\section{Introduction}
Maximal green sequences were introduced by Keller \cite{Keller11} in the study of refined Donaldson-Thomas invariants for quivers and implicitly by Gaiotto et al. in \cite{GMN}. They are certain sequences of quiver mutations satisfying a certain combinatorial condition. It is known that not all quivers have maximal green sequences, but they do exist for important classes of quivers.  We refer to the survey \cite{Keller19} for examples and recent progress. It is an open question to determine whether a given quiver admits a maximal green sequence or not.

 The existence of maximal green sequences yields quantum dilogarithm identities in the associated quantum torus and provides explicit formulas for Kontsevich-Soibelman's refined Donaldson-Thomas invariants (cf. \cite{Keller11}). It also has important applications in the theory of cluster algebras. In particular, Gross et al. \cite{GHKK} proved that the Fock-Goncharov conjecture about the existence of a canonical basis for cluster algebras holds when a cluster algebra has a quiver with a maximal green sequence and the cluster algebra is equal to its upper cluster algebra. It is also a sufficient condition for the existence of a generic basis in certain upper cluster algebras \cite{Qin}.

 Cluster-tilting theory of hereditary abelian categories  produces a large class  of important quivers, which we denote it by $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{ct}}$. Let $K$ be an algebraically closed field and $\mathcal{H}$ a hereditary abelian category over $K$ with tilting objects. The {\it cluster category} $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$ \cite{BMRRT} is defined as the orbit category of the bounded derived category ${\mathcal D}^b(\mathcal{H})$ with respect to the auto-equivalence $\tau^{-1}\circ \Sigma$, where $\tau$ is the Auslander-Reiten translation and $\Sigma$ is the suspension functor of ${\mathcal D}^b(\mathcal{H})$, respectively. The cluster category $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$ is a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category with cluster-tilting objects (cf. \cite{Keller}). For each basic cluster-tilting object $T\in \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$, we denote by $Q_T$ the Gabriel quiver of the endomorphism algebra $\opname{End}_{\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})}(T)$. Then  $\mathcal{Q}_{ct}$ consists of quivers which are isomorphic to $Q_T$ for some basic cluster-tilting object $T$ and hereditary abelian category $\mathcal{H}$.

  According to Happel's classification theorem \cite{Happel}, each connected hereditary abelian $K$-category with tilting objects is either derived equivalent to the path algebra $KQ$ of a finite acyclic quiver $Q$ or to the category $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ of coherent sheaves over a weighted projective line in the sense of Geigle-Lenzing \cite{GeigleLenzing}. Therefore, $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{ct}}$ can be written as the union of two subclasses: $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{pa}}$ consists of quivers arising from path algebras and $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{wpl}}$ consists of quivers arising from weighted projective lines. Quivers in $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{pa}}$ and their associated cluster algebras were well-studied. It is natural to investigate the quiver in $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{wpl}}$ and their associated cluster algebras.
 The aim of this note is to study the existence and non-existence of maximal green sequences for quivers in $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{wpl}}$. Our main result is an existence and non-existence theorem (cf. Theorem \ref{t:main-result} ) for quivers arising from weighted projective lines. Surprisingly, the existence and non-existence theorem is compatible with the classification of weighted projective lines.

 The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{s:quiver-mutation}, we recall the definitions of quiver mutation and maximal green sequence. Quivers of finite mutation type are also discussed.  In Section \ref{s:weighted-projective-line}, we collect basic properties for weighted projective lines. It is proved that a quiver arising from  a weighted projective line $\mathbb{X}$ is of finite mutation type if and only if $\mathbb{X}$ is not of wild type (Proposition \ref{p:finite-mutation-wpl}). In Section \ref{s:proof-main-result}, we present the proof of the main result (Theorem \ref{t:main-result}).
\subsection*{Conventions}
Let $m\geq n$ be positive integers. For an integer matrix $B\in M_{m\times n}(\mathbb{Z})$, we refer to the submatrix formed by the first $n$ rows of $B$ the {\it principal part} of $B$ and the submatrix formed by the last $m-n$ rows the {\it coefficient part}.

