label{eq : ntildemiddle}\ ] ] for @xmath113 . for all other @xmath291 ( that is , in the lower half - plane ) , the jump is determined by the symmetry @xmath292 . * normalization : * @xmath286 is normalized at infinity : @xmath293 let @xmath294 be defined by the equation @xmath295 , the fact that @xmath294 is an analytic function for @xmath22 away from the imaginary interval @xmath296 $ ] , and the normalization that for large @xmath22 , @xmath297 . for @xmath298 , let @xmath299 it is easy to check directly that for all @xmath298 , we have @xmath300 . also , using the fact that @xmath301 is purely imaginary on the imaginary axis , and that @xmath302 is purely imaginary in the domain of integration , where it satisfies @xmath303 , we see that @xmath304 furthermore , it follows easily from ( [ eq : rhodefine ] ) that for all @xmath298 , we have @xmath305 with the lower constraint being achieved only at the endpoint being extended to all of @xmath101 by setting @xmath306 for @xmath22 above the endpoint @xmath307 . in this case one views the lower constraint as being active on the whole imaginary interval @xmath308 $ ] . ] of @xmath309 , @xmath310 , and the upper constraint being achieved only at the origin in accordance with ( [ eq : rhosequal ] ) . now , set @xmath311 this function satisfies all of the basic criteria set out earlier : it is analytic in @xmath312 and takes continuous boundary values , it satisfies @xmath123 , and it satisfies @xmath124 because @xmath313 note that @xmath121 is analytic across @xmath101 for @xmath22 above @xmath307 . consequently @xmath314 for all such @xmath22 . for @xmath113 below @xmath307 , @xmath315 becomes ( _ cf . _ equation ( [ eq : defthetaoriginal ] ) ) @xmath316    we now describe a number of important consequences of our choice of @xmath121 .    for all @xmath317 $ ] , @xmath318 . [ prop : phitildezero ]    to prove the proposition , we first point out that @xmath319 simply as a consequence of the fact that both @xmath61 and @xmath320 are purely imaginary on @xmath101 . next we point out that @xmath321 whenever @xmath322 $ ] . this follows from a direct calculation in which all integrals are evaluated by residues and the formula ( [ eq : rho0 ] ) is used . next we consider @xmath323 for @xmath324 $ ] , that is , above the endpoint of the support . clearly , @xmath325 is the boundary value on @xmath101 of an analytic function defined near @xmath101 in @xmath103 . since the boundary value taken below the endpoint is @xmath326 because @xmath327 there , and the boundary value taken above the endpoint is @xmath323 because @xmath328 there , we obtain the formula @xmath329 valid for @xmath113 above @xmath307 , where by @xmath330 for @xmath63 in the imaginary interval @xmath331 we mean the function @xmath320 defined by ( [ eq : rhodefine ] ) for @xmath63 in the imaginary interval @xmath332 , analytically continued from @xmath332 in the clockwise direction about the endpoint @xmath310 . in particular for such @xmath22 we have @xmath333 carrying out the analytic continuation , we find from ( [ eq : rhodefine ] ) that for @xmath334 , @xmath335 from this formula we see easily that for all @xmath22 strictly above the endpoint @xmath307 , @xmath336 is positive real . consequently , from ( [ eq : phiprime ] ) and since @xmath318 for @xmath310 , we get the following result . the function @xmath323 is negative real and decreasing in the positive imaginary direction for @xmath337 $ ] . [ prop : tildephineg ]    now we consider the behavior of the function @xmath338 on @xmath99 and @xmath100 . from the definitions of the functions @xmath338 and @xmath323 , we see that for @xmath109 , @xmath339 and for @xmath111 , @xmath340 that is , the analytic function @xmath338 takes boundary values from the left on @xmath101 equal to @xmath341 and from the right on @xmath101 equal to @xmath342 . first consider the situation to the left or right of the imaginary interval @xmath343 $ ] . since @xmath327 in @xmath343 $ ] , the function @xmath338 on @xmath99 will be the analytic continuation of @xmath344 from @xmath101 and the function @xmath338 on @xmath100 will be the analytic continuation of @xmath345 from @xmath101 . from ( [ eq : upperlowerconstraints ] ) we see that for @xmath346 $ ] one has @xmath347 . therefore , it follows from the cauchy - riemann equations that for @xmath22 in portions of @xmath99 and @xmath100 close enough ( independently of @xmath118 ) to the interval @xmath343 $ ] one has @xmath348 for @xmath22 on _ both _ @xmath99 and @xmath100 . furthermore , it follows from the fact that @xmath233 that @xmath349 for @xmath109 and @xmath350 for @xmath111 . therefore @xmath351 for @xmath109 near the portion of @xmath101 below @xmath307 , and @xmath352 for @xmath22 in the analogous portion of @xmath100 . next consider the situation to the left or right of the portion of @xmath101 lying above the endpoint @xmath310 . since @xmath328 and @xmath353 for @xmath354 $ ] we see that for @xmath99 and @xmath100 close enough ( again independently of @xmath118 ) to this part of @xmath101 we again find that we have ( [ eq : decayleft ] ) on @xmath99 and ( [ eq : decayright ] ) on @xmath100 . this shows that the jump matrix on both contours @xmath99 and @xmath100 is an exponentially small perturbation of the identity for small positive @xmath118 , pointwise in @xmath22 bounded away from the origin and @xmath72 .    for @xmath355 $ ] , the jump matrix for @xmath286 factors ( recall @xmath327 here ) : @xmath356 = \left[\begin{array}{cc } 1 & \displaystyle -i\exp\,\left(\frac{i\theta(\lambda)}{\hbar_n}\right)\\\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right ] \left[\begin{array}{cc } 0 & i\\\\i&0\end{array}\right ] \left[\begin{array}{cc } 1 & \displaystyle -i\exp\,\left(-\frac{i\theta(\lambda)}{\hbar_n}\right)\\\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right]\ , . \label{eq : factorization}\ ] ] let @xmath357 and @xmath358 be two boundaries of a lens surrounding @xmath167 $ ] . see figure  [ fig : twohalveslens ] .    using the factorization ( [ eq : factorization ] ) , we new define a new matrix function @xmath359 . in the region between @xmath357 and @xmath101 set @xmath360\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : onleft}\ ] ] in the region between @xmath101 and @xmath358 , set @xmath361\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , . \label{eq : onright}\ ] ] elsewhere in the upper half - plane set @xmath362 . and in the lower half - plane define @xmath359 by symmetry : @xmath363 . these transformations imply jump conditions satisfied by @xmath364 on the contours in figure  [ fig : twohalveslens ] since the jump conditions for @xmath286 are given . for @xmath365 we have @xmath366\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ ] ] which is an exponentially small perturbation of the identity except near the endpoints . and for @xmath367 we have @xmath368\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ ] ] which is also a jump that is exponentially close to the identity . for @xmath355 $ ] we get @xmath369\ ] ] as a consequence of the factorization ( [ eq : factorization ] ) . since @xmath370 for all @xmath22 in the upper half - plane outside the lens bounded by @xmath357 and @xmath358 , we see that @xmath359 satisfies the following jump condition on @xmath99 : @xmath371\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ ] ] the following jump relation on @xmath100 : @xmath372\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\ ] ] and the following jump relation on the imaginary interval @xmath308\subset c_m$ ] : @xmath373 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,.\ ] ] all three of these matrices are exponentially close to the identity matrix pointwise in @xmath22 for interior points of their respective contours . the matrix @xmath359 is related to @xmath286 by explicit transformations . however , taking the pointwise limit of the jump matrix for @xmath359 leads us to the following _ ad hoc _ model problem .    find a matrix @xmath374 satisfying :    1 . * analyticity : * @xmath374 is analytic for @xmath375 , where @xmath309 is the imaginary interval @xmath376 $ ] . * boundary behavior : * @xmath374 assumes boundary values that are continuous except at @xmath377 , where at worst inverse fourth - root singularities are admitted . 3 . * jump condition : * for @xmath378 , @xmath379\,.\ ] ] 4 .   * normalization : * @xmath374 is normalized at infinity : @xmath380    this model problem is easily solved explicitly .    the unique solution of this riemann - hilbert problem is @xmath381\ , , \label{eq : otildesolution}\ ] ] where @xmath382 and @xmath383 with both functions @xmath294 and @xmath384 being analytic in @xmath385 , normalized according to @xmath386 and @xmath387 as @xmath135 .    using this matrix , we define an `` outer '' model for the matrix @xmath388 as follows . the idea is to recall the relationship between the matrix @xmath286 and @xmath359 , and simply substitute @xmath374 for @xmath359 in these formulae . for @xmath22 in between @xmath357 and @xmath101 , we use ( [ eq : onleft ] ) to set @xmath389\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,.\ ] ] for @xmath22 in between @xmath101 and @xmath358 , we use ( [ eq : onright ] ) to set @xmath390\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,.