\section{Discrete spectrum with double poles}
    Now we suppose that $s_{11}(z)$ has $N$ double zeros, which is $s_{11}(z_k)= s'_{11}(z_k)=0$ and $s''_{11}(z_k) \ne 0$, in the upper half complex plane $\mathbb{C}^+$ and denote them by $z_k$$\left(k=1,...,N\right)$.
    By the symmetry of the eigenfunction, we know that $\bar{z}_k \in \mathbb{C}^- \left(k=1,...,N\right)$ are the double zeros of $s_{22}(z)$.
    Denote
    \begin{align}
    &\mathcal{Z}=\left\{ z_k | s_{11}(z_k)= s'_{11}(z_k)=0, s''_{11}(z_k) \ne 0\right\},\nonumber\\
    &\bar{\mathcal{Z}}=\left\{ \bar{z}_k | s_{22}(\bar{z}_k)= s'_{22}(\bar{z}_k)=0, s''_{22}(\bar{z}_k) \ne 0\right\}, \nonumber
    \end{align}
 which are the sets of the zeros of $s_{11}(z)$ and $s_{22}(z)$ respectively.

   From the relation (\ref{Rus}) and $s_{11}(z_k)=s'_{11}(z_k)=0$, we deduce that there are norming constants $b_k$ and $d_k$ that are independent of $x$ and $t$ such that
   \begin{equation} \label{u01-}
   \mu^-_{1}(z_k)=b_k e^{2it \theta(z_k)}\mu^+_{2}(z_k),
   \end{equation}
   \begin{equation} \label{u101-}
    \left(\mu^{-}_{1}\right)'(z_k)= e^{2it \theta(z_k)} \left( \left(2it \theta'(z_k)b_k+d_k\right)   \mu^+_{2}(z_k)        +b_k\left(\mu^+_{2}\right)' \left(z_k\right)  \right).
    \end{equation}
    where $\theta(z)=z^2+xz/t$.
   Similarly,
   \begin{equation} \label{u02-}
    \mu^-_{2}(\bar{z}_k) =\hat{b}_k \theta  (\bar{z}_k) e^{-2it \theta (\bar{z}_k) }\mu^+_{1}(\bar{z}_k)
   \end{equation}
    \begin{equation} \label{u102-}
     \left(\mu^{-}_{2}\right)'(\bar{z}_k)= e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} \left( \left( \hat{d}_k -2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k) \hat{b}_k\right)   \mu^+_{1}(\bar{z}_k)    +\hat{b}_k \left(\mu^+_{1}\right)'\left(\bar{z}_k\right)  \right).
     \end{equation}
where $\hat{b}_k=-\bar{b}_k$ and $\hat{d}_k=-\bar{d}_k$ according to  the symmetry of $S(z)$.

    Notice that $\mu^{-}_{1}$ is analytic in the upper half plane $\mathbb{C}^+$ and $z_k$ is the double zero of $s_{11}(z)$, then let $\mu^{-}_{1}$ and $s_{11}(z)$ do Taylor expansion at point $z_k$
    \begin{align} \label{Taylor1}
        \frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)}&=\frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z_k)+\left(\mu^{-}_{1}\right)'(z_k)(z-z_k)+\left(\mu^{-}_{1}\right)''(z_k)(z-z_k)^2/2+...}{s''_{11}(z_k)(z-z_k)^2/2+s'''_{11}(z_k)(z-z_k)^3/6+...}\\
       & = \frac{2\mu^{-}_{1}(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)}(z-z_k)^{-2}+ \left(  \frac{2\left(\mu^{-}_{1}\right)'(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)}  -\frac{2\mu^{-}_{1}(z_k)s'''_{11}(z_k) }{3s''_{11}(z_k)^2}  \right)(z-z_k)^{-1}+...
    \end{align}
    The above equations (\ref{u01-}), (\ref{u101-}) and (\ref{Taylor1}) yield the residue condition and the  coefficient of $(z-z_k)^{-2}$ in the Laurent  expansion of $ \frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)}$
    \begin{align} \label{Res1}
     \res_{z=z_k} \left[  \frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)}   \right] &=   \frac{2\left(\mu^{-}_{1}\right)'(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)}  -\frac{2\mu^{-}_{1}(z_k)s'''_{11}(z_k) }{3s''_{11}(z_k)^2} \\
     &= A_k e^{2it \theta(z_k)} \left(     \left(\mu^{+}_{2}\right)'(z_k) +   \mu^{+}_{2}(z_k)  \left( B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) \right)     \right),
    \end{align}
    \begin{equation}\label{P-21}
        \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}}\left[  \frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)}   \right] = \frac{2\mu^{-}_{1}(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)}=A_k e^{2it \theta(z_k)} \mu^{+}_{2}(z_k),
    \end{equation}
    where
    \begin{equation}\label{AkBk1}
        A_k=\frac{2 b_k}{s''_{11}(z_k)}, \quad B_k=\frac{d_k}{b_k}-\frac{s'''_{11}(z_k)}{3s''_{11}(z_k)}.
    \end{equation}
    Likewise, as $z=\bar{z}_k$ is the double zero of $s_{22}(z)$, by equations (\ref{u02-}), (\ref{u102-}) and (\ref{Taylor1}), we obtain
    \begin{align}  \label{Res2}
        \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} \left[  \frac{\mu^{-}_{2}(z)}{s_{22}(z)}   \right] &=   \frac{2\left(\mu^{-}_{2}\right)'(\bar{z}_k)}{s''_{22}(\bar{z}_k)}  -\frac{2\mu^{-}_{2}(\bar{z}_k)s'''_{22}(\bar{z}_k) }{3s''_{22}(\bar{z}_k)^2} \\
        &= \hat{A}_k e^{2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} \left(     \left(\mu^{+}_{1}\right)'(\bar{z}_k) +   \mu^{+}_{1}(\bar{z}_k)  \left(\hat{B}_k-2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k)\right)     \right),
       \end{align}
       \begin{equation}\label{P-22}
           \underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}}\left[  \frac{\mu^{-}_{2}(z)}{s_{22}(z)}   \right] = \frac{2\mu^{-}_{2}(\bar{z}_k)}{s''_{22}(\bar{z}_k)}=\hat{A}_k e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} \mu^{+}_{1}(\bar{z}_k),
       \end{equation}
       where
       \begin{equation}\label{AkBk2}
           \hat{A}_k=\frac{2 \hat{b}_k}{s''_{22}(\bar{z}_k)}, \quad \hat{B}_k=\frac{\hat{d}_k}{\hat{b}_k}-\frac{s'''_{22}(\bar{z}_k)}{3s''_{22}(\bar{z}_k)}.
       \end{equation}
    Moreover, it is easy to find that
    \begin{equation}
        \hat{A}_k=-\bar{A}_k, \quad \hat{B}_k=\bar{B}_k.
    \end{equation}

\section{The  RH problem   with high-order poles}
In our situation, we introduce the meromorphic matrices
       \begin{equation}
      m(z)=  m(z;x,t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
        \left( \frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)} ,\mu^{+}_{2}(z) \right),   &\text{as  Im}z>0,\\[12pt]
        \left( \mu^{+}_{1}(z),\frac{\mu^{-}_{2}(z)}{s_{22}(z)}\right)  , &\text{as  Im}z<0,\\
        \end{array}\right.
        \end{equation}
    which satisfies the following RH problem.

    \noindent\textbf{RHP1}.  Find a matrix-valued function $m(z) $ which satisfies
    \begin{itemize}
        \item[(a)]$m(z)$ is meromorphic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{R}$ and has double poles;
        \item[(b)]$m(z)$ satisfies the jump condition $m_+(z)=m_-(z)v(z), \; z \in \mathbb{R}$,
        where
        \begin{equation}\label{V0}
            v(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
                1+|r(z)|^2 & e^{-2it \theta(z)}\overline{r(z)}\\
            e^{2it \theta(z)}r(z) & 1
            \end{array}\right);
            \end{equation}
         \item[(c)]The asymptotic behavior of $m(z)$ at infinity is
       $$m(z)=I+\mathcal{O}(z^{-1}),	\qquad  z \to  \infty; $$
         \item[(d)]$m(z)$  satisfies the residue  and  the coefficient of negative second power term in the Laurent expansion conditions at double zeros $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\bar{z}_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$:
   \begin{align}
   & \res_{z=z_k} m^+(z)=\lim_{z\to z_k} \left[ m'(z)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
                        0 & 0\\
                        A_k e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
                        \end{array}\right)    + m(z) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                            0 & 0\\
                            A_k \left(B_k+2it \theta'(z_k)\right) e^ {2it \theta(z_k)}& 0
                            \end{array}\right)         \right],\label{res3.3}\\
   & \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m^-(z)=\lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} \left[ m'(z)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
                                0 & \hat{A}_k e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
                                0 & 0
                                \end{array}\right)    + m(z) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                                    0 & \hat{A}_k \left(\hat{B}_k-2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k)\right) e^ {-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
                                    0& 0
                                    \end{array}\right)         \right],\\
    & \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^+(z) = \lim_{z\to z_k} m(z)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
        0 & 0\\
        A_k e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
        \end{array}\right),\\
    &    \underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}} m^-(z) = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m(z)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
            0 & \hat{A}_k e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
           0 & 0
            \end{array}\right).\label{res3.6}
    \end{align}
   \end{itemize}

   \begin{figure}
    \begin{center}
    \begin{tikzpicture}
    \draw[thick,->,red](-3,0)--(3,0);
    \node    at (3.2,0)  {$\mathbb{R}$};
    \node    at (1,1.5)  {$z_k$};
    \node    at (1,-1.5)  {$\bar z_k$};
    \node    at (0.8,1.3)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (0.8,-1.3)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (2,1 )  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (2,-1)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-0.8,0.7 )  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-0.8,-0.7)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-2,1.4 )  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-2,-1.4)  {$\bullet$};

    \node    at (-0.6,1)  {$z_k$};
    \node    at (-0.6,-1)  {$\bar z_k$};
    \end{tikzpicture}
    \end{center}
    \caption{ The  jump contour and  poles for  $m(z)$  }
    \label{fmjump}
    \end{figure}

The existence and uniqueness of the above RHP1 can be given by Liouville's theorem and the vanishing lemma \cite{ISTFA}.
  Plugging the asymptotic expansion $m=I+m_1/z+o(z^{-1})$ into the formula (\ref{laxp}), we obtain that
    \begin{equation}\label{mTay}
        m(z)=I +\frac{1}{2iz} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            -\int^{\infty}_{x} |q|^2 dx & q\\
            \bar{q} & \int^{\infty}_{x} |q|^2 dx
            \end{array}\right)+o(z^{-1}).
    \end{equation}
    Thus, the solution $q(x,t)$ of initial value problem for NLS equation can be expressed by the above RHP1
    \begin{equation}\label{qzm12}
        q(x,t)=2i \lim_{z \to \infty} (zm)_{12}.
    \end{equation}

    \section{Continuous extensions to a mixed $\bar\partial$-RH problem}
    In this section, we make factorizations of the jump matrix $v(z)$ and  continuously extend each factor  off $\mathbb{R}$. The idea of continuous extensions comes from \cite{OPsuc}-\cite{Asystab}.
    Before doing continuous extensions, we renormalize the RH problem of $m(z)$ so that it is well-behaved at infinity.
    Then, we deform the jump matrix onto new contours  on which they decay and obtain a new $\bar\partial$-RH problem by extensions.

    \subsection{Factorizations of jump matrix}
    We first consider the oscillatory term in the jump matrix (\ref{V0})
    \begin{equation*}
        e^{2it \theta(z)}=e^{2t \varphi(z)}, \quad \varphi(z)=i \theta(z)= i(z^2+xz/t).
    \end{equation*}
    Differentiating $\varphi(z)$ with respect to $z$ yields a stationary phase point and four paths of steepest descent
    \begin{equation}\label{Sigma0}
        z_0=-\frac{x}{2t},\quad \Sigma_k= \left\{ z_0+e^{i(2k-1)\pi/4} \mathbb{R}_+     \right\}, k=1,2,3,4.
    \end{equation}
    From $\theta(z)=z^2-2z_0 z=(z-z_0)^2-z_0^2$, we get
    \begin{equation}
     \text{Re} (i\theta)=-2\text{Im}z(\text{Re}z-z_0).
    \end{equation}
    Therefore, we can divide the complex plane into two classes of domains according to the exponential decay $e^{2it \theta(z)}$.

    \begin{figure}
        \begin{center}
        \begin{tikzpicture}
        \draw[violet!20, fill=yellow!20] (0,0)--(2.5,0)--(2.5,2)--(0, 2);
        \draw[violet!20, fill=yellow!20] (0,0)--(-2.5,0)--(-2.5,-2)--(0, -2);
        \draw [thick,-> ](-3.5,0)--(3.5,0);
        \draw [thick,-> ](0,-2.8)--(0,2.8);
        \node    at (0.3,-0.3)  {$z_0$};
        \node    at (4,0)  { Re$z$};
        \node    at (0,3.2)  { Im$z$};
        \node  [below]  at (1.3,1.2) {$ |e^{ 2it\theta(z)}| \rightarrow 0$};
        \node  [below,purple]  at (-1.5,1.2) {$|e^{-2it\theta(z)}| \rightarrow 0$};
        \node  [below]  at (-1.2,-0.8) {$|e^{ 2it\theta(z)} |\rightarrow 0$};
        \node  [below,purple]  at (1.5,-1) {$|e^{-  2it\theta(z)}| \rightarrow 0$};
        \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{center}
        \caption{ Exponential   decaying domains  }
        \label{fsigsteep3}
        \end{figure}

    From the above analysis, the jump matrix (\ref{V0}) admits two compositions
    \begin{equation}\nonumber
       v(z) =
        \begin{cases}
        \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&\bar{r}e^{-2it\theta }\\ 0&1\end{array}  \right)
        \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\   re^{2it\theta }&1\end{array}  \right), \ \ z>z_0,\\
         \\
         \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ \frac{r}{1+|r|^2}e^{2it\theta } & 1\end{array}  \right)
        \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1+|r|^2&0\\ 0&\frac{1}{1+|r|^2} \end{array}  \right) \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 &
         \frac{\bar{r}}{1+|r|^2}e^{-2it\theta } \\ 0 & 1\end{array}  \right), \ \ z<z_0.
        \end{cases}
        \end{equation}
    To remove the intermediate matrix of the second decomposition, we introduce the following scalar RH problem.

    \noindent\textbf{RHP2}.  Find a scalar function $\delta (z)$ which satisfies
    \begin{itemize}
        \item[(a)]$\delta (z)$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{R}$;
        \item[(b)]$\delta_+(z)=\delta_-(z)(1+|r|^2),\quad z<z_0$;
        \item[(c)]$\delta (z) \sim I,\quad  z \to  \infty $.