For any integer vectors $\alpha=[a_1,\cdots, a_n]^T, \beta=[b_1,\cdots, b_n]^T\in \mathbb{Z}^n$,  we denote by $\alpha\leq \beta$ if $a_i\leq b_i$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. This endows a partial order on $\mathbb{Z}^n$. For $b\in \mathbb{Z}$, let  $\opname{sgn}(b)$ be $1$, $0$, or $-1$, depending on whether $b$ is positive, zero, or negative.

\section{Preliminaries}\label{s:quiver-mutation}
\subsection{Quivers and mutation}
A quiver is an oriented graph, i.e., a quadruple $Q=(Q_0,Q_1,s,t)$ formed by a set of vertices $Q_0$, a set of arrows $Q_1$ and two maps $s$ and $t$ from $Q_1$ to $Q_0$ which send an arrow $\alpha$ respectively to its source $s(\alpha)$ and its target $t(\alpha)$.
An arrow whose source and target coincide is a {\it loop}; a {\it $2$-cycle} is a pair of distinct arrows $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $s(\alpha)=t(\beta)$ and $t(\alpha)=s(\beta)$.
 By convention, in the sequel, by a quiver we always mean a finite quiver without loops nor $2$-cycles.
 An {\it ice quiver} is a pair $(Q,F)$, where $Q$ is a quiver and $F$ is a subset of $Q_0$ called {\it frozen vertices}, such that there are no arrows between frozen vertices.
 The non-frozen vertices of $(Q,F)$ are {\it mutable vertices}. The {\it mutable part} of $(Q,F)$ is the full subquiver of $(Q,F)$ consisting of mutable vertices.
  \begin{definition}
 	Let $(Q,F)$ be an ice quiver and $k$ a mutable vertex. The \textit{mutation} $\mu_k(Q,F)$ of $(Q,F)$ at vertex $k$ is the ice quiver obtained from $(Q,F)$ as follows:
 	\begin{itemize}
 		\item for each subquiver $i\xrightarrow{\beta}k\xrightarrow{\alpha}j$, we add a new arrow $[\alpha\beta]:i\to j$;
 		\item we reverse all arrows with source or target $k$;
 		\item we remove the arrows in a maximal set of pairwise disjoint $2$-cycles and any arrows that created between frozen vertices.
 		\end{itemize}
 \end{definition}
When $F=\emptyset$, we also write  $\mu_k(Q)$ for $\mu_{k}(Q,\emptyset)$.

Let $(Q,F)$ be an ice quiver with non frozen vertices $\{1, \dots, n\}$ and frozen vertices $\{n+1,\dots, m\}$. Up to an isomorphism fixing the vertices, such an ice quiver is given by an $m\times n$ integer matrix $B(Q,F)$ whose coefficient $b_{ij}$ is the difference between the number of arrows from $j$ to $i$ and the number of arrows from $i$ to $j$.
 In particular, the principal part of $B(Q,F)$ is skew-symmetric. Conversely, each $m\times n$ integer matrix $B$ with skew-symmetric principal part comes from an ice quiver.  Let $B(Q,F)=(b_{ij})$ be the associated matrix of $(Q,F)$. For any mutable vertex $k$, we denote by $\mu_k(B(Q,F))=(b_{ij}')$ the matrix associated to the ice quiver $\mu_k(Q,F)$, then
\[b_{ij}'=\begin{cases}-b_{ij}&\text{if $i=k$ or $j=k$;}\\
b_{ij}+\opname{sgn}(b_{ik})\max(0,b_{ik}b_{kj})&\text{else.}
\end{cases}
\]
This is the {\it matrix mutation rule} introduced by Fomin and Zelevinsky \cite{FZ}.
It is clear that $\mu_k(B(Q,F))=B(\mu_k(Q,F))$.

Mutation at a fixed vertex is an involution. Two ice quivers are {\it mutation-equivalent} if they are linked by a finite sequence of mutations. We will denote by $\mut(Q,F)$ the set of all quivers that can be obtained from $(Q,F)$ by a finite sequence of mutations. We write $\mut(Q):=\mut(Q, \emptyset)$.