\ ] ] for all other @xmath22 in the upper half - plane , set @xmath391 , and in the lower half - plane set @xmath392 . the important properties of this matrix are the following . the matrix @xmath393 is analytic for all complex @xmath22 except at the contours @xmath357 , @xmath358 , the imaginary interval @xmath343 $ ] , and their complex - conjugates . it satisfies the following jump conditions : @xmath394\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \lambda\in l_l\,,\ ] ] @xmath395\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \lambda\in l_r\,,\ ] ] @xmath396 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\hspace{0.2 in } \mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in [ 0,ia(x)]\,,\ ] ] with the jump matrices on the conjugate contours in the lower half - plane being obtained from these by the symmetry @xmath397 . in particular , note that for @xmath355 $ ] , we have @xmath398 . also , if @xmath399 is any given open set containing the endpoint @xmath310 , then @xmath393 is uniformly bounded for @xmath400 with a bound that depends only on @xmath399 and not on @xmath118 . [ prop : noutproperties ] in justifying formally the local model @xmath401 , we ignored the fact that the pointwise asymptotics for the jump matrices for @xmath359 that we used to obtain the matrix @xmath374 were not uniform near the origin or near the moving endpoint @xmath310 . we also neglected the breakdown of the asymptotics for @xmath402 , @xmath403 , and @xmath267 near the points @xmath116 and @xmath117 . consequently , we do not expect the outer model @xmath401 to be a good approximation to @xmath133 near @xmath116 , @xmath310 , or @xmath117 . in this section , we examine the neighborhoods of these three points in more detail , and we will obtain accurate local models for @xmath133 in the corresponding neighborhoods .        . let @xmath404 and @xmath405 be small scales tied to @xmath118 such that @xmath406 as @xmath179 . let @xmath407 be defined as the unique integer for which exactly @xmath408 of the numbers @xmath38 lie strictly below @xmath409 on the positive imaginary axis . we want to compute uniform asymptotics for @xmath153 defined by ( [ eq : s ] ) for @xmath410 , and for @xmath158 defined by ( [ eq : t ] ) for @xmath113 when @xmath411 .    [ lemma : originpeelfirst ] when @xmath412 and @xmath411 and with @xmath407 defined as above , @xmath413    _ proof : _ we recall the integral formula ( _ cf . _ equation ( [ eq : integralformula ] ) ) @xmath414 in which we expand the integrand in partial fractions : @xmath415 since @xmath412 , for @xmath416 and @xmath417 , we get @xmath418 for such @xmath419 we therefore have @xmath420 so summing over @xmath139 gives @xmath421 because @xmath422 , which proves the lemma . so only the fraction of terms @xmath203 with @xmath423 contribute significantly to the sum for @xmath206 . it is easy to check directly that @xmath424 is an analytic function for @xmath411 whenever @xmath425 , so it makes no difference in these terms whether it is @xmath143 or @xmath150 that appears in the definition of @xmath426 . therefore , the terms in @xmath153 and @xmath158 that can be significant for @xmath22 near the origin are thus @xmath427 and @xmath428 here we have written the integrals in the exponent using the change of variables @xmath429 . so lemma  [ lemma : originpeelfirst ] simply says that @xmath430 and @xmath431 uniformly for @xmath432 . when @xmath22 is close to the origin along with the points @xmath433 contributing to @xmath158 , the ladder of discrete nodes appears to become equally spaced . the next lemma shows that this is indeed the case . [ lemma : originpeelsecond ] let @xmath434 for @xmath435 be the sequence of numbers defined by the relation : @xmath436 which results from expanding the bohr - sommerfeld relation ( [ eq : bs ] ) for @xmath437 small , and keeping only the dominant terms . define @xmath438 and @xmath439 then , for @xmath412 and @xmath411 , @xmath440 where we suppose that the scale @xmath404 is further constrained so that the relative error is asymptotically small . if @xmath22 is additionally bounded outside of some sector containing the positive imaginary axis , then @xmath441    _ proof : _ we begin by observing that for @xmath442 , the distance between @xmath433 and @xmath443 is much smaller than the distance between @xmath433 and @xmath444 , as long as @xmath445 . more precisely , we have @xmath446    decompose the quotients as follows : @xmath447 where @xmath448 @xmath449 @xmath450 -[\overline{l}^0_{-e(m)}(\lambda)-\overline{l}^0_{-e'(0)m}(\lambda)]\right)\,dm \right)\ , , \label{eq : ellbar}\ ] ] and @xmath451 -[l^0_{-e(m)}(\lambda)-l^0_{-e'(0)m}(\lambda)]\right)\,dm \right)\ , . \label{eq : ell}\ ] ]    first we deal with @xmath452 and @xmath453 . since @xmath261 is differentiable and @xmath172 is small we have @xmath454 . also , the interval of integration is @xmath455 in length . although the integrands in ( [ eq : ellbar ] ) and ( [ eq : ell ] ) are not pointwise small , upon integration it follows that @xmath456 uniformly for all @xmath22 in the upper half - plane satisfying @xmath411 . here we are assuming that @xmath445 .    for the moment , let s drop the conditions @xmath412 and @xmath411 and instead consider @xmath22 to lie on the sides of the square centered at the origin , one of whose sides is parallel to the real axis and intersects the positive imaginary axis halfway between the points @xmath457 and @xmath458 . note that the estimate ( [ eq : twinning ] ) implies that the sides of the square intersect the real and imaginary axes a distance from the origin that is approximately @xmath404 . therefore the square asymptotically contains the closed disk @xmath411 because @xmath422 . we will show that for @xmath22 on the four sides of the square , both @xmath459 and @xmath460 are very close to one . we write @xmath459 in the form @xmath461 first consider the top of the square : for @xmath462 , we easily see that @xmath463 for @xmath442 . combining this with ( [ eq : twinning ] ) , we get @xmath464 summing these estimates over @xmath139 ( it is convenient to approximate sums by integrals in doing so ) , we find that @xmath465 consequently , for @xmath22 on the top of the square , @xmath466 an estimate of the same form holds when @xmath22 is on the bottom of the square , where @xmath467 . when @xmath22 is on the left or right side of the square , so that @xmath468 , both @xmath469 and @xmath470 are @xmath471 . by the same arguments as above , we then have for such @xmath22 that @xmath472 now we look at @xmath460 on the same square . generally , for such @xmath22 which are of order @xmath404 in magnitude , we have @xmath473 when @xmath22 is on the top or bottom of the square , we have @xmath474 and when @xmath22 is on the left or right sides of the square , the same quantity is exponentially small . it follows easily that for @xmath22 on any of the sides of the square , @xmath475    so uniformly on the four sides of the square , we have @xmath476 but the product @xmath477 is analytic within the square , so by the maximum principle it follows that the same estimate holds for all @xmath22 on the interior of the square , and in particular for all @xmath22 in the upper half - plane with @xmath411 . this shows that @xmath478 holds for all such @xmath22 . now to control the relationship between @xmath479 and @xmath480 we consider @xmath22 to lie outside of some symmetrical sector about the positive imaginary axis , of arbitrarily small nonzero opening angle @xmath481 independent of @xmath118 . since @xmath412 , we get @xmath482 summing these estimates over @xmath139 one finds that @xmath472 combining this with the estimate ( [ eq : elelbar ] ) of @xmath483 , we find that @xmath484 for all @xmath22 in the upper half - plane with @xmath432 and bounded outside of the sector of opening angle @xmath481 about the positive imaginary axis . this completes the proof . @xmath105    without any approximation , @xmath480 can be rewritten in the form : @xmath485 and @xmath486 can be rewritten in the form : @xmath487 where @xmath488 and we are introducing a transformation @xmath489 to a local variable @xmath490 given by @xmath491 these formulae come from evaluating the logarithmic integrals exactly , which is possible because @xmath261 has been replaced by the linear function @xmath492 , taking advantage of the equal spacing of the @xmath443 to write the product explicitly in terms of gamma functions , and then using the reflection identity for the gamma function to eliminate the cosine from @xmath486 . now , the integer @xmath493 is large , approximately of size @xmath494 . but for @xmath411 , @xmath493 is asymptotically large compared to @xmath490 because @xmath422 . these observations allow us to apply stirling - type asymptotics to @xmath480 and @xmath486 . [ lemma : originpeelthird ] in addition to all prior hypotheses , suppose that @xmath495 . then , @xmath496 and @xmath497    _ proof : _ asymptotically expanding the gamma functions for large @xmath493 , we find that @xmath498 and @xmath499 where @xmath500 next , expanding @xmath501 , one gets worse error terms : @xmath502 combining these estimates and noting that @xmath503 completes the proof of the lemma . @xmath105    with these results in hand , we can easily establish the following . let @xmath22 be in the upper half - plane , with @xmath504 , where @xmath505 , and let @xmath22 be bounded outside of some fixed symmetrical sector containing the positive imaginary axis . then @xmath506 where @xmath507 . [ prop : sinner ]    _ proof : _ according to lemmas  [ lemma : originpeelfirst ] , [ lemma : originpeelsecond ] , and [ lemma : originpeelthird ] , the total relative error is a sum of three terms : @xmath508 note that since @xmath509 , the order @xmath510 term is always dominated asymptotically by the order @xmath511 term . the error is optimized by picking @xmath404 so that the two possibly dominant terms are in balance . this forces us to choose @xmath512 . the proposition follows upon taking @xmath513 . @xmath105    let @xmath22 be in the upper half - plane , with @xmath504 , where @xmath505 . then for all @xmath35 , however small , @xmath514 where @xmath507 . [ prop : tinner ]    _ proof : _ in this case , according to lemmas  [ lemma : originpeelfirst ] , [ lemma : originpeelsecond ] , and [ lemma : originpeelthird ] , the total relative error is a sum of three different terms : @xmath515 again , since @xmath509 , the order @xmath510 term is always dominated asymptotically by the order @xmath511 term . for any @xmath516 , we have @xmath517 so we can eliminate the logarithm at the expense of a slightly larger error . taking @xmath518 as in the statement of the proposition , and using the cruder estimate ( [ eq : cruder ] ) , the nearly optimal value of @xmath404 to minimize the total relative error is achieved by a dominant balance between the right - hand side of ( [ eq : cruder ] ) and the term of order @xmath511 . the balance gives @xmath519 , with @xmath520 with this choice of @xmath404 , the total relative error is of the order @xmath521 , with @xmath522 with the inequality following because @xmath516 and @xmath523 . the inequality fails in the limit @xmath524 . therefore , for each arbitrarily small @xmath35 , we can find a @xmath516 sufficiently small that @xmath525 . this gives us a slightly less optimal estimate of the relative error : simply @xmath526 , which completes the proof . @xmath105      to repair the flaw in our model @xmath393 for the matrix @xmath133 related to the nonuniformity of the approximation of the jump matrices near the origin , we need to provide a different approximation of @xmath133 that will be valid when @xmath504 for some @xmath527 . the local failure of the approximation is gauged by the deviation of the matrix quotient @xmath528 from the identity matrix near the origin . it turns out to be more convenient to study a conjugated form of this matrix ( which also deviates from the identity for @xmath22 near the origin ) . namely , for @xmath504 , set @xmath529 if @xmath229 and @xmath530 if @xmath231 . it is easy to check that as a consequence of the boundary conditions satisfied by the matrix @xmath374 on the imaginary axis near the origin , the conjugating factors are analytic throughout the disk @xmath504 .    for later convenience , let us assume without loss of generality that the auxiliary contours @xmath99 , @xmath100 , @xmath357 and @xmath358 are straight rays in some @xmath118-independent neighborhood of the origin . it is easy to write down the jump conditions satisfied by @xmath531 on these four rays and also on the positive imaginary axis . we find : @xmath532\,,\hspace{0.2 in } \mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in c_l\,,\ ] ] @xmath533\,,\hspace{0.2 in } \mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in c_r\,,\ ] ] @xmath534\ , , \hspace{0.2 in } \mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in l_l\,,\ ] ] @xmath535\ , , \hspace{0.2 in } \mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in l_r\,,\ ] ] and for @xmath113 , @xmath536 &   -ie^{i(\theta(\lambda)-\theta(0))/\hbar_n } [ ia_m(\lambda)+e^{\tilde{\phi}(\lambda)/\hbar_n}]\\\\ -ie^{-i(\theta(\lambda)-\theta(0))/\hbar_n } [ ia_m(\lambda)+e^{\tilde{\phi}(\lambda)/\hbar_n } ] &   1-[ia_m(\lambda)+e^{\tilde{\phi}(\lambda)/\hbar_n}]\end{array}\right]\ , . \label{eq : fjumpcm}\ ] ] the jump relations satisfied by @xmath531 on the complex conjugate contours in the lower half - plane follow from these by the symmetry @xmath537 . now , for @xmath109 with @xmath504 , @xmath538 where in the last line @xmath539 with the change of coordinate being given by ( [ eq : varphi0 ] ) . in these steps , we used the relation ( [ eq : tauleft ] ) , the fact that from proposition  [ prop : phitildezero ] we get @xmath327 , and , according to ( [ eq : deftheta0 ] ) and the quantization condition ( [ eq : quantization ] ) on @xmath118 , @xmath540 . we have also used the fact that @xmath541 which follows directly from the definition ( [ eq : deftheta0 ] ) of @xmath102 , the definition ( [ eq : deftheta ] ) of @xmath315 , and the relation ( [ eq : rhosequal ] ) . in a similar way , for @xmath111 with @xmath504 , we get @xmath542 and for @xmath543 with @xmath504 , @xmath544 with @xmath539 . finally , when @xmath113 and @xmath504 we have for arbitrarily small @xmath35 , @xmath545\\\\ & = & \displaystyle 1-t(\lambda)\\\\ & = & \displaystyle 1-\frac{2\pi e^{2i\zeta}(-i\zeta)^{-2i\zeta } } { \gamma(1/2-i\zeta)^2 } \left(1+o\left(\hbar_n^{4\alpha/3 - 1-\nu}\right)\right ) \\\\ & = & \displaystyle   1-\frac{2\pi e^{2i\zeta}(-i\zeta)^{-2i\zeta}}{\gamma(1/2-i\zeta)^2 } +   o\left(\hbar_n^{4\alpha/3 - 1-\nu}\right)\ , , \end{array } \label{eq : ammodel}\ ] ] again with @xmath539 . the last step follows because @xmath546 is uniformly bounded on @xmath101 . let @xmath547 , @xmath548 , @xmath549 , @xmath550 , and @xmath551 denote the straight rays that agree with the corresponding contours in a fixed neighborhood of the origin in the @xmath22-plane , but lying in the @xmath490-plane ( according to ( [ eq : varphi0 ] ) , @xmath490 is a simple rescaling of @xmath22 by a positive number ) . these rays are oriented contours , with the same orientation as the original contours : @xmath551 , @xmath549 , and @xmath550 are oriented outwards from the origin toward infinity , and @xmath547 and @xmath548 are oriented inwards from infinity toward the origin . let the union of these contours with their complex conjugates be denoted @xmath552 . consider the following riemann - hilbert problem . find a matrix @xmath553 with the following properties :    1 . * analyticity : * @xmath553 is analytic for @xmath554 . * boundary behavior : * @xmath553 assumes continuous boundary values on @xmath552 . 3 .   * jump conditions : * the boundary values taken on @xmath552 satisfy @xmath555\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\zeta\in \vec{c_l}\,,\ ] ] @xmath556\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\zeta\in \vec{c_r}\,,\ ] ] @xmath557\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\zeta\in \vec{l_l}\,,\ ] ] @xmath558\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\zeta\in \vec{l_r}\,,\ ] ] and @xmath559 \\\\ \displaystyle ie^{\pi\zeta }   \left[\frac{2\pi e^{2i\zeta}(-i\zeta)^{-2i\zeta } } { \gamma(1/2-i\zeta)^2}-1\right ] & \displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^{2i\zeta}(-i\zeta)^{-2i\zeta}}{\gamma(1/2-i\zeta)^2 }   \end{array}\right]\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\zeta\in \vec{c_m}\ , . \label{eq : fhatjumpcm}\ ] ] on the contours in the lower half - plane , the jump conditions are implied by the symmetry @xmath560 . * normalization : * @xmath553 is normalized at infinity : @xmath561    [ rhp : localorigin ]    unfortunately , we can not solve riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : localorigin ] explicitly . luckily , we will not require an explicit solution . however , existence of a solution is an issue that must be resolved , and we need to obtain a decay estimate that quantifies the normalization condition ( [ eq : fhatnorm ] ) . these questions are addressed via the abstract theory of riemann - hilbert problems . the local model riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : localorigin ] has a unique solution satisfying @xmath562 as @xmath563 , uniformly with respect to direction . also , @xmath564 .    _ proof : _ each riemann - hilbert problem is equivalent to an inhomogeneous system of linear singular integral equations . it must be shown that the matrix singular integral operator associated with these equations is of fredholm type , with index zero . then it must be shown that there are no homogeneous solutions , at which point one has existence and uniqueness of a solution to the inhomogeneous system . finally , one maps the solution of the integral equations to the unique solution of the riemann - hilbert problem and it remains to verify the rate of decay to the identity matrix as @xmath563 . the theory we will use is the theory of matrix riemann - hilbert problems on self - intersecting contours , with boundary values taken in spaces of hlder continuous functions . this theory is summarized in a self - contained way in the appendix of @xcite . the first step is to establish that the operator of the associated system of singular integral equations is fredholm index zero on an appropriate space of functions . as described in @xcite , this follows from two facts . first , on each ray of the contour @xmath552 the jump matrix @xmath565 is uniformly lipschitz with respect to @xmath490 , and differs from the identity by a quantity that is @xmath566 for large @xmath490 . second , the limiting values of the jump matrix , taken as @xmath567 along each ray of @xmath552 , are consistent with a bounded solution @xmath568 near @xmath569 . this means the following . suppose that @xmath553 has a limiting value , say a matrix @xmath570 , as @xmath567 inside one of the sectors of @xmath571 . using the limiting value of the jump matrix @xmath572 at the origin along one of the rays of @xmath552 bounding that sector , one can compute the limiting value of @xmath553 at the origin in the neighboring sector . this procedure