   \end{itemize}
   By the Plemelj formula,  we prove that this RH problem has a unique solution
    \begin{equation}
    \delta (z)= \exp\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int^{z_0} _{-\infty}\dfrac{\log(1+|r(s)|^2)ds}{s-z}\right) =      \exp\left(i\int^{z_0} _{-\infty}\dfrac{\nu(s)ds}{s-z}\right),
   \end{equation}
   where $\nu(s)= -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log(1+|r(s)|^2)$.

   \subsection{Renormalizations of the RH problem for $m(z)$ }

   For convenience, we introduce some notations
   \begin{align*}
    \Delta^+_{z_0}=\left\lbrace k \in \left\lbrace 1,...,N\right\rbrace  ||z_k|>z_0\right\rbrace, \\
    \Delta^-_{z_0}=\left\lbrace k \in \left\lbrace 1,...,N\right\rbrace  ||z_k|<z_0\right\rbrace.
    \end{align*}
    For a real interval $I=[a,b]$, we define
    \begin{align*}
        &\mathcal{Z}(I)=\left\lbrace z_k \in  \mathcal{Z} ||z_k|\in I \right\rbrace,\\
        &\mathcal{Z}^-(I)=\left\lbrace z_k \in  \mathcal{Z} ||z_k|< a \right\rbrace,\\
        &\mathcal{Z}^+(I)=\left\lbrace z_k \in  \mathcal{Z} ||z_k|> b \right\rbrace.
    \end{align*}
    For a fixed point $z_0 \in I$, we define
    \begin{align*}
        \Delta^-_{z_0}(I)=\left\lbrace k \in \left\lbrace 1,...,N\right\rbrace  |a\le|z_k|<z_0\right\rbrace,\\
        \Delta^+_{z_0}(I)=\left\lbrace k \in \left\lbrace 1,...,N\right\rbrace  |z_0<|z_k|\le b\right\rbrace.
        \end{align*}
    See the corresponding domains for different spectrum sets in Figure \ref{fspectrum}.

        \begin{figure}
            \begin{center}
            \begin{tikzpicture}
            \draw [thick,-> ](-5,0)--(5,0);
            \draw [dashed,thick,-> ](0,1.9)--(2,1.9);
             \draw [dashed,thick,-> ](0,1.5)--(4,1.5);
              \node  [teal]  at (4.6,1.6) {$\Delta_{z_0}^+$};
                \node  [teal]  at (-4.6,1.6) {$\Delta_{z_0}^-$};
            \draw [dashed,thick,-> ](0,1.9)--(-2,1.9);
             \draw [dashed,thick,-> ](0,1.5)--(-4,1.5);
            \draw [dashed,thick ](0,-2)--(0,2.8);
            \draw [thick ](2,-2)--(2,2.8);
            \draw [thick ](-2,-2)--(-2,2.8);
            \node    at (0.3,-0.3)  {$z_0$};
            \node    at (5.5,0)  { Re$z$};
            \node    at (0,3.2)  { Im$z$};
            \node  [below,teal]  at (1,2.5) {$\Delta_{z_0}^+(\mathcal{I})$};
            \node  [below,teal]  at (-1,2.5) {$\Delta_{z_0}^-(\mathcal{I})$};
            \node  [below,purple]  at (-3,0.8) {$\mathcal{Z}^-({\mathcal{I}})$};
            \node  [below,purple]  at (3,0.8) {$\mathcal{Z}^+({\mathcal{I}})$};
            \node  [below,purple]  at (0,0.8) {$\mathcal{Z}({\mathcal{I}})$};
            \node  [below]  at (2.3,0) {$b$};
            \node  [below]  at (-2.3,0) {$a$};
            \end{tikzpicture}
            \end{center}
            \caption{  Different  spectrum sets. }
            \label{fspectrum}
            \end{figure}

    Then, we introduce  the function
    \begin{align}\label{T}
        T(z) &= \prod_{k\in \Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(\dfrac{z-\bar{z}_k}{z-z_k}\right)^2\delta (z)\\
             &=  \prod_{k\in \Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(\dfrac{z-\bar{z}_k}{z-z_k}\right)^2 (z-z_0)^{i\nu(z_0)}e^{i\beta(z,z_0)},
    \end{align}
    where
    \begin{equation}
        \beta(z,z_0)=-\nu(z_0) \log(z-z_0+1)+\int^{z_0}_{-\infty} \dfrac{\nu(s)-\chi(s)\nu(z_0)}{s-z}ds,
    \end{equation}
    here $\chi(s)$ is the characteristic function of the interval $(z_0-1,z_0)$, and log takes the analytic branch along the cut $(-\infty,z_0-1]$.
    \begin{proposition}
        The function $T$ has the following properties
        \begin{itemize}
          \item[(a)]  $T$ is meromorphic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus (-\infty,z_0]$. For each $k\in\Delta^-_{z_0}$, $T(z)$ has double poles at $z_k$ and double zeros at $\bar{z}_k$;
          \item[(b)] For $z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus (-\infty,z_0]$, $\overline{T(\bar{z})}=1/T(z)$;
          \item[(c)] For $z\in (-\infty,z_0]$,
            \begin{equation}
            T_+(z)=T_-(z)(1+|r(z)|^2);
            \end{equation}
          \item[(d)] As $|z|\to \infty$ with $|arg(z)|\leq c<\pi$,
          \begin{equation}\label{expT}
          T(z)=1+\frac{i}{z}\left[ 4\sum_{k\in \Delta^-_{z_0}} {\rm Im} (z_k)-\int^{z_0} _{-\infty}\nu(s)ds\right]+ \mathcal{O}(z^{-2});
          \end{equation}
          \item[(d)]Along the ray $z=z_0+e^{i \phi} \mathbb{R}_+$ where $|\phi|<\pi$, as $z\to z_0$
          \begin{equation}
            |T(z,z_0)-T_0(z_0)(z- z_0)^{i\nu ( z_0)}|\leq c|z-z_0|^{1/2},
          \end{equation}
          where $c$ is a fixed constant.
        \end{itemize}
    \end{proposition}
    \begin{proof}
        The proof of  above properties is similar to the proof of Proposition 3.1 provided by Borghese et al \cite{fNLS}.
   \end{proof}

    Next, we construct a new transformation
    \begin{equation}\label{transm1}
        m^{(1)}(z)=m(z) T(z)^{-\sigma_3}.
    \end{equation}
    From this transformation, we can achieve the following two goals:
    \begin{itemize}
        \item    Renormalize    $m$  such that   $m^{(1)}$   is well behaved as $t\rightarrow \infty$ along arbitrary characteristic;
        \item  Split the residue coefficients  into two sets according to signature of ${\rm Re}(i\theta)$.

        \end{itemize}
   In addition, $m^{(1)}(z)$ satisfies the following RH problem.

   \noindent\textbf{RHP3}.  Find a matrix-valued function $m^{(1)}(z)=m^{(1)}(z;x,t)$ such that
   \begin{itemize}
       \item[(a)]$m^{(1)}(z)$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \left( \mathbb{R}\cup \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}} \right)$;
       \item[(b)]$m^{(1)}(z)$ has the following jump condition $m^{(1)}_+(z)=m^{(1)}_-(z)v^{(1)}(z), \hspace{0.5cm}z \in \mathbb{R}$,
       where
       \begin{align}\label{V1}
           v^{(1)}(z)&=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
               1 & \overline{r(z)} T(z)^2 e^{-2it \theta(z)}\\
               0 & 1
           \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1& 0\\
            r(z) T^{-2}(z) e^{2it \theta(z)} & 1
        \end{array}\right),\hspace{0.5cm} z\in (z_0,+\infty);\\
           &=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1& 0\\
            \frac{r(z)}{1+|r(z)|^2} T_-^{-2}(z) e^{2it \theta(z)} & 1
        \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1& \frac{\overline{r(z)}}{1+|r(z)|^2} T_+^{-2}(z) e^{-2it \theta(z)}\\
            0 & 1
        \end{array}\right),       \hspace{0.5cm} z\in (-\infty,z_0);
        \end{align}
        \item[(c)]$m^{(1)}(z)=I+\mathcal{O}(z^{-1}),	\quad  \text{as} \;  z \to  \infty $;
        \item[(d)]$m^{(1)}(z)$  satisfies the following residue conditions at double poles $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\bar{z}_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$:
        \begin{align}
            & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(1)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to z_k}    \left(m^{(1)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
                    0 & 4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)}\\
                     0 & 0
                     \end{array}\right)\\
                 & +     m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                        0 &  -4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) + \frac{2 (T^{-1})'''(z_k)}{3 (T^{-1})''(z_k)}  \right]e^{-2it \theta(z_k)} \\
                        0 &   0
                        \end{array} \right) ,  \quad k\in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
            & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(1)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to z_k}    \left(m^{(1)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 0\\
                 A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
                 \end{array}\right)\\
             & + m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 &  0\\
               A_k T^{-2}(z_k) \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) -\frac{2 T'(z_k)}{ T(z_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(z_k)}  &   0
                \end{array} \right),    \quad k\in \Delta^+_{z_0};\\

           & \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m^{(1)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k}    \left(m^{(1)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 0\\
             -4 \bar{A}_k^{-1}\left(T''(\bar{z}_k)\right)^{-2} e^{2it \theta(\bar{z_k})}   & 0
             \end{array}\right)\\
          &+ m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 0\\
                4 \bar{A}_k^{-1} \left(T''(\bar{z}_k)\right)^{-2} \left[ \bar{B}_k-2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k) + \frac{2 T'''(\bar{z}_k)}{3 T''(\bar{z}_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}  &   0
                \end{array} \right),  \quad k\in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
            & \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m^{(1)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k}  \left(m^{(1)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & - \bar{A}_k T^2(\bar{z}_k) e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
                0 & 0
                 \end{array}\right)\\
              & + m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 &  - \bar{A}_k T^2(\bar{z}_k) \left[ \bar{B}_k-2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k) + \frac{2 T'(\bar{z}_k)}{T(\bar{z}_k)}  \right] e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} \\
              0&   0
                \end{array} \right),    \quad k\in \Delta^+_{z_0};
  \end{align}
  Moreover, the coefficients  of the negative second-order term are
 \begin{align}
    & \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(1)}(z) = \begin{cases}
        \lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)}\\
             0 & 0
             \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
             \lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 0\\
                 A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
                 \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^+_{z_0};
        \end{cases}\\
  &  \underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(1)}(z)  = \begin{cases}
        \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 0\\
            -4 \bar{A}_k^{-1}\left(T''(\bar{z}_k)\right)^{-2} e^{2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} & 0
             \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
             \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m^{(1)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & - \bar{A}_k T^2(\bar{z}_k) e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
                0 & 0
                 \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^+_{z_0}.
        \end{cases}
\end{align}
  \end{itemize}
  \begin{proof}
    The analyticity, jump condition and asymptotic behavior of $m^{(1)}(z)$ are easily to be proven.
    The difficulty lies in the calculation of residue conditions.
    We first consider  poles $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$ in the upper half complex plane and denote $m(z)=\left(m_1(z), m_2(z) \right) $, then
    $$m^{(1)}(z)=\left(m^{(1)}_1(z), m^{(1)}_2(z) \right) =   \left(m_1(z)T^{-1}(z), m_2(z)T(z) \right)=\left(  \frac{\mu^{-}_{1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)}T^{-1}(z),   \mu^{+}_{2}(z)    T(z)   \right).$$
    \begin{itemize}
        \item[(i)] For $k \in \Delta^-_{z_0}$ and $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$, $z_k$ is the double poles of $m^{(1)}_1$ and $T$, but $m^{(1)}_2$ and $T^{-1}$ are analytic at the point $z_k$ with $T^{-1}(z_k)=0$, then
        \begin{align}
            & m^{(1)}(z_k)  = \frac{1}{2} A_k e^{2it \theta(z_k)}m_2(z_k) (T^{-1})''(z_k),\label{mp1m2}\\
          &\res_{z=z_k}m^{(1)}_2(z)= m'_2(z_k)  2 \left(T^{-1}\right)''(z_k) - m_2(z_k) \frac{2\left(T^{-1}\right)'''(z_k) }{3 \left(\left(T^{-1}\right)''(z_k)\right)^2}. \label{mp12}
         \end{align}
    where $\hat{T}(z)=T(z) (z-z_k)^2$.

    Next, we calculate the derivative of $m_1^{(1)}$
       \begin{equation}\label{dm11}
        \left(m_1^{(1)}\right)'(z_k)=\left(\mu^-_{1}\right)'(z_k) \frac{T^{-1}(z_k)}{s_{11}(z_k)}+ \mu^-_{1}(z_k) \left( \frac{T^{-1}}{s_{11}}\right)'(z_k).
        \end{equation}
    From the Taylor expansion, we find
    \begin{equation}
        \frac{T^{-1}(z)}{s_{11}(z)}=\frac{\left(T^{-1}\right)''(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)}+ \left(  \frac{\left(T^{-1}\right)'''(z_k)}{3s''_{11}(z_k)} -\frac{\left(T^{-1}\right)''(z_k) s'''_{11}(z_k) }{3(s''_{11}(z_k))^2}             \right)(z-z_k)+\cdots
    \end{equation}
    Thus, we know
    \begin{equation}\label{T-1s11}
        \left( \frac{T^{-1}}{s_{11}}\right)'(z_k) =  \frac{\left(T^{-1}\right)'''(z_k)}{3s''_{11}(z_k)} -\frac{(T^{-1})''(z_k) s'''_{11}(z_k) }{3\left(s''_{11}(z_k)\right)^2}.
    \end{equation}
  Combing (\ref{u01-}), (\ref{u101-}) and (\ref{dm11}) with (\ref{T-1s11}), we obtain
  \begin{align}\label{dmp1m2mp2}
     & \left(m_1^{(1)}\right)'(z_k)= b_k \frac{\left(T^{-1}\right)''(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)} e^{2it \theta(z_k)} \left(\mu^+_{2}\right)'(z_k) \notag\\
     & +\left[  \frac{(T^{-1})''(z_k)}{s''_{11}(z_k)} \left( 2it \theta'(z_k)b_k +d_k     \right)     +b_k \left(  \frac{(T^{-1})'''(z_k)}{3s''_{11}(z_k)} -\frac{(T^{-1})''(z_k) s'''_{11}(z_k) }{3(s''_{11}(z_k))^2}       \right)  \right] e^{2it \theta(z_k)} \mu^+_{2}(z_k).
  \end{align}
    Substituting (\ref{mp1m2}) and (\ref{dmp1m2mp2}) into (\ref{mp12}) , we find
    \begin{align}
       & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(1)}_2(z) = 4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)} \left(m^{(1)}_2\right)'(z_k)  \notag\\
       & -4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) + \frac{2 (T^{-1})'''(z_k)}{3 (T^{-1})''(z_k)}  \right]e^{-2it \theta(z_k)} m^{(1)}_2(z_k),
    \end{align}
    where we have used the fact $A_k=\frac{2b_k}{s''_{11}(z_k)}$. Finally,  we obtain  the corresponding residue condition for $m^{(1)}(z)$.