\subsection{Maximal green sequence}
\begin{definition}
	Let $Q$ be a quiver. The {\it framed quiver} $\hat{Q}$ of $Q$ is the ice quiver $(\hat{Q}, Q_0^*)$ such that:
\[Q_0^*=\{i^*~|~i\in Q_0\},~ \hat{Q}_0=Q_0\sqcup Q_0^*, ~\hat{Q}_1=Q_1\sqcup \{i\to i^*~|~i\in Q_0\}.
\]
The {\it coframed quiver $\check{Q}$} is the ice quiver $(\check{Q}, Q_0^*)$ such that:
\[Q_0^*=\{i^*~|~i\in Q_0\},~ \check{Q}_0=Q_0\sqcup Q_0^*, ~\check{Q}_1=Q_1\sqcup \{i\gets i^*~|~i\in Q_0\}.
\]

\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
	Let $R\in \mut(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$. A mutable vertex $k\in R_0$ is {\it green} if $\{j^*\in Q_0^*~|~\exists~  j^*\to k\in R_1\}=\emptyset$. It is {\it red} if $\{j^*\in Q_0^*~|~\exists~ j^*\gets k\in R_1\}=\emptyset$.
\end{definition}
We have the following {\it sign-coherence} property.
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 1.7]{DerksenWeymanZelevinsky}\label{t:dwz}
Every mutable vertex of $R\in \mut(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$ is either green or red.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
 A non-zero integer vector $c\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ is {\it sign-coherent} if $c\leq 0$ or $0\leq c$.
  Let $Q$ be a quiver with vertex set $\{1,\dots, n\}$.
For $R\in \mut(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$, recall that $B(R,Q_0^\ast)$ is the associated $2n\times n$ integer matrix. Theorem~\ref{t:dwz} can be restated as follows:
each column vector of the coefficient part of $B(R,Q_0^\ast)$ is sign-coherent.
\end{remark}

\begin{definition}
	A {\it green sequence} for a quiver $Q$ is a sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}}=(i_1,\dots, i_l)$ of vertices  of $Q$ such that for any $1\leq k\leq l$, the vertex $i_k$ is green in $\mu_{i_{k-1}}\circ\cdots\circ \mu_{i_1}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$. The green sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}}$ is {\it maximal} if every mutable vertex in $\mu_{i_{l}}\circ\cdots\circ \mu_{i_1}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$ is red. We will simply denote the composition $\mu_{i_{l}}\circ\cdots\circ \mu_{i_1}$ by $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}$. A {\it green-to-red sequence} is a sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}}$ of vertices of $Q$ such that every mutable vertex in $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$ is red.
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}\cite[Proposition 2.10]{BDP}~\label{p:bdp}
Suppose that $Q$ admits a green-to-red sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}}$. Then there is a unique isomorphism $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)\xrightarrow{\sim}\check{Q}$ fixing the frozen vertices and sending a non frozen vertex $i$ to $\sigma(i)$ for a unique permutation $\sigma$ of the vertices of $Q$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}~\label{r:mgs}
By definition and Proposition~\ref{p:bdp}, it is known that a sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}}$ is a green-to-red sequence of $Q$ if and only if the coefficient part of the matrix $B(\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast))=\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}(B(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast))$ is a permutation of $-I_n$. A sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}}=(i_1,\dots,i_l)$ is a maximal green sequence if and only if
\begin{itemize}
\item the $i_k$-th column vector of the coefficient part of $B(\mu_{i_{k-1}}\circ \cdots \circ \mu_{i_1}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast))$ is positive for $1\leq k\leq l$;
\item the coefficient part of the matrix $B(\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast))=\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}}(B(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast))$ is a permutation of $-I_n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
By definition, all maximal green sequences are green-to-red sequences. There are quivers for which a maximal green sequence does not exist, but a green-to-red sequence does. Furthermore, there are quivers for which no green-to-red sequence exists.
\begin{example}
Let  $a, b, c$ be non negative integers, denote by $Q_{a,b,c}$ the quiver with three vertices $1, 2, 3$ and $a$ arrows from $1$ to $2$, $b$ arrows from $2$ to $3$ and $c$ arrows from $3$ to $1$. It is known that $Q_{2,2,2}$ does not admit a green-to-red sequence. Furthermore, Muller~\cite[Theorem 12]{Muller} proved
 that $Q_{a,b,c}$ does not admit maximal green sequences whenever $a,b,c\geq 2$.
\end{example}