can be continued , moving from sector to sector of @xmath571 in the same direction , until one arrives once again in the original sector , with a matrix @xmath573 . the consistency condition is simply that @xmath574 , which upon elimination of @xmath575 can be viewed as a cyclic relation among the limiting values of the jump matrix @xmath576 taken along each ray of @xmath552 as @xmath567 . it is easily checked that this cyclic relation indeed holds for riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : localorigin ] . the second step is to establish existence and uniqueness of the solution @xmath553 . the fact that the associated singular integral equations are fredholm index zero means that , in a certain precise sense , the fredholm alternative applies to our riemann - hilbert problem . the inhomogeneity is the normalization to the identity matrix at @xmath577 . the corresponding homogeneous riemann - hilbert problem has exactly the same form except that the normalization condition is replaced by the condition @xmath578 as @xmath563 . we will have a unique solution of riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : localorigin ] if it can be shown that no such homogeneous solutions exist . for this purpose , it is sufficient that the jump matrix @xmath572 should have a certain symmetry with respect to schwartz reflection through the real axis in the @xmath490-plane . for the orientation of @xmath552 described above , the required relation is : @xmath579 for @xmath580 . it is easily checked , using the symmetry @xmath581 and structural details of @xmath582 in the upper half - plane , that this relation holds , and this means that riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : localorigin ] has a unique solution @xmath553 . the third step is to establish that the unique solution @xmath568 decays to the identity for large @xmath490 like @xmath583 . the hlder theory that we have been using generally provides a solution @xmath553 under these circumstances that takes boundary values on @xmath552 that are hlder continuous with exponent @xmath282 and that differs from the identity matrix by @xmath584 as @xmath585 , for all @xmath282 strictly less than 1 . this fact can be traced to the compact embedding of each hlder space into all hlder spaces with strictly smaller exponents . the compactness is needed to establish the fredholm property of the riemann - hilbert problem . so to obtain the required decay , we need an additional argument . the condition that is required to obtain the @xmath566 decay is that a signed sum of the mean values of @xmath586 taken as @xmath563 along each ray of @xmath552 ( the signs are related to the orientation of the individual rays ) is zero @xcite . now along each ray of @xmath552 except for @xmath551 and its conjugate ( _ i.e. _ the imaginary axis in the @xmath490-plane ) , @xmath572 decays to the identity exponentially fast as @xmath563 . so these rays to do not contribute to the sum and it is only necessary to check the imaginary axis . when @xmath587 , @xmath588+o\left(\frac{1}{\zeta}\right)\,,\ ] ] as @xmath563 , and for @xmath490 on the negative imaginary axis oriented upwards , @xmath589+o\left(\frac{1}{\zeta}\right)\,,\ ] ] as @xmath563 . the limits of these quantities do not exist as @xmath563 due to the oscillations on the off - diagonal . but the mean values exist and are equal , and it turns out that they enter the sum with opposite signs due to the orientation of the contour rays . thus , the required sum of signed mean values indeed vanishes . this , along with the analyticity of the jump matrix @xmath572 along each ray of @xmath552 establishes that @xmath590 as @xmath563 . finally , we check that @xmath591 . taking determinants in the jump relations we see that on all rays of the contour , @xmath592 . since the boundary values taken by @xmath553 on @xmath552 are continuous , we discover that @xmath593 is an entire function . since this function tends to one at infinity , it follows from liouville s theorem that @xmath594 . this completes the proof of the proposition . @xmath105      from ( [ eq : fdefleft ] ) and ( [ eq : fdefright ] ) we can express @xmath388 in terms of @xmath531 for @xmath504 . for @xmath229 we have @xmath595 and for @xmath231 we have @xmath596 to obtain a local model for @xmath133 near the origin , we simply replace @xmath531 in these formulae by the approximation @xmath597 . with @xmath504 , we set for @xmath229 , @xmath598 and for @xmath231 we set @xmath599 the most important properties of this matrix function are easily seen to be the following . the matrix @xmath600 is a piecewise analytic function of @xmath22 in the disk @xmath601 , with jumps only on the locally straight - line contours @xmath99 , @xmath100 , @xmath357 , @xmath358 , and @xmath101 , and their conjugates in the lower half - disk . the jump relations satisfied by @xmath600 on these contours are the following : @xmath602 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in c_l\,,\ ] ] @xmath603 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\lambda\in c_r\,,\ ] ] @xmath604\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \hspace{0.2 in } \lambda\in l_l\,,\ ] ] @xmath605\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \hspace{0.2 in } \lambda\in l_r\,,\ ] ] @xmath606 where @xmath607 with @xmath608 and where @xmath539 . the jumps on the corresponding contours in the lower half - plane are obtained from the symmetry @xmath609 . the matrix @xmath600 is uniformly bounded for @xmath601 , with a bound that is independent of @xmath118 . also , @xmath610 and when @xmath611 , @xmath612 [ prop : originmodelproperties ]        as before , we suppose that @xmath404 and @xmath405 are small scales satisfying @xmath613 as @xmath118 tends to zero . we redefine the integer @xmath407 so that exactly the first @xmath407 of the numbers @xmath38 lie on the positive imaginary axis above @xmath614 . we will suppose that @xmath615 , and @xmath616 and we will deduce asymptotic formulae for @xmath158 given by ( [ eq : t ] ) valid for such @xmath22 , and for @xmath153 given by ( [ eq : s ] ) when @xmath22 is also bounded outside of some downward - opening sector with vertex at @xmath72 , in the semiclassical limit @xmath617 . first , we establish a result that is the analogue of lemma  [ lemma : originpeelfirst ] . [ lemma : iapeelfirst ] when @xmath615 and @xmath616 and with @xmath407 defined as above , @xmath618    _ proof : _ we again estimate @xmath203 using the integral formula ( [ eq : integralformulag ] ) with integrand @xmath619 given by ( [ eq : glambdaxi ] ) . given our conditions on @xmath22 , for @xmath416 and @xmath423 we have @xmath620 for all such @xmath419 we therefore have the estimate @xmath621 summing over @xmath139 gives @xmath622 which is @xmath623 because @xmath422 , and the lemma is proved . @xmath105    as was the case when @xmath22 was near the origin , only certain terms are important when @xmath624 is small , as a direct consequence of lemma  [ lemma : iapeelfirst ] and the fact that @xmath424 is analytic for such @xmath22 when @xmath423 . the important terms when @xmath616 are @xmath625 and @xmath626 lemma  [ lemma : iapeelfirst ] states that @xmath627 and @xmath628 as @xmath136 for @xmath616 . the analogue of lemma  [ lemma : originpeelsecond ] says that for @xmath624 small the sequence of numbers @xmath629 contributing to @xmath153 and @xmath158 can be replaced essentially by a `` straightened - out '' sequence with uniform density . [ lemma : iapeelsecond ] let @xmath443 for @xmath630 be the sequence of numbers defined by the relation : @xmath631 which results from expanding the bohr - sommerfeld relation ( [ eq : bs ] ) for @xmath433 near @xmath72 and keeping only the dominant terms . define @xmath632 and @xmath633 then , for @xmath615 and @xmath616 , @xmath634 where we suppose that the scale @xmath404 is further constrained so that the relative error is asymptotically small . if @xmath22 is additionally bounded outside of some downward opening sector with vertex at @xmath72 , then @xmath635    _ proof : _ the proof of this lemma follows that of lemma  [ lemma : originpeelsecond ] almost exactly and will not be repeated here . the only difference is that the square in that proof should be replaced here by the rectangle whose top side is @xmath636 and @xmath637 and whose bottom is @xmath638 . @xmath105    without any approximation , @xmath639 and @xmath640 can be rewritten in a more transparent form by expressing the products in terms of gamma functions and evaluating the logarithmic integrals exactly . introduce a local variable @xmath490 in terms of a transformation @xmath641 given by the relation @xmath642 and let @xmath213 be the positive constant @xmath643 in terms of these quantities , one finds that @xmath639 and @xmath640 take a simple form : @xmath644 and @xmath645 where @xmath646 and @xmath647 now , @xmath648 because @xmath213 is proportional to @xmath140 and @xmath407 is of the order of @xmath649 while @xmath650 . so again we can use stirling s formula to extract the dominant asymptotic contributions to @xmath639 and @xmath640 as @xmath118 tends to zero . [ lemma : iapeelthird ] as @xmath118 tends to zero through positive values , @xmath651 and @xmath652    _ proof : _ using stirling s formula , one expands @xmath653 to find @xmath654 the error here is dominated by the fact @xmath655 is the smallest large number involved . now we expand the powers that remain in conjunction with those in @xmath656 to find @xmath657 since @xmath658 , the relative error is dominated by @xmath659 . using this expression for the product @xmath660 in ( [ eq : s2iarewrite ] ) and ( [ eq : t2iarewrite ] ) , the lemma is proved . @xmath105 .    