    Then, we calculate the coefficient of $(z-z_k)^{-2}$ in the Laurent  expansion of $m^{(1)}$. We still consider this condition according to the order of the columns of $m^{(1)}$.
   \begin{align}
   & \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(1)}_1(z)=0,\\
   & \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(1)}_2(z)=m_2(z_k) \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} T(z)=2 m_2(z_k)  \left( (T^{-1})''(z_k) \right)^{-1}.\label{p-2mp2}
   \end{align}
   Plugging (\ref{mp1m2}) into (\ref{p-2mp2}), it is straightforward to find
   \begin{align}
    \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(1)}(z)=\left( 0, 4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)}      \right).
   \end{align}

    \item[(ii)]For $k \in \Delta^+_{z_0}$ and $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$, $T$ and $T^{-1}$ is analytic at the point $z_k$. In this case, the residue condition of the first column of $m^{(1)}$ is
    \begin{align}
        \res_{z=z_k} m^{(1)}_1(z) &=  \res_{z=z_k}  m_1(z)\cdot T^{-1}(z_k)+\res_{z=z_k}  m_1(z) \left( T^{-1}(z)-T^{-1}(z_k)\right)  \notag\\
        &=\res_{z=z_k}  m_1(z)\cdot T^{-1}(z_k) + \lim_{z\to z_k} m_1 \left(T^{-1}\right)'(z_k)(z-z_k)^2.
        \end{align}
    Since
    \begin{equation}
        \lim_{z\to z_k} m_1 \left(T^{-1}\right)'(z_k)(z-z_k)^2= 2 \mu^-_{1}(z_k)\left(T^{-1}\right)'(z_k) /s''_{11}(z_k),
    \end{equation}
    \begin{equation}
        \left(m^{(1)}_2\right)'(z)= m'_2(z) T(z) + m_2(z) T'(z),
    \end{equation}
    we give the expression
    \begin{align}
        \res_{z=z_k} m^{(1)}_1(z)&= A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it\theta(z_k)}  (m^{(1)}_2)'(z_k)  \notag\\
        &+  A_k T^{-2}(z_k) \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) -\frac{2 T'(z_k)}{ T(z_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(z_k)} m^{(1)}_2(z_k),
    \end{align}
    in which we have used equations (\ref{u01-}) and (\ref{AkBk1}).
    Because of the analyticity of $m_2(z)$ and $T(z)$ at the point $z_k$, $ \res_{z=z_k} m^{(1)}_2(z)=0$.
    Thus, we find the expression of the residue condition in this case.

    In addition,  we can obtain the coefficient of $(z-z_k)^{-2}$ in the Laurent  expansion of $m^{(1)}$ directly because $T^{-1}$ is analytic at the point $z_k$
    \begin{equation}
       \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(1)}(z)=\underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m(z) \cdot T^{-1}(z_k)=\lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(1)} \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 0\\
             A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
             \end{array}\right).
        \end{equation}

    Using the same method, we can obtain the corresponding conditions for $\bar{z}_k\in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$ in the lower half plane.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{proof}

 \subsection{Continuous extensions of jump matrix}
    In this section, we make continuous extension to the scattering data of the jump matrix $v^{(1)}$ and construct  a new  transformation from $m^{(1)}$ to $m^{(2)}$.
    The transformed $m^{(2)}$ satisfies the following properties:
    \begin{itemize}
        \item     $m^{(2)}(z)$   has no jump on $\mathbb{R}$ and  matches   $m^{(pc)}(z)$ model,  which is given and analyzed in Section 5.1.2,  on a new  contour $\Sigma^{(2)}$ which is defined in (\ref{sigma2}).
        \item   The norm of the function, which is introduced by this transformation, has been controlled so that the $\overline{\partial}$-contribution to the long-time asymptotics of $q(x,t)$ can be ignored.
        \item  The residues are unaffected by the transformation.
        \end{itemize}

    To make  continuous extension, we first define a new contour $\Sigma^{(2)}$
    \begin{equation}\label{sigma2}
        \Sigma^{(2)}= \Sigma_1 \cup \Sigma_2 \cup \Sigma_3 \cup \Sigma_4,
    \end{equation}
   where $\Sigma_k$ are  given in (\ref{Sigma0}).
   Then, the real axis  $\mathbb{R}$  and the contour $\Sigma^{(2)}$  separate complex plane  $\mathbb{C}$  into six open sectors denoted  by $\Omega_k$, $k=1,...,6$, depicted in Figure \ref{fig5}.

   Second, let
   \begin{equation}
     \rho =\frac{1}{2}\min_{\lambda, \mu \in \mathcal{Z}\cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}};\lambda\neq\mu}|\lambda -\mu|.
   \end{equation}
   For any point $z_k=x_k+iy_k \in \mathcal{Z}$, we have $\bar{z_k}=x_k-iy_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$. Thus, ${\rm dist}(\mathcal{Z},\mathbb{R}) \ge \rho$.
   Suppose that $\chi_\mathcal{Z} \in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{C},[0,1])$ is the characteristic function defined in the neighborhood of discrete spectrum
   \begin{equation}
    \chi_\mathcal{Z}(z)=\Bigg\{\begin{array}{ll}
    1 &\text{dist}\left(z,\mathcal{Z}\cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}}\right)<\rho/3,\\
    0 &\text{dist}\left(z,\mathcal{Z}\cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}}\right)>2\rho/3.\\
    \end{array}
    \end{equation}

    Finally, we introduce a transformation $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}$ to obtain a mixed  $\bar{\partial}$-RH problem.
    \begin{equation}\label{transm2}
        m^{(2)}(z)=m^{(1)}(z)\mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z),
    \end{equation}
    where  $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z)$ is defined as follows:
    \begin{equation}
        \mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z)=\left\{\begin{array}{lllll}
        \left(\begin{array}{cc}
        1 & 0\\
        R_1(z)e^{2it\theta} & 1
        \end{array}\right)^{-1}=W_R^{-1}, & z\in \Omega_1,\\
        \\
        \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1 & R_3(z)e^{-2it\theta}\\
            0 & 1
            \end{array}\right)^{-1}=U^{-1}_R, & z\in \Omega_3,\\
            \\
        \left(\begin{array}{cc}
        1 & 0\\
        R_4(z)e^{2it\theta} & 1
       \end{array}\right)=U_L,  &z\in \Omega_4,\\
        \\
        \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1 & R_6(z)e^{-2it\theta}\\
            0 & 1
            \end{array}\right)=W_L, & z\in \Omega_6,\\
            \\

        I,  &z\in \Omega_2\cup\Omega_5;\\
        \end{array}\right.
        \end{equation}
        where the function $R_j$, $j=1,3,4,6$, is defined in following proposition, depicted in Figure \ref{fig5}.

        \begin{figure}
        \begin{center}
        \begin{tikzpicture}

        \draw [red,thick ](-3,0)--(3,0);
        \draw [red,thick,-> ](-3,0)--(-1.5,0);
        \draw[red,thick, -> ](0,0)--(1.5,0);
        \draw [dashed] (-2,-2)--(2,2);
        \draw [dashed][ -> ](-2,-2)--(-1,-1);
        \draw [dashed] [  -> ](0,0)--(1,1);
        \draw [dashed] (-2,2)--(2,-2);
        \draw [dashed] [ -> ](-2,2)--(-1,1);
        \draw [dashed] [  -> ] (0,0)--(1,-1);
        \node  [below]  at (0,0) {$z_0$};
        \node  [below]  at (2.3,2.3) {\scriptsize $\Sigma_1$};
        \node  [below]  at (-2.3,2.3) {\scriptsize $\Sigma_2$};
        \node  [below]  at (-2.4,-1.7) {\scriptsize $\Sigma_3$};
        \node  [below]  at (2.4,-1.7) {\scriptsize $\Sigma_4$};
        \node  [below]  at (3.4,0.4) {\scriptsize $R$};
        \node    at (0.8,1.3)  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (0.8,-1.3)  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (2,1 )  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (2,-1)  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (-0.8,0.7 )  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (-0.8,-0.7)  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (-2,1.4 )  {$\bullet$};
        \node    at (-2,-1.4)  {$\bullet$};

        \node    at (-0.6,1)  {$z_k$};
        \node    at (-0.6,-1)  {$\bar z_k$};
        \node  [below]  at (0.7,0.6) {$\Omega_1$};
        \node  [below]  at (0, 0.8) {$\Omega_2$};
        \node  [below]  at (-0.8, 0.6) {$\Omega_3$};
        \node  [below]  at (-0.8,-0) {$\Omega_4$};
        \node  [below]  at (0, -0.4) {$\Omega_5$};
        \node  [below]  at (0.7,0) {$\Omega_6$};
        \node    at (0,0)  {$\cdot$};
        \node  [below,blue]  at (-2.3, 0.9) {  $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}= U_R^{-1}$};
        \node  [below,blue]  at (-2.3,-0.5) {$\mathcal{R}^{(2)}= U_L$};
        \node  [below,blue]  at (2.3,0.9) {$\mathcal{R}^{(2)}= W_R^{-1}$};
        \node  [below,blue]  at (2.3,-0.5) {$\mathcal{R}^{(2)}= W_L$};
        \node [thick,blue] [below]  at (0,2 ) {\footnotesize $ \mathcal{R}^{(2)}=I $};
        \node [thick,blue] [below]  at (0,-1.5) {\footnotesize $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}=I$};
        \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{center}
        \caption{ Definition of $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}$ in different domains.}
        \label{fig5}
        \end{figure}

    \begin{proposition}\label{proR}
       There exists a function $R_j$: $\bar{\Omega}_j\to C$, $j=1,3,4,6$ such that
       \begin{align}
       &R_1(z)=\Bigg\{\begin{array}{ll}
       r(z)T(z)^{-2}, & z\in (z_0,\infty),\\
       r(z_0)T_0(z_0)^{-2}(z-z_0)^{-2i\nu(z_0)}(1-\chi_\mathcal{Z}(z)),  &z\in \Sigma_1,\\
       \end{array} \\
       &R_3(z)=\Bigg\{\begin{array}{ll}
       \dfrac{\overline{r(z)}T_+(z)^2}{1+|r(z)|^2}, & z \in (-\infty,z_0),\\
       \dfrac{\overline{r(z_0)}T_0(z_0)^2}{1+|r(z_0)|^2}(z-z_0)^{2i\nu(z_0)}(1-\chi_\mathcal{Z}(z)),  &z\in \Sigma_2,\\
       \end{array} \\
       &R_4(z)=\Bigg\{\begin{array}{ll}
       \dfrac{r(z)T_-(z)^{-2}}{1+|r(z)|^2}, & z \in (-\infty,z_0), \\
       \dfrac{r(z_0)T_0(z_0)^{-2}}{1+|r(z_0)|^2}(z-z_0)^{-2i\nu(z_0)}(1-\chi_\mathcal{Z}(z)),  &z\in \Sigma_3,\\
       \end{array} \\
       &R_6(z)=\Bigg\{\begin{array}{ll}
        \overline{r(z)}T(z)^{2}, & z\in (z_0,\infty),\\
        \overline{r(z_0)}T_0(z_0)^{2}(z-z_0)^{2i \nu(z_0)}(1-\chi_\mathcal{Z}(z)),  &z\in \Sigma_4,\\
       \end{array}
       \end{align}
      and $R_j$  admit estimates
      \begin{align}
       &|R_j(z)|\lesssim\sin^2(\arg(z-z_0))+\langle \text{\rm{Re}}(z)\rangle^{-1/2},\label{R}\\
       &|\bar{\partial}R_j(z)|\lesssim|\bar{\partial}\chi_\mathcal{Z}(z)|+|r'(\text{\rm{Re}}z)|+|z-z_0|^{-1/2},\label{dbarRj}\\
       & \bar{\partial}R_j(z)=0,\hspace{0.5cm}\text{if } z\in \Omega_2\cup\Omega_5\; \text{or} \;\text{\rm{dist}}(z,\mathcal{Z}\cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}})<\rho/3.
    \end{align}
   \end{proposition}
   The proof of above proposition is the same as that  in \cite{fNLS} because  the form of residue condition doesn't affect this transform $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z)$ .