\begin{lemma}\cite[Corollary 19]{Muller}
	If a quiver $Q$ admits a green-to-red sequence, then any quiver mutation-equivalent to $Q$ also admits a green-to-red sequence.
\end{lemma}

Muller \cite{Muller} also proved that the property of having a maximal green sequence is not invariant under mutation.
  The following is useful to show the non-existence of maximal green sequence for a given quiver.
 \begin{lemma}\cite[Theorem 9 and 17]{Muller}~\label{l:muller-existence}
 	If a quiver $Q$ admits a green-to-red sequence (resp. maximal green sequence), then any full subquiver of $Q$ also admits a green-to-red sequence (resp. maximal green sequence).
 	In particular, if $Q$ has a full subquiver $Q_{a,b,c}$ with $a,b,c\geq 2$, then $Q$ does not admit a maximal green sequence.
 \end{lemma}

 \begin{definition}
 Let $Q$ be a quiver and $Q', Q''$ full subquivers. We say that $Q$ is a {\it triangular extension} of $Q'$ by $Q''$ if the set of vertices of $Q$ is the disjoint union of the sets of vertices of $Q'$ and $Q''$ and there are no arrows from vertices of $Q''$ to vertices of $Q'$.
 \end{definition}
 The following result was proved in~\cite[Theorem 4.5]{CaoLi} using Lemma~\ref{l:muller-existence}.
\begin{lemma}\cite[Theorem 4.5]{CaoLi}\label{l:CL-lemma}
If $Q$ is a triangular extension of $Q'$ and $Q''$, then $Q$ has a maximal green sequence if and only if $Q'$ and $Q''$ have maximal green sequences.
\end{lemma}

\subsection{Tropical dualities between $c$-vectors and $g$-vectors}
Let $Q$ be a quiver with vertex set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Denote by $\mathbb{T}_n$ the {\it $n$-regular tree} whose edges are labeled by the numbers $1,\dots,n$ such that the $n$ edges emanating from each vertex have different labels. We write $\xymatrix{t\ar@{-}[r]^k&t'}$ to indicate that vertices $t$ and $t'$ are linked by an edge labeled by $k$.

A {\it quiver pattern} of $(\hat{Q}, Q_0^\ast)$ is an assignment of an ice quiver $R_t\in \mut(\hat{Q},Q_0^\ast)$ to each vertex $t\in \mathbb{T}_n$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
	\item there is a vertex $t_0\in \mathbb{T}_n$ such that $R_{t_0}=(\hat{Q}, Q_0^\ast)$;
	\item if $\xymatrix{t\ar@{-}[r]^k&t',}$  then $R_{t'}=\mu_k(R_t)$.
\end{enumerate}
Clearly, a quiver pattern of $(\hat{Q}, Q_0^\ast)$ is uniquely determined by assigning $(\hat{Q}, Q_0^\ast)$ to the vertex $t_0\in \mathbb{T}_n$ and $t_0$ is called the {\it root} vertex of the quiver pattern.

We relabel the vertex $i^\ast$ as $n+i$ for each $i\in Q_0$ and fix a quiver pattern of $(\hat{Q}, Q_0^\ast)$. In particular, for each vertex $t\in \mathbb{T}_n$, we have a $2n\times n$ integer matrix $B(R_t):=(b_{ij;t})$. The coefficient part $C_t$ of $B(R_t)$ is the {\it $C$-matrix} at $t$. Its column vectors are {\it $c$-vectors}.