in exactly the same way as in our study of the local behavior near the origin , we may combine lemmas  [ lemma : iapeelfirst ] , [ lemma : iapeelsecond ] , and [ lemma : iapeelthird ] and choose the `` internal '' scale @xmath404 in terms of @xmath405 and @xmath118 to obtain asymptotics for @xmath153 and @xmath158 with optimized relative error . let @xmath615 , with @xmath661 , where @xmath505 , and let @xmath22 be bounded outside some fixed symmetrical sector with vertex at @xmath72 and opening downward . then @xmath662 where @xmath663 . [ prop : iaasymps ]    let @xmath615 , with @xmath661 , where @xmath505 . then for all @xmath35 , however small , @xmath664 where @xmath663 . [ prop : iaasympt ]      in particular it follows from these considerations that both @xmath153 and @xmath158 are uniformly bounded functions on their respective contours in any fixed neighborhood @xmath665 of @xmath117 . we claim that the quotient of the jump matrices for @xmath133 and @xmath393 is uniformly close to the identity matrix in @xmath665 as @xmath136 . since @xmath666 is , by definition , analytic throughout @xmath665 , it suffices to show that the jump matrix @xmath667 is uniformly close to the identity in @xmath665 . this will be the case if @xmath402 , @xmath403 , and @xmath267 are uniformly small on their respective contours . now for @xmath113 , @xmath668 so , with @xmath323 being real and strictly negative for @xmath669 according to proposition  [ prop : tildephineg ] and @xmath158 being bounded , we see that @xmath267 is in fact exponentially small as @xmath118 tends to zero through positive values . similarly , for @xmath109 , @xmath670 where we have used ( [ eq : tauleft ] ) and the fact that @xmath328 on @xmath101 above @xmath671 . since @xmath672 , it is possible to choose the neighborhood @xmath665 small enough ( independent of @xmath118 ) so that @xmath673 throughout @xmath665 . since @xmath153 is bounded , it then follows that for @xmath674 , @xmath402 is exponentially small as @xmath118 tends to zero through positive values . virtually the same argument using ( [ eq : tauright ] ) in place of ( [ eq : tauleft ] ) shows that @xmath403 is also exponentially small for @xmath675 ( it may be necessary to make @xmath665 slightly smaller to have @xmath676 throughout @xmath665 ) . it follows that @xmath677 is exponentially small uniformly for the contours within @xmath665 .    for this reason we expect that the outer model @xmath401 will be a good approximation to @xmath133 near @xmath117 even though @xmath678 and @xmath679 are not small . we do not need to construct a special - purpose local model for @xmath133 in this case . let @xmath399 be a circular disk centered at @xmath117 of sufficiently small radius ( independent of @xmath118 ) that @xmath680 and @xmath681 , and that @xmath357 and @xmath358 each have exactly one intersection with @xmath682 ( of course @xmath101 will have two intersection points with @xmath682 ) . this situation is possible as long as @xmath32 . the case of @xmath12 is a degenerate case that we will not treat in detail here . since @xmath32 and therefore @xmath683 , it follows from the definition ( [ eq : rhodefine ] ) of @xmath320 that as @xmath22 tends to @xmath307 along @xmath309 , @xmath315 vanishes like @xmath684 , and not to higher order . since @xmath315 may be extended from @xmath309 to be an analytic function in @xmath399 except for a branch cut along the part of @xmath101 in @xmath399 lying above the center , and since @xmath685 extended to this cut domain from @xmath309 is nonzero , it is easy to see that the function @xmath686 defines an invertible conformal mapping of all of @xmath399 to its image . consider the local variable @xmath490 defined by the relation @xmath687 . the image of @xmath399 in the @xmath490-plane is a neighborhood of @xmath569 that scales with @xmath118 such that it contains the disk centered at @xmath569 with radius @xmath688 for some constant @xmath689 . the transformation ( [ eq : varphiiax ] ) maps @xmath690 to a ray segment of the positive real @xmath490-axis , and takes the portion of @xmath101 in @xmath399 lying above @xmath310 to a ray segment of the negative real @xmath490-axis . we suppose that the contours @xmath357 and @xmath358 have been chosen so that @xmath691 and @xmath692 are straight ray segments with angles @xmath693 and @xmath694 respectively .    for @xmath695 , the matrix @xmath696 satisfies the following jump relations : @xmath697\ ] ] for @xmath698 , oriented from right to left , @xmath699\ ] ] on the part of the ray @xmath700 in @xmath701 , oriented toward the origin , @xmath702\ ] ] on the part of the ray @xmath703 in @xmath701 , oriented toward the origin , and finally @xmath704\ ] ] for @xmath705 , oriented from right to left . the jump relation on the negative real @xmath490-axis follows from the formula ( [ eq : ntildemiddle ] ) which applies because @xmath706 here . in ( [ eq : ntildemiddle ] ) one uses the fact that @xmath707 for @xmath113 above @xmath307 , and the relation ( [ eq : phifromtheta ] ) giving @xmath323 above @xmath307 in terms of the analytic continuation of @xmath315 from @xmath309 , which one writes in terms of the local coordinate @xmath490 .    as @xmath563 on all of the rays except for @xmath708 , the jump matrix for @xmath709 decays exponentially to the identity matrix . these jump conditions were precisely the ones that were neglected in obtaining the outer model . that is , the matrix @xmath710 defined for @xmath711 is analytic except on the positive real @xmath490-axis , where it satisfies @xmath712\,.\ ] ] it follows that the matrix @xmath713 can be decomposed into a product of a holomorphic prefactor depending on @xmath118 and a universal ( _ i.e. _ independent of @xmath118 ) local factor that takes care of the jump . we therefore may write @xmath714 where @xmath715 is holomorphic in @xmath701 and where @xmath716=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } \left[\begin{array}{cc } ( -\zeta)^{1/4 } & ( -\zeta)^{1/4}\\\\ -(-\zeta)^{-1/4 } & ( -\zeta)^{-1/4}\end{array}\right]\,.\ ] ] note that @xmath715 has determinant one . its matrix elements are of size @xmath717 for @xmath718 . it is easy to write down an explicit formula for @xmath715 because both @xmath713 and @xmath719 are known . we will now approximate @xmath709 by @xmath720 where @xmath721 is the solution of the following riemann - hilbert problem . let @xmath722 be the contour shown in figure  [ fig : airycontour ] . find a matrix @xmath721 with the following properties :    1 . * analyticity : * @xmath721 is analytic for @xmath723 . * boundary behavior : * @xmath721 assumes continuous boundary values on @xmath722 . 3 .   * jump conditions : * the boundary values taken on @xmath722 satisfy @xmath724\,,\hspace{0.2 in } \mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\arg(\zeta)=0\,,\ ] ] @xmath725\ , , \hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \arg(\zeta)=-\pi/3\,,\ ] ] @xmath726\ , , \hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \arg(\zeta)=\pi/3\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{and}\,,\ ] ] @xmath727\ , , \hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in}\arg(\zeta)=\pi\,.\ ] ] 4 .   * normalization : * @xmath721 is normalized at infinity so that @xmath728    [ rhp : airy ]    we will describe how riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : airy ] can be solved explicitly . first , we make an explicit change of variable to a new matrix @xmath729 by setting @xmath730\ , . \label{eq : slocfromt}\ ] ] if @xmath721 satisfies riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : airy ] , then it follows that @xmath729 obeys the following jump relations : @xmath731\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \arg(\zeta)=0\,,\ ] ] @xmath732\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \arg(\zeta)=\pm\pi/3\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{and}\,,\ ] ] @xmath733\,,\hspace{0.2 in}\mbox{for}\hspace{0.2 in } \arg(\zeta)=\pi\,.\ ] ] it is a general fact that @xmath734 matrix functions that satisfy piecewise constant jump conditions , like the matrix @xmath729 does , can be expressed in terms of solutions of @xmath25th order linear differential equations with meromorphic ( and often rational , or even polynomial ) coefficients . in the @xmath735 case , classical special functions therefore play a key role . in this case , we see immediately from the fact that the boundary values taken by @xmath736 on @xmath722 are continuous that the matrix @xmath737{\bf s}^{\rm loc}(\zeta)^{-1}\ ] ] is analytic for @xmath738 . if we suppose that @xmath739 has a bounded derivative near the origin in each sector of @xmath740  a hypothesis that must be verified later  then we see that in fact @xmath741 is analytic at the origin and is consequently an entire function of @xmath490 . to work out how @xmath741 behaves for large @xmath490 , we need to use the normalization condition ( [ eq : snorm ] ) for @xmath736 . we interpret ( [ eq : snorm ] ) to mean both that @xmath742 and also that @xmath743 both ( [ eq : snorm2 ] ) and ( [ eq : snorm2deriv ] ) are again hypotheses that must be verified once we obtain a solution for @xmath736 . they are not true _ a priori _ by virtue of ( [ eq : snorm ] ) alone ; for example the decay rate in ( [ eq : snorm ] ) might not be as fast as @xmath583 , and the error term might have rapid oscillations that would make its derivative larger than @xmath744 thus violating ( [ eq : snorm2deriv ] ) . it follows from our hypotheses that @xmath741 must be a polynomial ; in fact , @xmath745\,.