   Therefore, $m^{(2)}(z)$ satisfies the  mixed $\bar{\partial}$-RH problem as follows:

   \begin{figure}
    \begin{center}
    \begin{tikzpicture}
    \draw[yellow!20, fill=yellow!20] (0,0)--(-2,-2)--(-2.6,-2)--(-2.6, 2)--(-2, 2 )--(0,0);
    \draw[yellow!20, fill=yellow!20] (0,0)--( 2,-2)--( 2.6,-2)--( 2.6, 2)--( 2, 2 )--(0,0);
    \draw[dashed] (-3,0)--(3,0);
    \draw[dashed]  [ -> ](-3,0)--(-1.5,0);
    \draw[dashed]  [   -> ](0,0)--(1.5,0);
    \draw[red,thick ](-2,-2)--(2,2);
    \draw[red,thick,-> ](-2,-2)--(-1,-1);
    \draw[red,thick, -> ](0,0)--(1,1);
    \draw[red,thick ](-2,2)--(2,-2);
    \draw[red,thick,-> ](-2,2)--(-1,1);
    \draw[red,thick, -> ](0,0)--(1,-1);
    \node  [below]  at (2.3,2 ) {$\Sigma_1$};
    \node  [below]  at (-2.3,2 ) {$\Sigma_2$};
    \node  [below]  at (-2.2 ,-1.6) {$\Sigma_3$};
    \node  [below]  at (1.7,-1.7) {$\Sigma_4$};
    \node  [below]  at (0,-0.1) {$z_0$};
    \path [fill=white] (2,1) circle [radius=0.2];
    \path [fill=white] (2,-1) circle [radius=0.2];
    \path [fill=white] (-0.8,0.7) circle [radius=0.2];
    \path [fill=white] (-0.8,-0.7) circle [radius=0.2];
    \path [fill=white] (-2,1.4 )  circle [radius=0.2];
    \path [fill=white] (-2,-1.4 ) circle [radius=0.2];

    \node    at (0.8,1.3)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (0.8,-1.3)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (2,1 )  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (2,-1)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-0.8,0.7 )  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-0.8,-0.7)  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-2,1.4 )  {$\bullet$};
    \node    at (-2,-1.4)  {$\bullet$};

    \node    at (-0.6,1)  {$z_k$};
    \node    at (-0.6,-1)  {$\bar z_k$};
    \node  [below]  at (0.7,0.6) {$\Omega_1$};
    \node  [below]  at (0, 0.8) {$\Omega_2$};
    \node  [below]  at (-0.8, 0.6) {$\Omega_3$};
    \node  [below]  at (-0.8,-0) {$\Omega_4$};
    \node  [below]  at (0, -0.4) {$\Omega_5$};
    \node  [below]  at (0.7,0) {$\Omega_6$};

    \node [thick] [below]  at (3.2, 1.2) {\tiny $ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\ R_1  e^{2it\theta} &1\end{array}  \right)  $};
    \node [thick] [below]  at (-3,-0.3) {\tiny $ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\ R_4e^{2it\theta} &1\end{array}  \right) $};
    \node [thick] [below]  at (-3,1.2) {\tiny $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&  R_3e^{-2it\theta} \\ 0&1\end{array}  \right)$};
    \node [thick] [below]  at (3.3,-0.3) {\tiny $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&  R_6e^{-2it\theta}  \\ 0&1\end{array}  \right)$};
    \end{tikzpicture}
    \end{center}
    \caption{    Jump matrix  $v^{(2)}$. Yellow  parts support  $\bar\partial$ derivative:   $\bar\partial \mathcal{R}^{(2)}\not=0$;
    White parts don't support $\bar\partial$ derivative: $\bar\partial \mathcal{R}^{(2)}=0$.}
    \label{fv2jump}
    \end{figure}

   \noindent\textbf{RHP4}.  Find a matrix-valued function $m^{(2)}(z)=m^{(2)}(z;x,t)$ which satisfies
   \begin{itemize}
       \item[(a)]$m^{(2)}(z)$ is continuous in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \left( \Sigma^{(2)}\cup \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}} \right)$.
       \item[(b)]$m^{(2)}(z)$ has the following jump condition $m^{(2)}_+(z)=m^{(2)}_-(z)v^{(2)}(z), \hspace{0.5cm}z \in \Sigma^{(2)}$,
       where
       \begin{align}
        v^{(2)}(z) & = \left(\mathcal{R}^{(2)}_-\right)^{-1}(z) v^{(1)}(z)\mathcal{R}^{(2)}_+(z)  \notag\\
            &= \begin{cases}
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1 & 0\\
            R_1(z)e^{2it\theta} & 1
            \end{array}\right), & z\in \Sigma_1,\\
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                1 & R_3(z)e^{-2it\theta}\\
                0 & 1
                \end{array}\right), & z\in \Sigma_2,\\
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1 & 0\\
            R_4(z)e^{2it\theta} & 1
           \end{array}\right),  &z\in \Sigma_3,\\
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                1 & R_6(z)e^{-2it\theta}\\
                0 & 1
                \end{array}\right), & z\in \Sigma_4.
            \end{cases} \label{v2}
        \end{align}
        See Figure \ref{fv2jump}.

        \item[(c)]$m^{(2)}(z)=I+\mathcal{O}(z^{-1}),	\qquad  \text{as} \;  z \to  \infty $.
        \item[(d)]For $\mathbb{C}\setminus (\Sigma^{(2)}\cup \mathcal{Z}\cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}})$,
        \begin{equation}
            \bar{\partial}m^{(2)}(z)=m^{(2)} (z)\bar{\partial} \mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z),
        \end{equation}
        where
        \begin{equation}
            \bar{\partial} \mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z)=\left\{\begin{array}{lllll}
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1 & 0\\
            -\bar{\partial}R_1(z)e^{2it\theta} & 1
            \end{array}\right), & z\in \Omega_1,\\
            \\
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                1 & -\bar{\partial}R_3(z)e^{-2it\theta}\\
                0 & 1
                \end{array}\right), & z\in \Omega_3,\\
                \\
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            1 & 0\\
            \bar{\partial}R_4(z)e^{2it\theta} & 1
           \end{array}\right),  &z\in \Omega_4,\\
            \\
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                1 &\bar{\partial} R_6(z)e^{-2it\theta}\\
                0 & 1
                \end{array}\right), & z\in \Omega_6,\\
                \\
                \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                    0& 0\\
                    0 & 0
                    \end{array}\right), &z\in \Omega_2\cup\Omega_5.\\
            \end{array}\right.
            \end{equation}
        \item[(e)]$m^{(2)}(z)$  satisfies the following condition at double poles $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\bar{z}_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$:
        \begin{align}
            & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(2)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to z_k}   \left(m^{(2)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)}\\
                 0 & 0
                 \end{array}\right)\\
            & + \lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 &  -4 A_k^{-1} \left((T^{-1})''(z_k)\right)^{-2} \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) + \frac{2 (T^{-1})'''(z_k)}{3 (T^{-1})''(z_k)}  \right]e^{-2it \theta(z_k)} \\
                0 &   0
                \end{array} \right) ,  \quad k\in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
            & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(2)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to z_k} \left(m^{(2)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 0\\
                 A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
                 \end{array}\right) \\
            & + \lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 &  0\\
               A_k T^{-2}(z_k) \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) -\frac{2 T'(z_k)}{ T(z_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(z_k)}  &   0
                \end{array} \right),    \quad k\in \Delta^+_{z_0};  \\
           & \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m^{(2)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k}  \left(m^{(2)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 0\\
             -4 \bar{A_k}^{-1}\left(T''(\bar{z}_k)\right)^{-2} e^{2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}   & 0
             \end{array}\right)\\
           &+ \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 0\\
                4 \bar{A}_k^{-1} \left(T''(\bar{z}_k)\right)^{-2} \left[ \bar{B}_k-2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k) + \frac{2 T'''(\bar{z}_k)}{3 T''(\bar{z}_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}  &   0
                \end{array} \right),  \quad k\in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
            & \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m^{(2)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k}   \left(m^{(2)}\right)'(z)\left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & - \bar{A}_k T^2(\bar{z}_k) e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
                0 & 0
                 \end{array}\right)\\
            & + \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 &  - \bar{A}_k T^2(\bar{z}_k) \left[ \bar{B}_k-2it \theta'(\bar{z}_k) + \frac{2 T'(\bar{z}_k)}{T(\bar{z}_k)}  \right] e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} \\
              0&   0
                \end{array} \right),    \quad k\in \Delta^+_{z_0};\\
          \end{align}
 \begin{align}
   & \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(2)}(z) = \begin{cases}
        \lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 4 A_k^{-1} \left(\left(T^{-1}\right)''(z_k)\right)^{-2} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)}\\
             0 & 0
             \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
             \lim_{z\to z_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & 0\\
                 A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
                 \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^+_{z_0};
        \end{cases}\\
   & \underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(2)}(z) = \begin{cases}
        \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 0\\
            -4 \bar{A}_k^{-1}\left(T''(\bar{z}_k)\right)^{-2} e^{2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)} & 0
             \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^-_{z_0};\\
             \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} m^{(2)}(z) \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 & - \bar{A}_k T^2(\bar{z}_k) e^{-2it \theta(\bar{z}_k)}\\
                0 & 0
                 \end{array}\right), & k \in \Delta^+_{z_0}.
        \end{cases}

    \end{align}
  \end{itemize}
  \begin{proof}
    (a)-(d) are easy to be checked, so here we only give a brief proof to (e).
    It is sufficient to prove the case where $k \in \Delta^+_{z_0}$ and $z_k\in \mathbb{C}^+$, since the proof of others is similar.
    In this case, any $z_k \in \Omega_1$ is not the pole of $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}$, so
   \begin{align*}
    & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(2)}(z)  = \lim_{z\to z_k}  \left(m^{(1)}\right)' \mathcal{R}^{(2)} \left(\mathcal{R}^{(2)}\right)^{-1}  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 & 0\\
         A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)} & 0
         \end{array}\right)  \mathcal{R}^{(2)}\\

      & + \lim_{z\to z_k}    m^{(1)}\mathcal{R}^{(2)} \left(\mathcal{R}^{(2)}\right)^{-1} \left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 &  0\\
       A_k T^{-2}(z_k) \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) -\frac{2 T'(z_k)}{ T(z_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(z_k)}  &   0
        \end{array} \right)  \mathcal{R}^{(2)}.

    \end{align*}
   Substitute $\left(m^{(2)}\right)'=\left(m^{(1)}\right)'\mathcal{R}^{(2)} + m^{(1)} \left(\mathcal{R}^{(2)}\right)' $ and $\left(\mathcal{R}^{(2)}\right)'= 0$ into the above equation, and  we  finish the proof.
   \end{proof}

\section{Decomposition of the mixed $\bar{\partial}$-RH problem }
    In this section, we will find the solution of the mixed $\bar{\partial}$-RH problem $m^{(2)}$ as follows:

    Step 1: Separate zero and non-zero parts of $\bar{\partial} \mathcal{R}^{(2)}$.
    Thus, we decompose $m^{(2)}$ into a pure Riemann-Hilbert problem with $\bar{\partial} \mathcal{R}^{(2)}=0$, which we denote by $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$, and a pure  $\bar{\partial}$ problem with $\bar{\partial} \mathcal{R}^{(2)} \neq 0$, which we denote by $m^{(3)}$.
    \begin{align}
        m^{(2)}=
       \left\{\begin{matrix}
       \bar\partial \mathcal{R}^{(2)} =0\rightarrow  \ m^{(2)}_{RHP},\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \vspace{4mm}\cr
       \bar\partial \mathcal{R}^{(2)} \not=0\rightarrow  \ m^{(3)}=m^{(2)} \left( m^{(2)}_{RHP}\right)^{-1}.
       \end{matrix}\right.
       \end{align}
       The RH problem for the $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$ is as follows:\\
       \noindent\textbf{RHP5}.  Find a matrix-valued function $m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)$ which satisfies
       \begin{itemize}
           \item[(a)]$m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \left( \Sigma^{(2)}\cup \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}} \right)$;
           \item[(b)]$m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)$ has the following jump condition $m^{(2)}_{RHP+}(z)=m^{(2)}_{RHP-}(z)v^{(2)}(z), \hspace{0.5cm}z \in \Sigma^{(2)}$,
           where $v^{(2)}(z)$ has been given by (\ref{v2});
            \item[(c)]$m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z) \to I,	\quad  \text{as} \;  z \to  \infty $;
            \item[(d)]$\bar{\partial}\mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z)=0$, \quad for $ z\in \mathbb{C}$;
            \item[(e)] The residue condition and the  coefficient of the negative twice power of the Laurent expansion have the same form as $m^{(2)}$ with $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$ replacing $m^{(2)}$.

  \end{itemize}

    Step 2: To  prove the existence  of the solution $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$, we separate the jump line from the pole.
    Suppose $\epsilon_{z_0}=\left\{ z:|z-z_0|<\rho/2 \right\}$.
    Let $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$ be further decomposed into two parts:

    \begin{equation}\label{m2rhp}
        m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
        E(z)m^{(out)}(z), & z\notin \epsilon_{z_0},\\
        E(z)m^{(z_0)}(z),  &z\in \epsilon_{z_0}.\\
        \end{array}\right.
        \end{equation}
    The outer model $m^{(out)}(z)$ is constructed by ignoring the jumps in  RHP5, which can be approximated by solitons on the discrete spectrum.  The inner model $m^{(z_0)}(z)$ has the same jump with RHP5, which can be approximated by the parabolic cylinder model in continuous spectrum.

    Step 3: Find the  solution and its asymptotic behavior of the pure  $\bar{\partial}$ problem $m^{(3)}(z)$.

  \subsection{The pure RH problem and constructions of its solution}

\subsubsection{The construction of outer  model }
    By definition (\ref{m2rhp}), $m^{(out)}(z)$ is the solution of $m^{(2)}(z)$ in the soliton region, which satisfies the following RH problem.

\noindent\textbf{RHP6}.  Find a matrix-valued function $m^{(out)}(z)$ which satisfies
  \begin{itemize}
      \item[(a)]$m^{(out)}(z)$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \left( \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}} \right)$;
      \item[(b)]$m^{(out)}(z)=I + O(z^{-1}),	\quad   z \to  \infty $;
      \item[(c)]$m^{(out)}(z)$ has double poles at each $z_k\in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\bar{z}_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$, which satisfies the residue relations in (e) of RHP4 with $m^{(out)}(z)$ replacing $m^{(2)}(z)$.
  \end{itemize}

   In order to show the existence and uniqueness of solution of $m^{(out)}(z)$,  we first consider the reflectionless case of the RHP1.
   In this case, $r(z)=0$ and $v(z)=I$, then $m_+=m_-$. Thus, RHP1 of NLS equation has no jumps in the whole plane and is analytic in $\mathbb{C}$ except for $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\bar{z}_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$.
   The RHP1 can be equivalently rewritten as the following solvable RH problem:

   \noindent\textbf{RHP7}. Given discrete data $\sigma_d= \left\{(z_k,c_{i,k}), i=0,1, z_k\in \mathcal{Z} \right\}^N_{k=1}$. Find a matrix-valued function $m(z|\sigma_d)$ which has the following properties:
   \begin{itemize}
       \item[(a)]$m(z|\sigma_d)$ is analytical in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \left( \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}} \right)$;
       \item[(b)]$m(z|\sigma_d)=I + O(z^{-1}),	\quad   z \to  \infty $;
       \item[(c)]$m(z|\sigma_d)$ satisfies the following relations at each double pole  $z_k\in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\bar{z}_k \in \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$
   \begin{align}
    & \res_{z=z_k} m(z|\sigma_d)= \lim_{z\to z_k} \left[ m(z|\sigma_d) n_{0,k} + m'(z|\sigma_d) n_{1,k} \right], \label{rlres}\\
    & \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m(z|\sigma_d)= \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} \left[ m(z|\sigma_d) \sigma_2 \overline{n_{0,k}} \sigma_2 + m'(z|\sigma_d) \sigma_2\overline{n_{1,k}}\sigma_2  \right],\\
    &\underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m(z|\sigma_d) = \lim_{z\to z_k}  m(z|\sigma_d) n_{1,k},\label{rlp2}\\
   & \underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}} m(z|\sigma_d) = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k}  m(z|\sigma_d) \sigma_2 \overline{n_{1,k}}\sigma_2,
   \end{align}
   where
   \begin{equation}
        n_{0,k}=  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 &  0\\
            \gamma_{0,k}(x,t) & 0
             \end{array}\right),\;
       n_{1,k}=  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                0 &  0\\
                \gamma_{1,k}(x,t) & 0
                 \end{array}\right),
   \end{equation}
    with
    \begin{align}
    &\gamma_{0,k}(x,t)=c_{0,k}e^{2it \theta(z_k)},\\
    &\gamma_{1,k}(x,t)= c_{1,k} e^{2it \theta(z_k)},\\
    &c_{0,k} =A_k \left(B_k+2it \theta'(z_k)\right) ,\\
    &c_{1,k}= A_k.
    \end{align}
    \end{itemize}

    \begin{proposition} Given discrete data $\sigma_d= \left\{(z_k,c_{i,k}), i=0,1, z_k\in \mathcal{Z} \right\}^N_{k=1}$, there exists a unique solution of RHP7 for each $(x,t)\in \mathbb{R}^2$.
    \begin{equation}
        q_{sol}(x,t;\sigma_d)=2i \lim_{z\to \infty} \left(zm(z|\sigma_d)\right)_{12}.
    \end{equation}
    \end{proposition}
    \begin{proof}
        The proof includes two parts. One is for the uniqueness, and the other is for the existence.
        The proof of uniqueness is relatively simple, here we only briefly introduce the steps and mainly prove the existence.\\
        Uniqueness: To prove the uniqueness of this solution, we first need to introduce a transformation to remove singularity of $m(z|\sigma_d)$ and then use Liouville's theorem to provide the uniqueness.
        Existence:

    We rewrite  $\res_{z=z_k} m(z|\sigma_d)$ and $\underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m(z|\sigma_d)$ into the following form:
    \begin{equation}
        \res_{z=z_k} m(z|\sigma_d)=a^{(0)}(z_k)n_{0,k}+a^{(1)}(z_k) n_{1,k}=   \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            a^{(0)}_{12}(z_k)\gamma_{0,k} + a^{(1)}_{12}(z_k) \gamma_{1,k} &  0\\
            a^{(0)}_{22}(z_k)\gamma_{0,k} + a^{(1)}_{22}(z_k) \gamma_{1,k} & 0
             \end{array}\right) \triangleq  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
               \alpha_{1,k} &  0\\
               \beta_{1,k} & 0
                 \end{array}\right),
    \end{equation}
    \begin{equation}
        \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m(z|\sigma_d) = a^{(2)}(z_k)n_{1,k} = \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            a^{(2)}_{12}(z_k)\gamma_{1,k} &  0\\
            a^{(2)}_{22}(z_k)\gamma_{1,k} & 0
             \end{array}\right)\triangleq  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                \alpha_{2,k} &  0\\
                \beta_{2,k} & 0
                  \end{array}\right).
    \end{equation}

    From the symmetry  $m(z|\sigma_d)=\sigma_2 \overline{m(\bar{z}|\sigma_d)} \sigma_2 $, we know
    \begin{equation}
      \res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m(z|\sigma_d) = \sigma_2 \left[\overline{a^{(0)}(z_k)n_{0,k}+a^{(1)}(z_k) n_{1,k}}      \right]\sigma_2 =\left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 &  -\bar{\beta}_{1,k}\\
        0 & \bar{\alpha}_{1,k}
          \end{array}\right),
    \end{equation}
    \begin{equation}
        \underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}} m(z|\sigma_d)=  \sigma_2 \overline{a^{(2)}(z_k)n_{2,k}} \sigma_2 = \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 &  -\bar{\beta}_{2,k}\\
            0 & \bar{\alpha}_{2,k}
              \end{array}\right).
    \end{equation}

    Notice that when $r(z)=0$, $v(z)=I$. Therefore, the above RH problem for $m(z|\sigma_d)$ has the following solution
    \begin{equation}\label{Taymrl}
        \begin{split}
        m(z|\sigma_d) &= I + \sum^{N}_{k=1}  \Big[ \frac{1}{z-z_k}  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            \alpha_{1,k} &  0\\
            \beta_{1,k} & 0
              \end{array}\right) +\frac{1}{(z-z_k)^2}  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                \alpha_{2,k} &  0\\
                \beta_{2,k} & 0
                  \end{array}\right) \\
                 & + \frac{1}{z-\bar{z}_k}  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                    0 &   -\bar{\beta}_{1,k}\\
                    0 & \bar{\alpha}_{1,k}
                      \end{array}\right) +\frac{1}{(z-\bar{z}_k)^2}  \left(\begin{array}{ll}
                        0 &  -\bar{\beta}_{2,k}\\
                        0 & \bar{\alpha}_{2,k}
                          \end{array}\right) \Big].
          \end{split}
    \end{equation}
    Substituting (\ref{Taymrl}) into (\ref{rlres}) and (\ref{rlp2}) respectively, we get the following linear equations after normalization

   \begin{align}
   & \alpha_{1,j}+ \sum_{k=1}^N \Bigg[ \gamma_{0,j} \big( \frac{\bar{\beta}_{1,k}}{z_j-\bar{z}_k}  + \frac{\bar{\beta}_{2,k}}{(z_j-\bar{z}_k)^2}\big) - \gamma_{1,j} \big( \frac{\bar{\beta}_{1,k}}{(z_j-\bar{z}_k)^2}  + \frac{2\bar{\beta}_{2,k}}{(z_j-\bar{z}_k)^3}\big) \Bigg] =0, \label{le1}\\
   & \bar{\beta}_{1,j}- \sum_{k=1}^N \Bigg[ \bar{\gamma}_{0,j} \big( \frac{\alpha_{1,k}}{\bar{z}_j-z_k}  + \frac{\alpha_{2,k}}{(\bar{z}_j-z_k)^2}\big) - \bar{\gamma}_{1,j} \big( \frac{\alpha_{1,k}}{(\bar{z}_j-z_k)^2}  + \frac{2\alpha_{2,k}}{(\bar{z}_j-z_k)^3}\big) \Bigg] =\bar{\gamma}_{0,j},\\
   & \alpha_{2,j}+ \sum_{k=1}^N  \Bigg[ \gamma_{2,j} \big(  \frac{\bar{\beta}_{1,k}}{z_j-\bar{z}_k}  + \frac{\bar{\beta}_{2,k}}{(z_j-\bar{z}_k)^2}\big) \Bigg]  =0,\\
   & \bar{\beta}_{2,j} - \sum_{k=1}^N \Bigg[\bar{\gamma}_{2,j} \big( \frac{\alpha_{1,k}}{\bar{z}_j-z_k}  + \frac{\alpha_{2,k}}{(\bar{z}_j-z_k)^2}\big) \Bigg] =\bar{\gamma}_{2,j} \label{le4}.
   \end{align}
   Next, we transform the above linear equations (\ref{le1})-(\ref{le4}) into matrix form. Let
   \begin{align*}
    &\alpha_1 = (\alpha_{1,1}, \cdots,\alpha_{1,N} )^T,\;\alpha_2 = (\alpha_{2,1}, \cdots,\alpha_{2,N} )^T,\;\\
    &\bar{\beta}_1 = (\bar{\beta}_{1,1}, \cdots,\bar{\beta}_{1,N} )^T,\;\bar{\beta}_2 = (\bar{\beta}_{2,1}, \cdots,\bar{\beta}_{2,N} )^T,\\

   & A =(a_{ij})_{N \times N},\; a_{ij}= \frac{\gamma_{0,i} }{z_i-\bar{z}_j}-  \frac{\gamma_{1,i} }{(z_i-\bar{z}_j)^2},\; i,j=1,\cdots,N,\\
   & B =(b_{ij})_{N \times N},\; b_{ij}= \frac{\gamma_{0,i} }{(z_i-\bar{z}_j)^2}-  \frac{2\gamma_{1,i} }{(z_i-\bar{z}_j)^3},\; i,j=1,\cdots,N,\\
   & C =(c_{ij})_{N \times N},\; c_{ij}= \frac{\gamma_{1,i} }{z_i-\bar{z}_j},\; i,j=1,\cdots,N,\\
   & D =(d_{ij})_{N \times N},\; d_{ij}= \frac{\gamma_{1,i} }{(z_i-\bar{z}_j)^2},\; i,j=1,\cdots,N.
\end{align*}
  Thus, the above linear equations (\ref{le1})-(\ref{le4}) are equivalent to the following partitioned matrix equation
  \begin{equation}\label{ble}
    \left(\begin{array}{llll}
        I_N &   0 & A & B\\
         0 & I_N & C & D \\
         - A^* & - B^* &I_N &0\\
         -C^* & -D^* & 0 & I_N\\
           \end{array}\right)     \left(\begin{array}{llll}
            \alpha_1\\
            \alpha_2 \\
             \beta_1\\
            \beta_2\\
               \end{array}\right) =  \left(\begin{array}{llll}
                0\\
                0 \\
                 \bar{\gamma}_0\\
                 \bar{\gamma}_1\\
                   \end{array}\right).
  \end{equation}

It is easy to prove that the coefficient matrix of the above equation is positive definite.  According to the Cramer's rule, the solution of the (\ref{ble}) exists and is unique.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
    RHP7 is a special case  in Zhang's paper \cite{hpnls} with $n_1=n_2=\cdots=n_N=2$, but the method of proof in his article is completely different from ours.
\end{remark}

 For convenience, let $\Delta\subseteqq\left\lbrace 1,2,\cdots,N\right\rbrace $, $\nabla= \Delta^c = \left\lbrace 1,2,\cdots,N\right\rbrace \setminus \Delta$ and define
 \begin{equation}
 a_\Delta(z)=\prod_{k\in\Delta }\left(\dfrac{z-z_k}{z-\bar{z}_k}\right)^2,\; a_\nabla(z)= \frac{s_{11}}{ a_\Delta(z)}\prod_{k\in\nabla }\left(\dfrac{z-z_k}{z-\bar{z}_k}\right)^2.
 \end{equation}
Then we make a transform
   \begin{equation}\label{renormalization}
    m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)=m\left(z|\sigma_d\right)a_\Delta(z)^{\sigma_3}.
    \end{equation}
As we can see from the above expression, the  transformation (\ref{renormalization})   splits the poles between the columns of $m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)$
according to the choice of $\Delta$, and it satisfies the following nonreflective RH problem.

\noindent\textbf{RHP8}. Given discrete data $\sigma_d^\Delta= \left\{\left(z_k,c^\Delta_{i,k}\right), i=0,1, z_k\in \mathcal{Z} \right\}^N_{k=1}$. Find a matrix-valued function $m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)$ which has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
    \item[(a)]$m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)$ is analytical in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \left( \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}} \right)$;
    \item[(b)]$m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)=I + O(z^{-1}),	\quad   z \to  \infty $;
    \item[(c)]$m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)$ has the following relations at discrete spectrum $ \mathcal{Z} \cup \bar{\mathcal{Z}}$
\begin{align}
 &\res_{z=z_k} m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)= \lim_{z\to z_k} \left[ m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right) n^\Delta_{0,k} + \left(m^\Delta\right)'\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right) n^\Delta_{1,k} \right], \label{rlresp}\\
 &\res_{z=\bar{z}_k} m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)= \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k} \left[ m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right) \sigma_2 \overline{n^\Delta_{0,k}} \sigma_2 + \left(m^\Delta\right)'\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)\sigma_2\overline{n^\Delta_{1,k}}\sigma_2  \right],\\
 &\underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right) = \lim_{z\to z_k}  m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)n^\Delta_{1,k},\label{rlp2p}\\
 &\underset{z=\bar{z}_k}{P_{-2}} m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right) = \lim_{z\to \bar{z}_k}  m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)\sigma_2 \overline{n^\Delta_{1,k}}\sigma_2,
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
     n^\Delta_{0,k}= \begin{cases} \left(\begin{array}{ll}
         0 &  \gamma^\Delta_{0,k}(x,t)\\
         0 & 0
          \end{array}\right),\; & \text{ $k \in \Delta$,}\\
          \left(\begin{array}{ll}
            0 & 0\\
            \gamma^\Delta_{0,k}(x,t) & 0
             \end{array}\right),\; & \text{ $k \in \nabla$,}
            \end{cases}
 \end{equation}
 \begin{equation}
    n^\Delta_{1,k}=\begin{cases} \left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 &  \gamma^\Delta_{1,k}(x,t)\\
        0 & 0
         \end{array}\right),\; & \text{ $k \in \Delta$,}\\
         \left(\begin{array}{ll}
           0 & 0\\
           \gamma^\Delta_{1,k}(x,t) & 0
            \end{array}\right),\; & \text{ $k \in \nabla$,}
           \end{cases}
\end{equation}
 with
 \begin{align}
    & \gamma^\Delta_{0,k}(x,t) =\begin{cases}
 c^\Delta_{0,k}e^{-2it \theta(z_k)},\; & \text{ $k \in \Delta$,}\\
 c^\Delta_{0,k}e^{2it \theta(z_k)},\; & \text{ $k \in  \nabla$,}
\end{cases}  \\
& c^\Delta_{0,k}  =\begin{cases}
-4A_k^{-1} a''_\Delta(z_k)^{-2} \left[ 2it \theta'(z_k) + B_k +\frac{2a'''_\Delta(z_k)}{3a''_\Delta(z_k)}     \right] ,\; & \text{ $k \in \Delta$,}\\
2 b_k s''_{11}(z_k)a''_\nabla(z_k)^{-2} \left[ 2it \theta'(z_k) + B_k -\frac{2a'''_\nabla(z_k)}{3a''_\nabla(z_k)}     \right] ,\; & \text{ $k \in \nabla$,}
\end{cases}\\
& \gamma^\Delta_{1,k}(x,t) =\begin{cases}
 c^\Delta_{1,k} e^{-2it \theta(z_k)},\; & \text{ $k \in \Delta$,}\\
 c^\Delta_{1,k} e^{2it \theta(z_k)},\; & \text{ $k \in  \nabla$,}
\end{cases} \\
& c^\Delta_{1,k} =\begin{cases}
    4A_k^{-1} a''_\Delta(z_k)^{-2} ,\; & \text{ $k \in \Delta$,}\\
    b_k s''_{11}(z_k)a''_\nabla(z_k)^{-2},\; & \text{ $k \in \nabla$.}
\end{cases}
 \end{align}
 \end{itemize}
The proof is similar to the proof of RHP3.