Let $e_1,\dots, e_n$ be the standard basis of $\mathbb{Z}^n$. For $1\leq j\leq n$, denote by $\beta_j$ the $j$th column of the principal part of $B(R_{t_0})$.
For each vertex $t\in \mathbb{T}_n$, we also assign an integer matrix $G_t:=(g_{1;t},\dots, g_{n;t})$ by the following recursion:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item for any $1\leq i\leq n$, $g_{i;t_0}=e_i$;
	\item suppose that $G_t$ is defined and let $\xymatrix{t\ar@{-}[r]^k&t'}$ be an edge of $\mathbb{T}_n$, then
	\[g_{i;t'}=\begin{cases}g_{i;t}&i\neq k;\\
	-g_{k;t}+\sum_{j=1}^n[b_{jk;t}]_+g_{j;t}-\sum_{j=1}^n[b_{(n+j) k;t}]_+\beta_j&i=k.
	\end{cases}
	\]
\end{enumerate}
We call $G_t$ the {\it $G$-matrix} at $t$ and its column vectors are {\it $g$-vectors}.
\begin{proposition}\cite[Theorem 1.7]{DerksenWeymanZelevinsky}
For each vertex $t\in \mathbb{T}_n$, every row vector of $G_t$ is sign-coherent.
\end{proposition}
The following is known as the tropical duality between $c$-vectors and $g$-vectors (cf. \cite{Nak,Keller12, Plamondon}).
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 4.1]{Nak}\label{t:tropical-duality}
	For each vertex $t\in \mathbb{T}_n$, we have
	\[G_t^{T}C_t=I_n.
	\]
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Finite mutation type}
A quiver $Q$ is of {\it  finite  mutation type} if $\mut(Q)$ is a finite set.
Quivers of  finite mutation type  have been classified in \cite{FST}. Here, we only recall the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:finite-mutatin-type}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Every quiver with two vertices is of  finite mutation type.
\item[(2)] If $Q$ is acyclic with at least three vertices, then $Q$ is of  finite  mutation type if and only if $Q$ is of Dynkin type or extended Dynkin type.
\item[(3)] Each quiver in Figure \ref{f:quiver-tubular-type} is of  finite mutation  type.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The statement $(1)$ is obvious, $(2)$ is proved by \cite[Theorem 3.6]{BR}. For $(3)$, one can verify the finiteness by the MutationApp of Keller \cite{Kellerapp} directly (cf. also \cite[Theorem 6.1 ]{FST}).
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.40\linewidth}
\centering
\[\tiny\xymatrix{D_4^{(1,1)}:&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar@{=>}[d] &\circ\ar[l]\\
&\circ\ar[ur]&\circ\ar[ul]\ar[ur]\ar[l]\ar[r]&\circ\ar[ul]}
\]
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.40\linewidth}
\centering
\[\tiny\xymatrix@C=0.5cm@R=0.35cm{E_6^{(1,1)}:&&\circ\ar@{=>}[dd]&\circ\ar[r]\ar[l]&\circ\\
\circ&\circ\ar[l]\ar[ur]\\
&&\circ\ar[ul]\ar[uur]\ar[r]&\circ\ar[uul]\ar[r]&\circ
}
\]
\end{minipage}

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\[\tiny\xymatrix@C=0.5cm@R=0.35cm{&E_7^{(1,1)}:&\circ\ar@{=>}[dd]&\circ\ar[r]\ar[l]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
&\circ\ar[ur]\\
&&\circ\ar[ul]\ar[uur]\ar[r]&\circ\ar[uul]\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ
}
\]
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\[\tiny\xymatrix@C=0.5cm@R=0.35cm{&E_8^{(1,1)}:&\circ\ar@{=>}[dd]&\circ\ar[r]\ar[l]&\circ\\
&\circ\ar[ur]\\
&&\circ\ar[ul]\ar[uur]\ar[r]&\circ\ar[uul]\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ
}
\]
\end{minipage}
\caption{Quivers of tubular type $D_4^{(1,1)}$, $E_6^{(1,1)}$, $E_7^{(1,1)}$ and $E_8^{(1,1)}$.}\label{f:quiver-tubular-type}
\end{figure}