\ ] ]    under our hypotheses , it then follows that the matrix @xmath729 solves the linear differential equation @xmath746{\bf t}(\zeta)\,.\ ] ] upon introducing the new independent variable @xmath747 we see that the elements of the second row of @xmath748 satisfy airy s equation : @xmath749 and that the elements of the first row are given by @xmath750    so which solutions of airy s equation are the appropriate ones for our purposes ? the first observation is that we need to specify different solutions of airy s equation in each simply - connected region of the complex plane where @xmath751 and @xmath752 are analytic . the assignment of solutions in these regions must be consistent with the jump conditions and asymptotics for @xmath729 . from the jump conditions for @xmath729 , we can see that in fact @xmath751 is analytic in @xmath753 , while @xmath752 is analytic except when @xmath754 or @xmath755 . we now want to use the normalization condition ( [ eq : snorm2 ] ) to find sectors in which @xmath756 and @xmath757 are exponentially decaying . then we will be able to uniquely identify these functions with particular solutions of airy s equation that also decay . from the presumed asymptotic relation ( [ eq : snorm2 ] ) we have ( in terms of the variable @xmath419 ) , @xmath758 and @xmath759 as @xmath760 with @xmath761 . these show that @xmath751 is exponentially decaying for @xmath762 and also for @xmath763 , while @xmath752 is exponentially decaying for @xmath764 . significantly , both matrix elements are analytic throughout the sectors where they are exponentially decaying for large @xmath419 . as a basis of linearly independent solutions of airy s equation we take the functions @xmath765 and @xmath766 . these decay in different sectors , and have the asymptotic expansions @xmath767 as @xmath760 for @xmath761 , and @xmath768 as @xmath760 for @xmath762 . comparing the expansion of @xmath766 with that of @xmath751 in the sector @xmath762 , we find that here @xmath769 since @xmath756 is analytic in the lower half @xmath419-plane , this relation holds identically for @xmath770 . similarly , comparing the expansion of @xmath771 with that of @xmath752 in the sector @xmath764 , we find that here @xmath772 being as @xmath757 is analytic for @xmath773 , this identity holds throughout the sector of analyticity .    restoring the original independent variable @xmath490 , we find that for @xmath774 , @xmath775 and therefore throughout the same domain , @xmath776 for @xmath490 with @xmath777 or @xmath778 , @xmath779 and therefore throughout the same domain , @xmath780 the sector of @xmath740 that is contained in both of these domains is @xmath781 . it is sufficient to have specified the matrix elements of @xmath729 in this sector , since it may be consistently obtained in the remaining sectors of @xmath740 by making use of the jump relations for @xmath729 . the procedure is consistent because the cyclic product of these jump matrices is the identity : @xmath782 \left[\begin{array}{cc } 1 & 1 \\\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right]^{-1 } \left[\begin{array}{cc } 0   & -1 \\\\ 1 & 0\end{array}\right]^{-1 } \left[\begin{array}{cc } 1 & 1 \\\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right]^{-1 } = { \mathbb i}\,.\ ] ] once @xmath729 is known for @xmath783 , the original unknown matrix @xmath736 solving riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : airy ] is obtained directly by the transformation ( [ eq : slocfromt ] ) . it suffices to give a formula that holds for @xmath781 . we find @xmath784    we will have found a solution to riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : airy ] if we can verify the two hypotheses ( _ cf . _ equations ( [ eq : snorm2 ] ) and ( [ eq : snorm2deriv ] ) ) we made regarding the interpretation of the normalization condition ( [ eq : snorm ] ) and the differentiability of @xmath736 at @xmath569 . one verifies these directly , using the explicit formulae given here .      to build a better model for @xmath133 in the disk @xmath399 than @xmath393 , we begin by recalling the exact relationship between the matrix @xmath359 and the matrix @xmath785 : @xmath786 for all @xmath787 . the matrix @xmath286 is also explicitly related to @xmath359 . for @xmath787 in the part of the lens between the contours @xmath357 and @xmath101 , @xmath788\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\ ] ] for @xmath787 in the part of the lens between the contours @xmath101 and @xmath358 , @xmath789\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\ ] ] and for all other @xmath787 , we simply have @xmath790 . as we do not expect the difference between @xmath133 and the formal continuum limit approximation @xmath286 to be important in the disk @xmath399 since it is isolated from the points @xmath116 and @xmath117 , we can obtain a guess for an approximation for @xmath133 that should be valid in @xmath399 simply by substituting @xmath791 for @xmath792 in these formulae . putting these steps together , the model for @xmath133 for @xmath787 that we will use is defined as follows . for @xmath787 in the lens between @xmath357 and @xmath101 , set @xmath793\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\ ] ] for @xmath787 in the lens between @xmath101 and @xmath358 , set @xmath794\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\ ] ] and for all other @xmath787 , set @xmath795 where @xmath796 is defined by ( [ eq : shatdef ] ) . the most important properties of the matrix @xmath797 in the disk @xmath399 are the following . the matrix @xmath798 is piecewise analytic in the left and right half - disks of @xmath399 . on the imaginary axis ( which bisects @xmath399 ) oriented in the positive imaginary direction , @xmath799 that is , the local model has exactly the same jump as @xmath285 . for @xmath787 , the matrix function @xmath800 is bounded by a constant of order @xmath801 . also , for @xmath802 , @xmath803 [ prop : endpointproperties ]    _ proof : _ computing the jump matrix for @xmath797 is straightforward . to show the bound on @xmath798 , we recall that @xmath804 is bounded by a quantity of order @xmath805 , and note that the other factor of the same size comes from the factor @xmath806 via the normalization condition on this matrix and the fact that @xmath807 grows like @xmath808 for @xmath787 . similar reasoning using ( [ eq : snorm2 ] ) establishes the error in matching onto @xmath666 on the boundary of @xmath399 . we are now in a position to put all of our models together to build a guess for a uniformly valid approximation of @xmath133 . such a guess is called a parametrix .      to build the parametrix @xmath809 as a sectionally holomorphic matrix function , we simply combine the outer and local models . for all @xmath22 satisfying @xmath504 , where the parameter @xmath810 is to be determined later , set @xmath811 for @xmath787 , we set @xmath812 and by symmetry for all @xmath813 we set @xmath814 finally , for all remaining @xmath815 , set @xmath816 the parametrix @xmath809 is holomorphic for @xmath817 , where @xmath818 is the contour illustrated in figure  [ fig : sigmahat ] .      to determine the accuracy of the parametrix , we compare it directly with the original matrix @xmath133 . that is , we consider the error matrix defined by @xmath819 this matrix is sectionally analytic in the complex @xmath22-plane , with discontinuities on a contour @xmath820 that is illustrated in figure  [ fig : sigmae ] . note that as a consequence of the symmetry of @xmath809 and @xmath133 under complex conjugation , we have @xmath821 . if the parametrix is indeed a good model for @xmath133 , then we must be able to show that the matrix @xmath822 is uniformly close to the identity matrix in the whole complex plane .    while we do not know @xmath822 explicitly like we know @xmath809 , we know from the normalization condition of both factors that @xmath823 it turns out that we can also calculate explicitly the ratio of boundary values taken by @xmath822 from both sides on each arc of @xmath820 . that is , we know the jump matrix for @xmath824 , and can express it explicitly in terms of @xmath825 and the jump matrix for @xmath133 , both of which are known in terms of the matrix function @xmath826 for which we have an existence proof and a characterization , but not an explicit formula . ] . this means that the matrix @xmath822 itself is a solution of a particular riemann - hilbert problem for which we know the data . by solving this riemann - hilbert problem , we will show that indeed @xmath822 is uniformly close to the identity matrix . there are two kinds of arcs in the contour @xmath820 : `` matching '' arcs of the circles @xmath682 , @xmath827 , and @xmath611 where two different components of the parametrix have to match well onto each other , and the remaining arcs within the disks and outside the disks where the jump matrix for @xmath809 should be a good approximation to that of @xmath388 . consider one of the arcs of @xmath820 oriented in some convenient way , and as usual let the subscript `` @xmath107 '' ( respectively `` @xmath108 '' ) denote a boundary value taken on the arc from its left ( respectively right ) . we can easily see from the definition ( [ eq : error ] ) that for @xmath22 on this arc , @xmath828 where @xmath829 and @xmath830 denote the jump matrices on the arc for @xmath133 and the parametrix @xmath809 respectively . if the arc under consideration is a `` matching '' arc , then the discontinuity in @xmath824 is wholly due to the mismatch of components of the parametrix , and the jump matrix @xmath829 is therefore replaced with the identity matrix in ( [ eq : ejump ] ) . it then follows that an equivalent formula for @xmath831 on a `` matching '' arc is the following : @xmath832 in this case , the two boundary values represent different components of the parametrix , for example @xmath393 would play the role of @xmath833 and @xmath797 would play that of @xmath834 if the `` matching '' arc under consideration is an arc of @xmath682 , oriented clockwise .    