\begin{proposition}
    For nonreflective scattering data $\sigma_d^\Delta= \left\{\left(z_k,c^\Delta_{i,k}\right), i=0,1, z_k\in \mathcal{Z} \right\}^N_{k=1}$, RHP8 owns a unique solution and
\begin{equation}\label{qsolt}
    q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^\Delta\right)= 2i \lim_{z\to \infty} \left(zm^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\triangle\right) \right)_{12}  = 2i \lim_{z\to \infty} \left(zm\left(z|\sigma_d\right) \right)_{12}=    q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
    Since the transformation (\ref{renormalization}) is explicit, from Proposition 3, we know this RHP8  has a unique solution.
    Using transformations (\ref{mTay}) and (\ref{renormalization}), we can obtain
    \begin{equation}
        m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)=I +\frac{1}{2iz} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
            -\int^{\infty}_{x} |q|^2 dx + 8 \Sigma_{k \in \Delta} \text{Im}z_k & q(x,t)\\
            \bar{q}(x,t) & \int^{\infty}_{x} |q|^2 dx -8 \Sigma_{k \in \Delta} \text{Im}z_k
            \end{array}\right)+o\left(z^{-1}\right).
    \end{equation}
    Hence, the formula (\ref{qsolt}) can be found.
\end{proof}

    In order to  establish the relationship between $m^{(out)}(z)$ and $m^\Delta\left(z|\sigma_d^\Delta\right)$, we take  $\Delta =\Delta^-_{z_0}$ and replace the scattering data $\sigma_d^\Delta$ with  scattering data
    \begin{align}\label{sigout}
    \sigma_d^{(out)}=\left\lbrace \left(z_k,\tilde{c}_{i,k}\right) ,  \tilde{c}_{i,k}=c_{i,k}\delta(z_k)^2, \; i=0,1 \right\rbrace _{k=1}^N.
    \end{align}
    Notice that the conditions defining $m^{(out)}(z)$ are identical to those defining $m^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{(out)}\right)$, we can draw a conclusion.
    \begin{corollary}
        There exists a unique solution  for the RHP5. Moreover,
       \begin{equation}\label{moutmz0}
       m^{(out)}(z)=m^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{(out)}\right),
       \end{equation}
       where the scattering data  $\sigma_d^{(out)}$ is given by (\ref{sigout}).
       In addition, the corresponding N-soliton solution satisfies
       \begin{equation*}
        q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{(out)}\right)=q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right).
       \end{equation*}
    \end{corollary}

    Next, we consider the large $z$ behavior of the above solutions.

\begin{figure}
    \begin{center}
   \begin{tikzpicture}
           \draw[yellow!20, fill=yellow!20] (0.6,0)--(1.5,2.5)--(-1.0,2.5)--(-0.5,0)--(-1.4,-2.5)--(1.0,-2.5)--(0.6,0);
           \draw[thick,->](-3.5,0)--(3.5,0)node[right]{$x$};
           \draw[thick,->](-1.5,-3)--(-1.5,3)node[right]{$t$};
           \draw[](0.6,0)--(1.5,2.5)node[right]{$x=v_2t+x_2$};
           \draw[](-0.5,0)--(-1.4,-2.5)node[left]{$x=v_2t+x_1$};
           \draw[](-0.5,0)--(-1.0,2.5)node[left]{$x=v_1t+x_1$};
           \draw[](0.6,0)--(1.0,-2.5)node[right]{$x=v_1t+x_2$};
           \draw[](0,0)--(-0.8,0);
           \draw[](-0.8,0)--(-1.8,0);
           \draw[](0,0)--(0.8,0);
           \draw[](0.8,0)--(1.8,0);
           \coordinate (A) at (0.9,0);
           \coordinate (B) at (-0.8,0);
           \coordinate (I) at (0,2);
           \fill (A)  node[below] {$x_2$};
           \fill (B)  node[below] {$x_1$};
           \fill (I) circle (0pt) node[below] {$\mathcal{S}$};
           \label{figzero}
           \end{tikzpicture}
       \caption{ Space-time  $\mathcal{S}(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)$ }
       \label{figC(I)}
   \end{center}
   \end{figure}

\begin{proposition}
 Given discrete scattering data $\sigma_d=\left\{ \left(z_k,c_{i,k}\right),i=0,1, z_k\in \mathcal{Z} \right\}_{k=1}^N$, pairs of points $y_1, y_2$ with $y_1\leq y_2\in \mathbb{R}$ and velocities $v_1, v_2$ with $v_1\leq v_2 \in \mathbb{R}$,  we  define the  cone
 \begin{equation}\label{coneS}
 \mathcal{S}(y_1,y_2,v_1,v_2):=\left\lbrace (y,t)\in R^2|y=y_0+vt, \ y_0\in[y_1,y_2]\text{, }v\in[v_1,v_2]\right\rbrace.
 \end{equation}
See Figure \ref{figC(I)}.

 Take $I=[-v_2/2,-v_1/2]$. Then, when $t\to \infty$ with $(y,t)\in \mathcal{S}(y_1,y_2,v_1,v_2)$, we have
 \begin{equation}
 m^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d\right) = \left( I+\mathcal{O}(e^{-2\mu|t|})\right) m^{\Delta^-_{z_0}(I)}\left(z;y,t|\sigma_d^-(I)\right)
\end{equation}

where
\begin{align}
&\sigma_d^-(I)=\left\{ \left(z_k,c_{i,k}(I)\right), i=0,1, z_k\in  \Delta_{z_0}^-(I) \right\}_{k=1}^N,\\
 &   \mu=\mu(I)=\underset{z_k\in \mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{Z}(I) }{\min}\left\lbrace \text{\rm{Im}}(z_k)\text{\rm{dist}}( \text{\rm{Re}}{(z_k)},I) \right\rbrace=\underset{z_k\in \mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{Z}(I),i=1,2}{\min}\left\lbrace 2\text{\rm{Im}}(z_k)|v_i-v_{z_k}|\right\rbrace.
\end{align}
An example has been given in Figure \ref{figS}.
\end{proposition}

\begin{figure}
    \begin{center}
   \begin{tikzpicture}
           \filldraw[yellow!20,line width=2] (-1,-2.4) rectangle (1,2.4);
           \draw[thick,->](-3.5,0)--(3.5,0)node[right]{Re$z$};
           \draw[](1,-2.5)--(1,2.5);
           \node[below] at (-1.5,0) {$-\frac{v_2}{2}$};
           \draw[]    (-1,-2.5)--(-1,2.5);
           \node[below] at (1.5,0)  {$-\frac{v_1}{2}$};
             \node[red]    at (0.3,0) {$\ast$};
           \node    at (0.3,-0.3)  {$z_0$};

           \coordinate (A) at (0.5,1.2);
           \coordinate (B) at (0.6,-1.2);
           \coordinate (C) at (1.5,1.6);
           \coordinate (D) at (1.6,-1.6);
           \coordinate (E) at (-2.2,0.8);
           \coordinate (F) at (-2.2,-0.8);
           \coordinate (G) at (-0.3,1.9);
           \coordinate (H) at (-0.3,-1.9);
           \coordinate (I) at (2.5,1);
           \coordinate (J) at (2.5,-1);
           \fill (A) circle (1pt) node[right] {$z_1$};
           \fill (B) circle (1pt) node[right] {$\bar{z}_1$};
           \fill (G) circle (1pt) node[left] {$z_3$};
           \fill (H) circle (1pt) node[left] {$\bar{z}_3$};
           \fill (C) circle (1pt) node[right] {$z_2$};
           \fill (D) circle (1pt) node[right] {$\bar{z}_2$};
           \fill (E) circle (1pt) node[right] {$z_4$};
           \fill (F) circle (1pt) node[right] {$\bar{z}_4$};
           \fill (I) circle (1pt) node[right] {$z_5$};
           \fill (J) circle (1pt) node[right] {$\bar{z}_5$};
           \draw [red] (C) circle [radius=0.2];
           \draw [red,  -> ]  (1.7,1.6) to  [out=90, in=0]  (1.5,1.8);
           \draw [red] (D) circle [radius=0.2];
            \draw [red,  -> ]  (1.8,-1.6) to  [out=90, in=0]  (1.6,-1.4);
   \draw [red] (I) circle [radius=0.2];
           \draw [red,  -> ]  (2.7,1) to  [out=90, in=0]  (2.5, 1.2);
   \draw [red] (J) circle [radius=0.2];
           \draw [red,  -> ]  (2.7,-1) to  [out=90, in=0]  (2.5, -0.8);
   \draw [red] (E) circle [radius=0.2];
           \draw [red,  -> ]  (-2,0.8) to  [out=90, in=0]  (-2.2,1);
   \draw [red] (F) circle [radius=0.2];
           \draw [red,  -> ]  (-2,-0.8) to  [out=90, in=0]  (-2.2,-0.6);
   \end{tikzpicture}
   \caption{ Fix $v_1$ and $v_2$ so that $v_1<v_2$. $I=[-v_2/2,-v_1/2]$.  For example, the original data has five pairs of discrete spectrum, but inside
   cone $\mathcal{S}(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)$,  the solution is asymptotically described by a two-soliton solution  $q_{sol}(x,t;\sigma_d(I))$ with discrete spectrum in $\mathcal{Z}(I)=\left\{z_1, z_3\right\}$.}
       \label{figS}
    \end{center}
   \end{figure}

\begin{proof}
    Let
    $$\Delta^-(I)=\left\lbrace k||z_k|<-v_2/2\right\rbrace,  \ \
    \Delta^+(I)=\left\lbrace k||z_k| >-v_1/2\right\rbrace.$$
    For $t>0$, $(x,t)\in \mathcal{S}(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)$, we have
    $$ -v_2/2 < z_0+x_0/(2t)<-v_1/2,$$
    and as $t \to \infty$, $x_0/(2t)\to 0 $, $-v_2/2<z_0 < -v_1/2.$
    By the residue condition and the coefficient of negative second power of Laurent  expansion, it is easy to calculate that
    \begin{equation}\label{nest}
        \parallel n_{i,k}^{\Delta^\pm(I)}\parallel= \begin{cases}
            \mathcal{O}(1), & z_k \in \mathcal{Z}(I),\\
            \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-4\mu|t|}\right), & z_k \in \mathcal{Z} \setminus \mathcal{Z}(I).
        \end{cases}
    \end{equation}
    For each $z_k\in \mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{Z}(I)$, we introduce small disks $D_k$ whose radius are sufficiently small that they are non-overlapping.
    We define a function
    \begin{equation}
        \Upsilon(z)= \begin{cases}
            I - \frac{1}{z-z_k}n^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}_{0,k} -\frac{1}{(z-z_k)^2}n^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}_{2,k}, & z\in D_k,\\
            I -  \sigma_2 \left[ \frac{1}{z-\bar{z}_k}\bar{n}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}_{0,k} -\frac{1}{(z-\bar{z}_k)^2}\bar{n}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}_{2,k} \right] \sigma_2, & z\in \bar{D}_k,\\
            I, & \text{elsewhere}.
        \end{cases}
    \end{equation}
    Then we introduce a transformation
    \begin{equation}\label{nthm}
       \hat{m}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right)=  {m}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right) \Upsilon(z).
    \end{equation}
    Furthermore, $ \hat{m}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right)$ has jumps across each boundary of $D_k$ and $\bar{D}_k$,
    \begin{equation}
        \hat{m}_+^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right)=\hat{m}_-^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right) \hat{v}(z), \quad z \in \partial D_k \cup \partial \bar{D}_k,
    \end{equation}
    with
    \begin{equation}
        \parallel \hat{v}-I \parallel = \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-4\mu|t|}\right)
    \end{equation}
    which can be given by the formula (\ref{nest}).

    Take $\Delta = \Delta_{z_0}^-(I)$, then $m^{ \Delta_{z_0}^-(I)}\left(z|\sigma^-_d(I)\right)$ has the same poles as  $ \hat{m}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right)$ with the same residue conditions and the coefficient of negative second power of Laurent  expansion.
    Hence,
    \begin{equation}\label{varepsilon}
         \varepsilon(z)= \hat{m}^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\left(z| \sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}\right) \left[m^{ \Delta_{z_0}^-(I)}\left(z|\sigma^-_d(I)\right) \right]^{-1}
        \end{equation}
    has no poles but satisfies $\varepsilon_+(z)=\varepsilon_-(z)v_\varepsilon(z)$ with $ \parallel v_\varepsilon- I \parallel= \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-4\mu|t|}\right)$.
     From the theory of small-norm Riemann-Hilbert problems, we know $\varepsilon(z)=I + \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-4\mu|t|}\right)$ as $|t|\to \infty$.
     Finally, by  equations (\ref{nthm})  and (\ref{varepsilon}), we obtain
     \begin{equation}
        m^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}(z| \sigma_d) = \left( I+\mathcal{O}(e^{-2\mu|t|})\right) m^{\triangle^-_{z_0}(I)}\left(z;y,t|\sigma^-_d(I)\right).
     \end{equation}
\end{proof}

    Therefore, we can obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
    Assume that $q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{\Delta_{z_0}^-}\right)$ is the $N$-soliton solution of the NLS equation with scattering data $\sigma_d^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}= \left\{\left(z_k,c^{\Delta^-_{z_0}}_{i,k}\right), i=0,1, k\in \Delta^-_{z_0} \right\}^N_{k=1}$.
    Then, as $(x,t)\in \mathcal{S}(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)$, $t \to \infty$,
    \begin{equation}
        q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{(out)}\right)=q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{\Delta_{z_0}^-}\right)= q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right) + \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-4\mu|t|}\right),
    \end{equation}
    where $ q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right)$ is the $N(I)$-soliton solution of the NLS equation with the scattering data $\sigma_d^-(I)$.
\end{corollary}

\subsubsection{The construction of local model}
   At the beginning of the construction of local model near the saddle point, we consider the jump matrix in the interior of the region.
\begin{proposition}
    \begin{equation}
    \parallel v^{(2)}-I \parallel_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(2)})}= \begin{cases}
        \mathcal{O}\left(|z- z_0|^{-1} t^{-1/2} \right), & z \in \Sigma^{(2)} \cap \epsilon_{ z_0},\\
        \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-t \rho^2/2}\right), & z \in \Sigma^{(2)} \setminus \epsilon_{z_0}.
    \end{cases}
    \end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
    We prove the  above proposition for the case $z\in \Sigma_1$, and other cases can be shown in a similar way.
    The jump line is $z-z_0=|z-z_0|e^{i \pi /4}$ at $\Sigma_1$ and
    \begin{equation}
        \theta =(z-z_0)^2-z_0^2=i|z-z_0|^2-z_0^2.
    \end{equation}
    Using (\ref{R}) and (\ref{v2}), we obtain
    \begin{equation}
        |R_1 e^{2it \theta(z)}| \le \left(\frac{1}{2}c_1+c_2 \left<\text{Re}z\right>^{-1/2}\right) e^{-2t |z-z_0|^2}
    \end{equation}
    where $\left<\text{Re}z\right>^{-1/2} \le c$.
    In the interior of $\epsilon_{z_0}$, $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$ has no pole and
    \begin{equation}
        \parallel v^{(2)}-I \parallel_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(2)})} \le c |z- z_0|^{-1} t^{-1/2},\quad z \in \Sigma^{(2)} \cap \epsilon_{ z_0}.
    \end{equation}
   Thus, it is  clear that the jump $v^{(2)}$ is point-wise bounded, but  not uniformly decayed to the identity matrix.
    Additionally, as $z \in  \Sigma^{(2)} \cap \left\{  |z-z_0| \ge \rho/2   \right\}$,
    \begin{equation}
        \parallel v^{(2)}-I \parallel_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(2)})} \le c e^{-t \rho^2/2}.
    \end{equation}
\end{proof}

   In order to achieve a uniformly small jump Riemann-Hilbert problem for the function $E(z)$ defined by (\ref{m2rhp}),  we establish a local model  $m^{(z_0)}$ which matches $m_{RHP}^{(2)}$ on $\Sigma^{(2)} \cap  \epsilon_{z_0}$.
   For this reason, the translation scale transformation is defined by
   \begin{equation}
    \lambda= \lambda(z)=2 \sqrt{t}(z-z_0).
   \end{equation}
   Notice that if we take $r_0=r(z_0)T_0(z_0)^{-2}e^{2i(\nu(z_0)\rm{log}(2\sqrt{t})-t z_0^2)}$, the jump of $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$ is in accordance with  that of the parabolic cylinder model problem $m^{(pc)}$, which satisfies the following RH problem, see more details in \cite{Its}.