\begin{lemma}\label{l:non-finite-mutation-type}
Let $2\leq c\leq b\leq a$ be integers. If  $a\geq 3$, then the quiver $Q_{a,b,c}$ is not of  finite mutation type.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a non negative integer $t$, we set $Q^t:=(\mu_2\mu_1)^t(Q_{(a,b,c)})$ and a pair  of integers $(b_t,c_t)$ by the following recursion:
\[b_0=b,c_0=c, b_t=ac_{t-1}-b_{t-1}, c_t=ab_t-c_{t-1}.
\]
We claim that $0<b_1<c_1\cdots<b_t<c_t<\cdots$. Indeed, it is straightforward to see that $0<b_1<c_1$. For $t\geq 2$, we have
\[b_t-c_{t-1}=ac_{t-1}-b_{t-1}-c_{t-1}=(a-1)c_{t-1}-b_{t-1}\geq 2c_{t-1}-b_{t-1}>0
\]
and
\[c_{t}-b_t=(a-1)b_t-c_{t-1}>0
\]
by induction.
As a consequence, $Q^t=Q_{(a,b_t,c_t)}$ and $Q_{(a,b,c)}$ is not of finite mutation type.
\end{proof}

\section{Quivers arising from Weighted projective lines}\label{s:weighted-projective-line}
\subsection{Weighted projective lines}
 Fix a positive integer $t\geq 2$.
A {\it weighted projective line} $\mathbb{X}=\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{p},\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ over $K$ is given by a weight sequence $\mathbf{p}=(p_1,\dots,p_t)$
of positive integers, and
a  parameter sequence  $\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(\lambda_1\dots,\lambda_t)$  of pairwise distinct points of the projective line $\P_1(K)$. Let $\mathbb{L}$ be the rank one  abelian group generated by $\vec{x}_1,\ldots, \vec{x}_t$ with the relations
\[p_1\vec{x}_1=p_2\vec{x}_2=\cdots=p_t\vec{x}_t=:\vec{c},
\]
where the element $\vec{c}$ is called the {\it canonical element} of $\mathbb{L}$. Denote by \[\vec{\omega}:=(t-2)\vec{c}-\sum\limits_{i=1}^t\vec{x}_i\in \mathbb{L},\] which is called the {\it dualizing element} of $\mathbb{L}$. Each element $\vec{x}\in \mathbb{L}$ can be uniquely written into the {\it normal form}
\[\vec{x}=\sum_{i=1}^tl_i\vec{x}_i+l\vec{c}, ~\text{where~$0\leq l_i<p_i$ and $l\in \mathbb{Z}$.}
\]
Let $\vec{x}=\sum_{i=1}^tl_i\vec{x}_i+l\vec{c}$ and $\vec{y}=\sum_{i=1}^tm_i\vec{x}_i+m\vec{c}\in \mathbb{L}$ be in normal form, denote by $\vec{x}\leq \vec{y}$ if $l_i\leq m_i$ for $i=1,\ldots, t$ and $l\leq m$. This defines a partial order on $\mathbb{L}$. It is known that each $\vec{x}\in \mathbb{L}$ satisfies exactly one of the two possibilities:
\[0\leq \vec{x}~\text{or}~\vec{x}\leq \vec{c}+\vec{\omega}.
\]
\subsection{The category $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ of coherent sheaves}
Let
\[S:=S({\bf p}, {\boldsymbol{\lambda}})=K[X_1,\cdots, X_t]/I
\] be the quotient of the polynomial ring $K[X_1,\cdots, X_t]$ by the ideal $I$ generated by $f_i=X_i^{p_i}-X_2^{p_2}+\lambda_iX_1^{p_1}$ for $3\leq i\leq t$.
 The algebra $S$ is $\mathbb{L}$-graded by setting $\deg X_i=\vec{x}_i$~for ~$i=1,\ldots, t$ and we have the decomposition of $S$ into $K$-subspace
\[S=\bigoplus_{\vec{x}\in \mathbb{L}}S_{\vec{x}}.
\]