the key fact that we need now is the following . the optimal value of the radius parameter @xmath810 is @xmath835 . for this value of @xmath810 , and for all @xmath35 arbitrarily small , @xmath836 uniformly for all @xmath837 . [ prop : errorjumpbound ]    _ proof : _ we begin by considering the `` matching '' arcs . we take the circle @xmath682 to be oriented in the clockwise direction . here we find @xmath838 with the error estimate coming from proposition  [ prop : endpointproperties ] . an estimate of the same form necessarily holds on the `` matching '' arcs of @xmath827 according to the conjugation symmetry of @xmath822 . the remaining `` matching '' arcs lie on the circle @xmath611 , which again we take to be oriented in the clockwise direction . here we find @xmath839 with the error estimate coming from proposition  [ prop : originmodelproperties ] . we continue by considering the arcs of @xmath820 with @xmath601 . using the fact recorded in proposition  [ prop : originmodelproperties ] that @xmath840 has determinant one and is uniformly bounded , we see from ( [ eq : ejump ] ) that the important quantity to estimate is simply @xmath841 , the difference between the jump matrix ratio and the identity . first , consider the portion of the contour @xmath99 with @xmath842 . using proposition  [ prop : originmodelproperties ] and ( [ eq : cljumpn ] ) , we find that here @xmath843 \sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ , , \label{eq : clquotient}\ ] ] where @xmath539 . using ( [ eq : almodel ] ) and the uniform boundedness of the leading - order term on the right - hand side of ( [ eq : almodel ] ) for @xmath601 , we see that the matrix quotient in ( [ eq : clquotient ] ) differs from the identity matrix by an order @xmath844 amount . virtually the same argument using ( [ eq : crjumpn ] ) and ( [ eq : armodel ] ) in conjunction with proposition  [ prop : originmodelproperties ] establishes that on @xmath100 the matrix quotient @xmath845 differs from the identity by a quantity of order @xmath844 . next , consider the contour @xmath357 for @xmath601 . on this contour , there is no jump for @xmath133 , so @xmath846 in the formula ( [ eq : ejump ] ) for @xmath847 . but from the formula for @xmath848 for @xmath365 given in proposition  [ prop : originmodelproperties ] , we see by ordinary taylor expansion that for @xmath601 , we have @xmath849 for @xmath365 . virtually the same argument yields the same estimate for @xmath850 on @xmath358 with @xmath601 . finally consider the contour @xmath101 ( the positive imaginary axis ) with @xmath601 . using ( [ eq : cmjumpn ] ) and the jump matrix @xmath830 for @xmath113 recorded in proposition  [ prop : originmodelproperties ] , we find that here @xmath851\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,,\ ] ] where @xmath852 is given in terms of @xmath539 by ( [ eq : delta ] ) and where @xmath853 note that @xmath854 and @xmath855 are both of order @xmath856 for @xmath601 by taylor expansion arguments . also , @xmath852 is uniformly bounded in the disk of radius @xmath857 , and @xmath858 both have modulus one for @xmath113 in this disk . also , from ( [ eq : ammodel ] ) we get @xmath859 for all @xmath35 since @xmath327 on this part of @xmath101 . this error dominates those arising from taylor approximation , and thus on @xmath101 with @xmath601 we find that @xmath860 . the corresponding estimates hold on the corresponding contours in the lower half - disk , by conjugation symmetry . putting this information together with the uniform boundedness of @xmath600 and its inverse , we find that for all @xmath861 with @xmath601 , @xmath862 for all @xmath35 . now we proceed to study the jump matrix @xmath831 inside the disk @xmath399 centered at the endpoint @xmath310 , assuming @xmath32 is fixed so that @xmath399 is fixed and bounded away from the origin and from @xmath117 . the only contour we need to consider is the imaginary axis . the jump matrix @xmath831 is given by ( [ eq : ejump ] ) . this time , the conjugating factors of @xmath863 and its inverse are not uniformly bounded in @xmath399 as @xmath118 tends to zero . according to proposition  [ prop : endpointproperties ] each conjugating matrix contributes an amplifying factor of @xmath801 . also according to proposition  [ prop : endpointproperties ] , we have that @xmath864 is the same as the jump matrix for @xmath286 . therefore , using ( [ eq : cmjumpn ] ) and ( [ eq : ntildemiddle ] ) , we find that @xmath865\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,.\ ] ] using proposition  [ prop : a_m ] and the fact that @xmath866 while @xmath867 has modulus one on @xmath101 within @xmath399 , we get that @xmath868 for all @xmath268 . combining this with the bounds on the conjugating factors , we find that within @xmath399 , @xmath869 for all @xmath268 . by conjugation symmetry , the same estimate holds for the jump matrix @xmath831 when @xmath813 .    finally , we consider the parts of @xmath820 outside all of the disks , where we have set @xmath870 . on all of these parts of @xmath820 , proposition  [ prop : noutproperties ] guarantees that the conjugating factors @xmath871 and @xmath872 are uniformly bounded as @xmath118 tends to zero . so it remains to determine the magnitude of the difference between the quotient @xmath873 and the identity . first consider the part of @xmath101 between the disk at the origin and the disk @xmath399 . using proposition  [ prop : noutproperties ] to find @xmath848 and recalling ( [ eq : cmjumpn ] ) , we find @xmath874\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\,.\ ] ] using proposition  [ prop : a_m ] and the fact that @xmath327 while @xmath867 has modulus one here then allows us to conclude that @xmath875 for all @xmath268 . the @xmath810 appears because we need the estimate down to the outside boundary of the shrinking disk at the origin . next we look at the contours @xmath357 and @xmath358 . on these contours there is no jump for @xmath133 , and we see directly from proposition  [ prop : noutproperties ] that @xmath876 is exponentially small as @xmath118 tends to zero through positive values . the next contour we examine is the portion of @xmath101 lying above the disk @xmath399 . here we observe that @xmath401 has no jump , and because we have on this contour the strict inequality @xmath353 , the matrix @xmath877 is exponentially close to the identity matrix . to see this , note that here @xmath878\sigma_1^{\frac{1-j}{2}}\ ] ] because @xmath328 . while the relative error in replacing @xmath267 by @xmath879 is not small near @xmath117 , it is bounded . so the exponential decay afforded by the strict inequality on the real part of @xmath323 is maintained . virtually the same arguments show that on the contours @xmath99 and @xmath100 outside of the disk at the origin , the quotient @xmath873 is again an exponentially small perturbation of the identity matrix , since on these contours there is again no jump of the parametrix @xmath393 . therefore , for all @xmath861 outside all disks , we have @xmath880 for all @xmath268 . we come up with an overall estimate for @xmath881 for @xmath837 by combining the estimates ( [ eq : ve1 ] ) , ( [ eq : ve2 ] ) , ( [ eq : ve3 ] ) , ( [ eq : ve4 ] ) , and ( [ eq : ve5 ] ) , and optimizing the error by choosing the parameter @xmath810 . the optimal balance among all @xmath882 comes from taking @xmath835 , which gives an overall error estimate of @xmath883 uniformly for all @xmath861 , for all @xmath35 . this proves the proposition . @xmath105 the following is then a consequence of the @xmath36 theory of riemann - hilbert problems ( see the analogous discussion in @xcite ) .    for @xmath118 sufficiently small , the riemann - hilbert problem for @xmath822 has a unique solution . let @xmath884 be sufficiently large so that @xmath820 is contained in the circle of radius @xmath885 centered at the origin . then uniformly for all @xmath22 outside of this circle , and for all @xmath268 however small , the matrix @xmath824 satisfies @xmath886 with the size of the matrix measured in any matrix norm . _ proof : _ only one thing must be verified in order to deduce existence and uniqueness from the general theory : the cauchy - kernel singular integral operators defined on the contour @xmath820 , which depends on @xmath118 because of the shrinking boundary of the circle at the origin , have @xmath887 norms that can be bounded uniformly in @xmath25 . but this fact follows in this case from the fact that for @xmath25 sufficiently large , the circle @xmath611 intersects only radial straight - line segments ( we chose the contours to all be exactly straight lines in some fixed neighborhood of the origin ) , so that the portion of @xmath820 near the origin simply scales with @xmath857 . the uniform bound we need can then be established using the fact that the cauchy operators commute with scaling . a similar result was established under more general conditions in @xcite . once existence and uniqueness have been established , the estimate of @xmath822 follows from an integral representation formula for this matrix : @xmath888 in which the matrix function @xmath41 for @xmath889 is an element of @xmath887 with a norm that is bounded independently of @xmath118 ( and in fact converges to the identity matrix in @xmath887 as @xmath118 tends to zero ) . @xmath105    we are now in a position to prove our main result , which we presented as theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] in the introduction .    _ proof of theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] : _ we have been setting @xmath3 all along , so the function @xmath890 given by ( [ eq : psi0define ] ) can be found from the matrix @xmath133 by the relation ( _ cf . _ equation ( [ eq : potentialrecovery ] ) ) @xmath891 writing @xmath892 , we get @xmath893 now , the first term on the right - hand side of ( [ eq : controlpsi ] ) can be evaluated explicitly since near @xmath894 we have @xmath895 , and we have an explicit formula ( _ cf . _ equation ( [ eq : otildesolution ] ) ) for @xmath374 . we find @xmath896 which is the `` true '' initial data that we started with , before making any modifications based on the wkb approximation of the spectral data . when we consider the second term on the right - hand side of ( [ eq : controlpsi ] ) , we see that as a consequence of the normalization of the matrices @xmath822 and @xmath825 , @xmath897 as @xmath135 . therefore the second term on the right - hand side of ( [ eq : controlpsi ] ) vanishes identically . finally , for the third term on the right - hand side of ( [ eq : controlpsi ] ) we can again apply the normalization condition for @xmath809 to obtain @xmath898 putting these steps together , we have @xmath899 the proof of the theorem is finished upon using the integral formula ( [ eq : cauchyformula ] ) for @xmath822 and proposition  [ prop : errorjumpbound ] . using the new technique of simultaneous interpolation of residues by two different analytic interpolating functions , combined with `` steepest - descent '' techniques for matrix - valued riemann - hilbert problems , we have established the validity of the formal wkb approximation of the spectrum in the nonselfadjoint zakharov - shabat eigenvalue problem ( [ eq : zs ] ) in the sense of pointwise convergence of the potentials . strictly speaking , our analysis applies to certain classes of potential functions whose most important property for our purposes is their real analyticity , and then we obtain convergence for all nonzero values of @xmath4 .    in order to extend the result of theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] to @xmath12 , some different steps are required . since @xmath900 as @xmath901 , the local analysis that we carried out independently for @xmath902 ( _ cf . _   [ sec : local_ia ] ) and for @xmath903 ( _ cf . _   [ sec : local_ia(x ) ] ) will need to be combined . consequently , a different local model for @xmath133 will need to be constructed near @xmath904 . due to the presence of the gamma functions in the asymptotics established in   [ sec : local_ia ] and given in proposition  [ prop : iaasymps ] and proposition  [ prop : iaasympt ] , it is likely that the construction of the local model will require knowledge of the solution of a new riemann - hilbert problem that , like that for the matrix @xmath568 in   [ sec : origin ] , can not be solved explicitly . nonetheless , one expects that to establish the validity of theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] for @xmath12 will require only technical modifications of what we have done here .    understanding the nature of the wkb approximation at the level of the potentials is one step in a larger ongoing program to obtain corresponding information at the level of the ( unknown ) spectrum itself . indeed , quantifying the difference between the true spectrum of a given potential @xmath10 and the wkb approximation of the spectrum , in terms of motion of eigenvalues , will be necessary before it can be proven that the rigorous asymptotic analysis of sses is relevant to the problem of semiclassical asymptotics for the initial - value problem for the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation ( [ eq : nls ] ) . one imagines that a study of the semiclassical limit for ( [ eq : nls ] ) should proceed by first generating from the given initial data @xmath905 the corresponding well - defined sse , and then using the fact that by combining the results of @xcite with theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] from this paper , one has a complete picture of the limiting behavior of the sse for an open interval of time @xmath5 that is independent of @xmath23 and includes @xmath3 , and moreover that according to theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] the sse is pointwise close to the given initial data @xmath10 for @xmath3 . the problem here is that the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation is known to have modulational instabilities whose exponential growth rates become arbitrarily large in the semiclassical limit . there is , therefore , the very real possibility that while the sse is close to the initial data @xmath10 at @xmath3 , it is not close to the corresponding solution of ( [ eq : nls ] ) for any positive @xmath5 . in order to control the difference for positive time , it is necessary to know in advance how much the sse spectral data differs from the true ( unknown ) spectral data , as it is the spectral data that is the starting point for analysis ( _ cf . _ riemann - hilbert problem  [ rhp : meromorphic ] ) . one can imagine obtaining this sort of information from the pointwise estimate given in theorem  [ theorem : mainresult ] by rayleigh - schrdinger perturbation theory . i would like to thank jinho baik , thomas kriecherbauer , and ken mclaughlin for useful feedback . this work was supported in part by the national science foundation under award number dms-0103909 . kmm00 j. baik , t. kriecherbauer , k. t .- mclaughlin , and p. d. miller , `` strong asymptotics for discrete orthogonal polynomials '' , in preparation . p. deift , s. kamvissis , t. kriecherbauer , and x. zhou , `` the toda rarefaction problem '' , _ comm . pure appl . _ , * 49 * , 3583 , 1996 . p. deift , t. kriecherbauer , k. t .- mclaughlin , s. venakides , and x. zhou , `` strong asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials with respect to exponential weights '' , _ comm . pure appl . math._,*52 * , 14911552 , 1999 . p. deift , s. venakides , and x. zhou , `` the collisionless shock region for the long - time behavior of solutions of the kdv equation '' , _ comm . pure appl . _ , * 47 * , 199206 , 1994 . p. deift and x. zhou , `` a steepest descent method for oscillatory riemann - hilbert problems : asymptotics for the mkdv equation '' , _ ann . _ , * 137 * , 295368 , 1993 . n. ercolani , s. jin , c. d. levermore , and w. macevoy , jr . , `` the zero dispersion limit of the nls / mkdv hierarchy for the nonselfadjoint zs operator '' , preprint , 1993 . a. s. fokas , a. r. its , and a. v. kitaev , `` the isomonodromy approach to matrix models in 2d quantum gravity '' , _ comm . _ , * 147 * , 395430 , 1992 . s. kamvissis , k. t .- mclaughlin , and p. d. miller , `` semiclassical soliton ensembles for the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation '' , submitted to _ ann . online copy available at ` http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.si/0012034 ` a. b. j. kuijlaars and e. a. rakhmanov , `` zero distributions for discrete orthogonal polynomials '' , _ j. comput . _ , * 99 * , 255274 , 1998 . corresponding corrigendum : _ j. comput . _ , * 104 * , 213 , 1999 . p. d. lax and c. d. levermore , `` the small dispersion limit of the korteweg - de vries equation . i , ii , iii '' , _ comm . pure appl . _ , * 36 * , 253290 , 571593 , 809830 , 1983 . s. venakides , `` the korteweg - de vries equation with small dispersion : higher order lax - levermore theory '' , _ comm . pure appl . _ , * 43 * , 335361 , 1990 . v. e. zakharov and a. b. shabat , `` exact theory of two - dimensional self - focusing and one - dimensional self - modulation of waves in nonlinear media '' , _ sov . jetp _ , * 34 * , 6269 , 1972 .
Abstract:

Answer: rigorous pointwise asymptotics are established for semiclassical soliton ensembles ( sses ) of the focusing nonlinear schrdinger equation using techniques of asymptotic analysis of matrix riemann - hilbert problems . the accumulation of poles in the eigenfunction is handled using a new method in which the residues are simultaneously interpolated at the poles by two distinct interpolants . the results justify the wkb approximation for the nonselfadjoint zakharov - shabat operator with real - analytic , bell - shaped , even potentials . the new technique introduced in this paper is applicable to other problems as well : ( i ) it can be used to provide a unified treatment by riemann - hilbert methods of the zero - dispersion limit of the korteweg - de vries equation with negative ( soliton generating ) initial data as studied by lax , levermore , and venakides , and ( ii ) it allows one to compute rigorous strong asymptotics for systems of discrete orthogonal polynomials .