   \noindent\textbf{RHP9}.  Fix $r_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, find an analytic function $m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)$ such that
   \begin{itemize}
       \item[(a)]$m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus \Sigma^{(2)}$.
       \item[(b)] $m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)$ has continuous boundary value $m^{(pc)}_\pm(\lambda,r_0)$ on $\Sigma^{(2)}$
       \begin{equation}
        m^{(pc)}_+(\lambda,r_0)=m^{(pc)}_-(\lambda,r_0) v^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0), \quad \zeta \in \Sigma^{(2)},
       \end{equation}
       where \begin{equation}
        v^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)= \begin{cases}
            \left( \begin{array}{ll}
                1 & 0 \\
              r_0 \lambda^{-2i\nu}e^{i \lambda^2/2} & 1
            \end{array} \right),  & \lambda=\Sigma_1,\\
            \left( \begin{array}{ll}
                1 & \frac{\bar{r}_0}{1+|r_0|^2} \lambda^{2i \nu} e^{-i \lambda^2/2} \\
              0 & 1
            \end{array} \right),  & \lambda=\Sigma_2,\\
            \left( \begin{array}{ll}
                1 & 0 \\
                \frac{r_0}{1+|r_0|^2}  \lambda^{-2i\nu}e^{i \lambda^2/2} & 1
            \end{array} \right),  & \lambda=\Sigma_3,\\
            \left( \begin{array}{ll}
                1 & \bar{r}_0\lambda^{2i \nu} e^{-i \lambda^2/2} \\
              0 & 1
            \end{array} \right),  & \lambda=\Sigma_4.
        \end{cases}
       \end{equation}
       See Figure \ref{upcomplex}.

       \begin{figure}
        \begin{center}
        \begin{tikzpicture}
        \draw[dashed] (-3,0)--(3,0);
        \draw[dashed]  [   ](-3,0)--(-1.5,0);
        \draw[dashed]  [   ](0,0)--(1.5,0);
        \draw[red,thick ](-2,-2)--(2,2);
        \draw[red,thick,-> ](-2,-2)--(-1,-1);
        \draw[red,thick, -> ](0,0)--(1,1);
        \draw[red,thick ](-2,2)--(2,-2);
        \draw[red,thick,-> ](-2,2)--(-1,1);
        \draw[red,thick, -> ](0,0)--(1,-1);
        \node  [below]  at (2.3,2 ) {$\Sigma_1$};
        \node  [below]  at (-2.3,2 ) {$\Sigma_2$};
        \node  [below]  at (-2.2 ,-1.6) {$\Sigma_3$};
        \node  [below]  at (1.7,-1.7) {$\Sigma_4$};
        \node  [below]  at (0,-0.2) {$0$};

        \node    at (0,0)  {$\cdot$};
        \node [thick ] [below]  at (3.3, 1.5) {\tiny $ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\ r_0 \lambda^{-2i\nu } e^{ i\lambda^{2}/2}  &1\end{array}  \right)  $};
        \node [thick ] [below]  at (-3.8,-0.3) {\tiny $ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\ \frac{  r_0}{1+|r_0|^{2}}\lambda^{ -i\nu } e^{ i\lambda^{2}/2}  &1\end{array}  \right) $};
        \node [thick ] [below]  at (-3.6,1.5) {\tiny $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1& \frac{\bar r_0}{1+|r_0|^{2}} \lambda^{2 i\nu } e^{- i\lambda^{2}/2} \\ 0&1\end{array}  \right)$};
        \node [thick ] [below]  at (3.5,-0.3) {\tiny $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1& \bar r_0 \lambda^{2 i\nu } e^{- i\lambda^{2}/2} \\ 0&1\end{array}  \right)$};
        \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{center}
        \caption{Jump matrix  $v^{(pc)}$.}
        \label{upcomplex}
        \end{figure}

       \item[(c)]As $\lambda \to \infty$, $m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)= I +\frac{m_{1}^{(pc)}(r_0)}{\lambda}+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{-2}).$
   \end{itemize}
   Moreover, the asymptotic behavior of $m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)$ has been verified in the paper \cite{sdmRHp}, which is
   \begin{equation}
    m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0)= I + \frac{1}{\lambda} \left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 & -i \beta_{12}(r_0) \\
        i \beta_{21}(r_0) & 0
      \end{array} \right)  + \mathcal{O}\left(\lambda^{-2}\right),
   \end{equation}
   where
   \begin{equation}
    \beta_{12}(r_0)= \frac{\sqrt{2\pi}e^{i \pi /4} e^{- \pi \nu/2}}{r_0 \Gamma(-i \nu)},\quad  \beta_{21}(r_0)= \frac{\sqrt{2\pi}e^{-i \pi /4} e^{- \pi \nu/2}}{\bar{r}_0 \Gamma(i \nu)}= \frac{\nu}{\beta_{12}(r_0)}.
   \end{equation}
    Therefore, it is convenient to define $m^{(z_0)}(z)$, which is given by (\ref{m2rhp}), as follows
    \begin{equation}\label{mz0moutmpc}
        m^{(z_0)}(z)=m^{(out)}(z) m^{(pc)}(\lambda,r_0).
    \end{equation}
    Further, $m^{(z_0)}(z)$ is a bounded function in $\epsilon_{z_0}$ and fulfills the jump condition $v^{(2)}(z)$ of $m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)$.

\subsection{The small-norm RH problem for $E(z)$}
 In this section, we deal with the error function $E(z)$. By  the definition (\ref{moutmz0}) and (\ref{mz0moutmpc}), it is obvious that $E(z)$ meets  the RH problem   as below.

 \noindent\textbf{RHP10}.  Find a holomorphic function $E(z)$ such that
 \begin{itemize}
    \item[(a)]  $E(z)$ is analytical  in $\mathbb{C}\setminus  \Sigma^{(E)} $, where
    $\Sigma^{(E)}= \partial \epsilon_{z_0}\cup \left(\Sigma^{(2)}\setminus \epsilon_{z_0}\right)$, see Figure \ref{figE}.

    \begin{figure}
        \begin{center}
       \begin{tikzpicture}
       \draw [ thick](-2.8,-2.8)--(2.8,2.8);
       \draw [thick, ->](0,0)--(2,2);
       \draw [thick, ->](-2.8,-2.8)--(-2,-2);
       \draw [ thick ](-2.8,2.8)--(2.8,-2.8);
       \draw [thick, ->](-2.8,2.8)--(-2,2);
       \draw [thick, ->](0,0)--(2,-2);
       \path [fill=white]  (-1.2,0) to  [out=-90, in=180]  (0, -1.2) to [out=0, in=-90]  (1.2,0);
       \path [fill=white]  (-1.2,0) to  [out=90, in=180]  (0,1.2) to [out=0, in=90]  (1.2,0);
       \draw [ thick,red] (0,0) circle [radius=1.2];
       \draw [ thick,red,->]  (-1.2,0) to  [out=90, in=180]  (0,1.2);
       \node [thick] [above]  at (1.7,0){\footnotesize $ \partial\epsilon_{z_0}$};
       \node [thick] [above]  at (1.5,2){\footnotesize $ \Sigma^{(2)}\setminus  \epsilon_{z_0}$};
       \end{tikzpicture}
       \end{center}
       \caption{  \text{Jump contour} $\Sigma^{(E)}=\partial \epsilon_{z_0}\cup \left(\Sigma^{(2)}\backslash \epsilon_{z_0}\right)$}
       \label{figE}
       \end{figure}

    \item[(b)]  For $z\in  \Sigma^{(E)}$, $E(z)$ has continuous boundary values $E_\pm(z)$ which satisfy
       $$E_+(z)=E_-(z)v^{(E)}(z), $$
 where
   \begin{equation}\label{deVE}
   v^{(E)}(z)=\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
   m^{(out)}(z)v^{(2)}(z)m^{(out)}(z)^{-1}, & z\in \Sigma^{(2)}\setminus \epsilon_{z_0},\\[4pt]
   m^{(out)}(z)m^{(pc)}\left(\lambda,r_0\right)m^{(out)}(z)^{-1},  & z\in \partial \epsilon_{z_0}.
   \end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
    \item[(c)] For $z\in \infty$, $E(z)=I+\mathcal{O}\left(z^{-1}\right)$.
 \end{itemize}
     Utilizing Proposition 6, the formula (\ref{deVE}) and the boundedness of $ m^{(out)}(z)$, we can obtain
     \begin{equation}\label{vE-I}
        \left|v^{(E)}(z)-I\right|=\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
        \mathcal{O}\left(e^{-t \rho^2/2}\right),  & z\in \Sigma^{(2)}\setminus \epsilon_{z_0},\\[6pt]
        \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1/2}\right),   & z\in  \partial \epsilon_{z_0}.
        \end{array}\right.
        \end{equation}

  \begin{proposition}
    RHP10 has a unique solution.
  \end{proposition}
  \begin{proof}
    According to Beal-Cofiman theorem, the solution of  RHP10 can be constructed by
    \begin{equation}
        E(z)=I+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Sigma^{(E)}}\dfrac{\mu_E(s) \left(v^{(E)}(s)-I\right)}{s-z}ds,\label{Ez}
        \end{equation}
    where $\mu_E \in L^2\left(\Sigma^{(E)}\right)$ satisfies
    \begin{equation}
        \left(1-C_{w_E}\right)\mu_E=I
    \end{equation}
    with  $C_{w_E}$ being  a integral operator defined by
    \begin{equation}\label{Cwe}
          C_{w_E}(f)(z)=C_-\left( f\left(v^{(E)}(z) -I\right)\right) ,
    \end{equation}
    where $C_-$ is the Cauchy projection operator
    \begin{equation}\label{Cauchy}
        C_-(f)(s)=\lim_{z'\to  z \in \Sigma^{(E)}}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Sigma^{(E)}}\dfrac{f(s)}{s-z'}ds.
    \end{equation}

    Using the above formulas (\ref{Cwe}) and (\ref{Cauchy}), we get
    \begin{equation}
        \left\| C_{w_E} \right\|_{L^2(\Sigma^{(E)})}      \leq \left\| C_- \right\|_{L^2(\Sigma^{(E)})} \left\| v^{(E)}-I \right\|_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(E)})} \lesssim \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1/2}\right).
    \end{equation}
    This means that  $1-C_{w_E}$ is invertible.  Subsequently,  $\mu_E$ and the solution of the RHP10  exist and are unique.
  \end{proof}

   By (\ref{vE-I}) and the process of proof of Proposition 7, it is straightforward to obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
    \begin{align}
       & \left\| \left< \cdot  \right>   \left(v^{(E)} -I\right)\right\|_{L^p}= \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1/2}\right), \quad p \in [1,\infty), \; k \ge 0,\\
       & \left\| \mu_E - I \right\|_{L^2(\Sigma^{(E)})} =  \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1/2}\right).
    \end{align}
\end{corollary}

  Next, we consider the asymptotic expansion of $E(z)$
  \begin{equation}
    E(z)= I + \frac{E_1}{z} + \mathcal{O}\left(z^{-2}\right),
  \end{equation}
  where
  \begin{equation}\label{E1xt}
    E_1 = - \frac{1}{2 \pi i } \int_{\Sigma^{(E)}} \mu_E(s) \left(v^{(E)} -I\right)ds.
  \end{equation}
  \begin{proposition}
    \begin{equation}
        E_1(x,t)= \frac{1}{2i \sqrt{t}} m^{(out)}(z_0) m^{(pc)}_1(r_0) m^{(out)}(z_0)^{-1} + \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1}\right).
    \end{equation}
  \end{proposition}
  \begin{proof}
    Rewrite formula (\ref{E1xt}) as
    \begin{equation}
        E_1 = -\frac{1}{2 \pi i } \oint_{\partial \epsilon_{z_0}}\left(v^{(E)}-I\right)ds -  -\frac{1}{2 \pi i } \int_{\Sigma^{(E)} \setminus \epsilon_{z_0}} \left(v^{(E)}-I\right)ds -\frac{1}{2 \pi i } \int_{\Sigma^{(E)} }\left(\mu_E(s)-I\right) \left(v^{(E)}-I\right)ds.
    \end{equation}
    Then, the conclusion can be obtained by estimating the three integrals respectively.
  \end{proof}

\subsection{The pure $\bar{\partial}$-Problem  and its asymptotic behaviors }
In this section,  we acquire a  pure $\bar{\partial}$-problem after removing the $\bar{\partial}$ component of $m^{(2)}$.
We define
\begin{equation} \label{transm3}
    m^{(3)}(z):= m^{(2)}(z)m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Then, $m^{(3)}(z)$ is continuous and has no jump in $\mathbb{C}$, which satisfies a pure $\bar{\partial}$-problem.