The category $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ of coherent sheaves over $\mathbb{X}$ is defined to be the quotient category
\[\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}:=\mod^{\mathbb{L}}S/\mod_0^{\mathbb{L}}S,
\]
where $\mod^{\mathbb{L}}S$ is the category of finitely generated $\mathbb{L}$-graded $S$-modules, while $\mod_0^{\mathbb{L}}S$ is the Serre subcategory of $\mathbb{L}$-graded $S$-modules of finite length. For each sheaf $E$ and $\vec{x}\in \mathbb{L}$, denote by $E(\vec{x})$ the  grading shift of $E$ with $\vec{x}$. The free module $S$ gives the structure  sheaf $\mathcal{O}$, and each line bundle is given by the grading shift $\mathcal{O}(\vec{x})$ for a unique element $\vec{x}\in \mathbb{L}$. Moreover, we have
\begin{eqnarray}~\label{e:hom}
\opname{Hom}_{\mathbb{X}}(\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}), \mathcal{O}(\vec{y}))=S_{\vec{y}-\vec{x}}~\text{for any ~$\vec{x},\vec{y}\in \mathbb{L}$.}
\end{eqnarray}

 In ~\cite{GeigleLenzing}, Geigle and Lenzing proved that $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ is a connected hereditary abelian category with tilting objects and has Serre duality of the form
\begin{eqnarray}~\label{e:serre-duality}
\mathbb{D}\opname{Ext}^1_{\mathbb{X}}(E,F)=\opname{Hom}_{\mathbb{X}}(F, E(\vec{\omega}))
\end{eqnarray}
for all $E,F\in \opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$.
In particular, $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ admits almost split sequences with the Auslander-Reiten translation $\tau$ given by the grading shift with $\vec{\omega}$. Recall that an object $T\in \opname{coh} \mathbb{X}$ is a {\it tilting object} if $\opname{Ext}^1_{\mathbb{X}}(T,T)=0$ and for $X\in \opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ with $\opname{Hom}_{\mathbb{X}}(T,X)=0=\opname{Ext}^1_{\mathbb{X}}(T,X)$, we have that $X=0$.

 Denote by $\opname{vect}\mathbb{X}$ the full subcategory of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ consisting of vector bundles, i.e. torsion-free sheaves, and by $\opname{coh}_0\mathbb{X}$  the full subcategory consisting of sheaves of finite length, i.e. torsion sheaves.
 Each coherent sheaf is the direct sum of a vector bundle and a finite length sheaf. Each vector bundle has a finite filtration by line bundles and there is no nonzero morphism from $\opname{coh}_0\mathbb{X}$ to $\opname{vect} \mathbb{X}$.  We remark that $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ does not contain nonzero projective objects. Denote by
 \[{\bf p}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}:\mathbb{P}_1(k)\to \mathbb{N},~ {\bf p}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(\mu)=\begin{cases}
 p_i& \text{if $\mu=\lambda_i$ for some $i$,}\\ 1 &\text{else.}
 \end{cases}
 \]
 the weight function associated with $\mathbb{X}$.
\begin{proposition}~\cite[Proposition 2.5]{GeigleLenzing}~\label{p:structure-finite}
 	The category $\opname{coh}_0\mathbb{X}$ is an exact abelian, uniserial subcategory of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ which is stable under Auslander-Reiten translation. The components of the Auslander-Reiten quiver of $\opname{coh}_0\mathbb{X}$ form a family of pairwise orthogonal standard tubes $(\mathcal{T}_{\mu})_{\mu\in\mathbb{P}_1(k)}$, where each tube $\mathcal{T}_{\mu}$ has  rank ${\bf p}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(\mu)$.
 	\end{proposition}

For $\lambda_i$ with weight $p_i\geq 2$, there is exactly one simple object $S_i$ in $\mathcal{T}_{\lambda_i}$ satisfying $\opname{Hom}_\mathbb{X}(\mathcal{O}, S_i)\neq 0$. Moreover, there exists a sequence of exceptional objects and epimorphims
\[S_i^{[p_i-1]}\twoheadrightarrow S_i^{[p_i-2]}\twoheadrightarrow \cdots\twoheadrightarrow S_i^{[1]}=S_i,
\]
where $S_i^{[j]}$ has length $j$ and top $S_i$.