\noindent\textbf{RHP11}.  Find a matrix-valued function $m^{(3)}(z)$ with the following properties.
 \begin{itemize}
    \item[(a)]  $m^{(3)}(z)$ is continuous in $\mathbb{C} \setminus  \left(\mathbb{R}\cup \Sigma^{(2)}\right)$;
    \item[(b)]  For $z\in \mathbb{C}$, $\bar{\partial}m^{(3)}(z)=m^{(3)}(z)w^{(3)}(z)$ where
    \begin{equation}
        w^{(3)}(z)=m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z) \bar{\partial} \mathcal{R}^{(2)} m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)^{-1};
    \end{equation}
    \item[(c)]  For $z\in \infty$, $m^{(3)}(z)=I + \mathcal{O}\left(z^{-1}\right)$.
 \end{itemize}

 \begin{proof}
    By the definition of $m^{(3)}(z)$, it is obvious that $m^{(3}(z)$ is continuous in $\mathbb{C} \setminus \Sigma^{(2)}$ and satisfies the condition (b).
    At the same time, using formulas (\ref{v2}) and (\ref{transm3}), we can find that
   \begin{equation*}
      m^{(3)}_+(z)=m_-^{(3)}(z), \quad z \in \Sigma^{(2)}.
   \end{equation*}

    From  the property (e) of RHP3, we prove the residue condition for the case $k \in \Delta^+_{z_0}$, $\text{Im}z_k>0$, because the proofs for the other cases are similar.
   \begin{align}
    &\res_{z=z_k} m^{(2)}(z) = \left( \gamma^{(2)}_{0,k}   m^{(2)}_2(z_k), 0 \right) + \left( \gamma^{(2)}_{1,k}   \left(m^{(2)}_2\right)'(z_k), 0 \right) = \lim_{z\to z_k}\left(m^{(2)}n^{(2)}_{0,k}+\left(m^{(2)}\right)'n^{(2)}_{1,k}\right),\label{m2res}\\
    &\underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(2)}(z) =  \left( \gamma^{(2)}_{1,k}   m^{(2)}_2(z_k), 0 \right)=\lim_{z\to z_k}\left(m^{(2)}n^{(2)}_{1,k}\right)\label{m2p-2},
   \end{align}
    where
    \begin{align}
       & \gamma^{(2)}_{0,k} = A_k T^{-2}(z_k) \left[ B_k+2it \theta'(z_k) -\frac{2 T'(z_k)}{ T(z_k)}  \right]e^{2it \theta(z_k)}, \\
       & \gamma^{(2)}_{1,k}=A_k T^{-2}(z_k) e^{2it \theta(z_k)},\\
       & n^{(2)}_{0,k} = \left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 & 0\\
        \gamma^{(2)}_{0,k} & 0
       \end{array} \right), \quad n^{(2)}_{1,k} = \left(\begin{array}{ll}
        0 & 0\\
        \gamma^{(2)}_{1,k} & 0
       \end{array} \right).
    \end{align}
    Since $\left(n^{(2)}_{i,k}\right)^2=0 $($i=0,1$), $n^{(2)}_{i,k}$ is the nilpotent matrix.

    As $z_k$ is the  second-order pole of $m^{(2)}(z)$, $m^{(2)}(z)$ has the  Laurent expansion with the following form
    \begin{equation}\label{m2laurent}
        m^{(2)}(z)=   \frac{\underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m(z|\sigma_d)      }{(z-z_k)^2} +\frac{\underset{z=z_k}{ \rm{Res}} m(z|\sigma_d)}{z-z_k} +  a(z_k)+b(z_k)(z-z_k) +\mathcal{O}(z-z_k)^2.
    \end{equation}
    Substituting (\ref{m2laurent}) into (\ref{m2res}) and (\ref{m2p-2}) respectively, we acquire
    \begin{align}
       & \res_{z=z_k} m^{(2)}(z) =a(z_k) n^{(2)}_{0,k} +b(z_k) n^{(2)}_{1,k},\label{resm2an}\\
       & \underset{z=z_k}{P_{-2}} m^{(2)}(z) =a(z_k)n^{(2)}_{1,k}.\label{p-2m2an}
    \end{align}
    And then, bring (\ref{resm2an}) and (\ref{p-2m2an}) back to (\ref{m2laurent}), we have the Laurent  expansion
    \begin{equation}
        m^{(2)}(z)= a(z_k) \left[ I + \frac{n^{(2)}_{0,k}}{z-z_k}  + \frac{n^{(2)}_{1,k}}{(z-z_k)^2}\right] + b(z_k)\frac{n^{(2)}_{1,k}}{z-z_k} +b(z_k)(z-z_k)+ \mathcal{O}(z-z_k)^2.
    \end{equation}
    Notice that $m^{(2)}$ and $m^{(2)}_{RHP}$ have the same residue relations and $\text{det} m^{(2)}(z)=\text{det} m^{(2)}_{RHP}(z)=1$, it can be calculated directly
    \begin{equation}
        \left(m^{(2)}_{RHP}\right)^{-1}(z)= \left[ I - \frac{n^{(2)}_{0,k}}{z-z_k}  - \frac{n^{(2)}_{1,k}}{(z-z_k)^2}\right]  \sigma_2 a(z_k)^T \sigma_2 + \left(   I- \frac{n^{(2)}_{1,k}}{(z-z_k)^2}      \right) \sigma_2 b(z_k)^T \sigma_2 \left(z-z_k\right) +\mathcal{O}(z-z_k)^2.
    \end{equation}
    Then,
    \begin{equation}
        m^{(2)}(z)\left(m^{(2)}_{RHP}\right)^{-1}\left(z\right)=\mathcal{O}(1),
    \end{equation}
    in which we have used the  property of nilpotent matrix $n^{(2)}_{i,k}$ ($i=0,1$).
    Hence, $m^{(3)}(z)$ has only removable singularities at each $z_k$.

    The property (b) can be obtained by $\bar{\partial}m^{(2)}_{RHP}=0$.
\end{proof}

 The solution of this RHP11 is constructed  by the following integral equation
 \begin{equation}\label{dem}
    m^{(3)}(z)=I-\frac{1}{\pi}\iint_\mathbb{C}\dfrac{m^{(3)}(s)w^{(3)}(s)}{s-z}dA(s),
 \end{equation}
where $dA(s)$ is the Lebesgue measure on  $\mathbb{C}$.
   Meanwhile, the equation (\ref{dem})  can also be represented by operators, which is
  \begin{equation}
    (I-C)m^{(3)}(z)=I,
  \end{equation}
  where $C$ is the Cauchy-Green integral operator,
  \begin{equation}
    C[f](z)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\iint_\mathbb{C}\dfrac{f(s)w^{(3)}(s)}{s-z}dA(s).
  \end{equation}
  In addition, this  operator  $C$ admits the following estimation.
  \begin{proposition}
    For $t\to \infty$,
    \begin{equation}
        \parallel C\parallel_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}\lesssim |t|^{-1/4},
	\end{equation}
	which implies that  $\left(I-C \right) ^{-1}$ exists.
  \end{proposition}

  As $z \to \infty$, we consider the asymptotic expansion of $m^{(3)}(z)$
  \begin{equation}
      m^{(3)}(z) = I + \frac{m^{(3)}_1}{z}+\frac{1}{\pi}\iint_\mathbb{C}\dfrac{s m^{(3)}(s)w^{(3)}(s)}{z(s-z)}dA(s),
  \end{equation}
  where
  \begin{equation}
    {m^{(3)}_1}= \frac{1}{\pi}\iint_\mathbb{C}m^{(3)}(s)w^{(3)}(s)dA(s).
  \end{equation}
 To reconstruct the solution $q(x,t)$ of the fNLS equation with double poles,  we need to determine the long time asymptotic behavior of $m^{(3)}_1$.
   We can testify the following property of $m^{(3)}_1$.
   \begin{proposition}
     There is a constant $c$ such that
       \begin{equation}
        |m^{(3)}_1| \le c t^{-3/4}.
       \end{equation}
   \end{proposition}
   \begin{proof}
       The proofs of Proposition 9 and 10 are similar to the proof of Proposition 6.1 and Appendix D in \cite{fNLS} respectively.
   \end{proof}

\section{Long time asymptotics for fNLS equation}
   Now we begin to seek the long time asymptotic behavior of the solution  for the fNLS equation.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
    Take $q_0(x) \in  H^{1,1}(\mathbb{R})$ and suppose that the corresponding scattering data is $\sigma_d= \left\{ (z_k,c_{i,k}), i=0,1, z_k\in \mathcal{Z}  \right\}_{k=1}^N$ with $z_k$ is double zeros of the scattering coefficient $s_{11}(z)$.
    Fix $x_1, x_2,v_1,v_2 \in \mathbb{R}$ with $x_1 \le x_2, v_1 \le v_2$.
    Take $I=[-v_2/2, -v_1/2]$ and $z_0=-x/(2t)$.
    Take $q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right)$ be the $N(I)$ solition corresponding to the scattering data
     $$\sigma_d^-(I)=\left\{ \left(z_k,c_{i,k}(I)\right), i=0,1, z_k\in \Delta_{z_0}^-(I) \right\}_{k=1}^N.$$
    Then as $|t| \to \infty$ with $(x,t)\in \mathcal{S}(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)$, we have
    \begin{equation}\label{finalq}
         q(x,t)=q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right) + t^{-1/2}f +\mathcal{O}\left(t^{-3/4}\right),
    \end{equation}
    where
    \begin{equation}\label{f}
         f = \left(\eta_{11}\right)^2 \alpha(z_0) e^{i\left(x^2/(2t)-\nu(z_0) \rm{log}|4t|\right)}+(\eta_{12})^2 \overline{ \alpha(z_0)} e^{-i\left(x^2/(2t)-\nu(z_0) \text{\rm{log}} |4t|\right)},
    \end{equation}
    with $| \alpha(z_0)|^2=|v(z_0)|$, $v(z_0)=-\frac{1}{2 \pi} \text{\rm{log}} (1+|r(z_0)|^2)$ and
    \begin{equation}
        \text{\rm{arg}}  \alpha(z_0)=\frac{\pi}{4} + \text{\rm{arg}} \Gamma\left( i\nu(z_0) \right)-   \text{\rm{arg}} \gamma(z_0) - 4 \sum_{k \in \Delta^-_{z_0}} \text{\rm{arg}}(z_0-z_k)- 2 \int_{-\infty}^{z_0} \text{\rm{ln}} |s-z_0|d \text{\rm{ln}} \left(1+|r(s)|^2\right),
    \end{equation}
    where $ \eta_{11}, \eta_{12}$ is the elements in the first row of $m^{\triangle^-_{z_0}(I)}\left(z;y,t|\sigma^-_d(I)\right)$.

\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    Reviewing a series of transformations we have made in the process of solving the initial problem (\ref{fNLS})-(\ref{fNLSid}), which are (\ref{transm1}), (\ref{transm2}), (\ref{m2rhp}) and (\ref{transm3}), and backward pushing these transformation processes gives us
    \begin{equation}
       m(z)=m^{(3)}(z)E(z)m^{(out)}\left(\mathcal{R}^{(2)}(z)\right)^{-1}T^{\sigma_3}, \quad z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \epsilon_{z_0}.
        \end{equation}
    In particular, we consider  cases where $z$ tends to infinity in the vertical direction of $z\in \Omega_2$ or $\Omega_5$. In these cases,  we have $\mathcal{R}^{(2)}=I$ and
    \begin{equation}
        m(z)=\left(I + \frac{m^{(3)}_1}{z}   +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{z^2}\right)              \right) \left(I + \frac{E_1}{z}   +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{z^2}\right)                \right) \left(I + \frac{m^{(out)}_1}{z}   +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{z^2}\right)              \right) \left(I + \frac{T_1 \sigma_3}{z}   +\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{z^2})              \right).
    \end{equation}
    After that, we get
    \begin{equation}
        m_1=m_1^{(out)}+E_1 +m_1^{(3)}+ T_1\sigma_3,
    \end{equation}
    where $m_1$ is the coefficient of the $z^{-1}$ in the Laurent  expansion of $m$.
    Meanwhile, the equation (\ref{qzm12}) and Proposition 10 tell us that
    \begin{equation}\label{qm1E1}
        q(x,t)=2i \left( \left(m^{(out)}_1\right)_{12} +\left(E_1\right)_{12}   \right) +\mathcal{O}\left(t^{-3/4}\right).
    \end{equation}

     Let $m^{(out)}= \left( \begin{array}{ll}
        \eta_{11} & \eta_{12}\\
        \eta_{21} & \eta_{22}
     \end{array} \right).$
     Using Proposition 8, we have
    \begin{equation}\label{E112}
         (E_1)_{12}=\frac{1}{2i\sqrt{t}} \left(\beta_{12} (\eta_{11})^2+\beta_{21} (\eta_{12})^2 \right),
    \end{equation}
    where
    \begin{equation}
        \beta_{12}(z_0)=\overline{\beta_{21}(z_0)}= \alpha(z_0)e^{i \left(  x^2/(2t)-\nu(z_0)\rm{log}|4t|        \right)}.
    \end{equation}
    Bringing $2i \left(m^{(out)}_1\right)_{12}=q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{(out)}\right)$ and (\ref{E112}) back to (\ref{qm1E1}), we find
    \begin{equation}
        q(x,t)=q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^{(out)}\right) + t^{-1/2}f +\mathcal{O}\left(t^{-3/4}\right),
    \end{equation}
    where $f$ is given by (\ref{f}).
    In addition, using Corollary 2, we obtain
    \begin{equation}
        q(x,t)=q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right) + t^{-1/2}f +\mathcal{O}\left(t^{-3/4}\right),
    \end{equation}
    where $(x,t)\in \mathcal{S}(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
    Though the asymptotic result (\ref{finalq}) has the same form with that
    obtained in \cite{fNLS}, they have different meanings. For example, the first term
     $q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right)$ demonstrates high-order pole solutions, while it denotes simple  pole solutions in
      \cite{fNLS};  The second  term $t^{-1/2}f$ is an interaction between high-order pole solutions and
       the dispersion term, while it denotes an interaction between simple pole solutions and
       the dispersion term in  \cite{fNLS}.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
    The asymptotic result (\ref{finalq}) shows that the initial value problem of the fNLS equation with zero-boundary and double poles in scattering coefficient has the property of the soliton resolution, which is
    as $t\to \infty$, any solution of the fNLS equation can be decomposed into solitary wave part and dispersion part.
    Linear NLS equation $i q_t+q_{xx}/2$ is  dispersive and any solution of this linear equation has the estimation $\parallel q\parallel_{L^\infty} \sim t^{-1/2}$.
    Therefore, the second term in the formula (\ref{finalq}), which includes the $t^{-1/2}$, represents the contribution of the dispersion term.
    The multiple solitary wave solutions $q_{sol}\left(x,t;\sigma_d^-(I)\right)$ corresponding to the scattering data,  which is superposed by a finite single soliton solution, appear in the long time asymptotic expansion when the NLS equation includes a nonlinear term $|q|^2q$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
   After modification on   the residue conditions (\ref{res3.3})-(\ref{res3.6}), we can show  that the solutions of the
    Cauchy problem of the fNLS equation with high-order pole spectrum data still possess  the property of soliton resolution
    like  Theorem \ref{thm1}.
\end{remark}

\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements}

This work is supported by  the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 11671095,  51879045).