The following is well-known (cf. \cite{GeigleLenzing}).
\begin{proposition}

Both
 \[T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}):=\bigoplus\limits_{0\leq \vec{x}\leq \vec{c}}\mathcal{O}(\vec{x})~\text{and}~T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}):=\mathcal{O}\oplus \mathcal{O}(\vec{c})\oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^t(\bigoplus_{k=1}^{p_i-1}S_i^{[p_i-k]})
 \] are tilting objects of $\opname{coh} \mathbb{X}$.
\end{proposition}

\subsection{Quivers associated with $T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})$ and $T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})$}
Denote by ${\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})$ the bounded derived category of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ with suspension functor $\Sigma$. Let $\tau:{\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh} \mathbb{X})\to {\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})$ be the Auslander-Reiten (AR) translation functor, which restricts to the AR translation of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$.
\begin{definition}
The {\it cluster category} $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ associated with $\mathbb{X}$ is defined as the orbit category ${\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})/\langle \tau^{-1}\circ \Sigma \rangle$; it has the same objects as ${\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})$, morphism spaces are given by $\bigoplus_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\opname{Hom}_{{\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})}(X, (\tau^{-1}\circ \Sigma)^i Y)$ with obvious composition.
\end{definition}

The cluster category $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ admits a canonical triangle structure such that the projection $\pi_{\mathbb{X}}:{\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})\to \mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ is a triangle functor (cf. \cite{Keller}).
The suspension functor $\Sigma$ (resp. the AR translation $\tau$) of ${\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})$ induces the suspension functor (resp. the AR translation) of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$, which will be denoted by $\Sigma$ (resp. $\tau$) as well.
It was shown in~\cite{Keller} that $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ is a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category, i.e., for any $X,Y\in \mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$, we have bifunctorially isomorphisms
\[\opname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}}(X, \Sigma^2Y)\cong \mathbb{D}\opname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}}(Y, X).
\]
By the $2$-Calabi-Yau property, we clearly have $\tau=\Sigma$ in $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$.
\begin{definition}
An object $T\in \mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ is a {\it cluster-tilting object} if $\opname{Ext}^1_{\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}}(T,T)=0$ and $\opname{Ext}^1_{\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}}(T,X)=0$ implies that $X\in \opname{add}\nolimits T$, where $\opname{add}\nolimits T$ is the full subcategory of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ consisting of direct summands of direct sum of finite copies of $T$.
\end{definition}
 Since $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ has no nonzero projective objects, the composition of the embedding of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ into ${\mathcal D}^b(\opname{coh}\mathbb{X})$ with the projection functor $\pi_\mathbb{X}$ yields a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable objects of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ and the set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable objects of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$. We may identify the objects of $\opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ with the ones of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ by the bijection.
 \begin{lemma}\cite[Section 3]{BMRRT}
 An object $T\in \opname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ is a tilting object if and only if $T$ is a cluster-tilting object of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$.
 \end{lemma}
 In particular, $T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})$ and $T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})$ are basic cluster-tilting objects of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$. We denote by $Q_{T_\text{can}(\mathbb{X})}$ (resp. $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$) the Gabriel quiver of the endomorphism algebra $\opname{End}_{\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}}(T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}))$ (resp. $\opname{End}_{\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}}(T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}))$). The quivers have been listed in Figure ~\ref{f:1} and Figure \ref{f:2} respectively. We remark that the relation of the corresponding algebra is quite complicated in general and we do not need in the sequel.

\begin{figure}[ht]

\begin{tikzpicture}[
    scale=2.5,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
    arrow/.style={->, >=stealth'},
    important line/.style={thick},
    dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
    pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
    >=2pt},
    every node/.style={color=black}
    ]

  \draw[arrow](-0.5,0.02)--(0.5,0.02);
  \draw[arrow](-0.5,-0.02)--(0.5,-0.02);
  \draw[arrow](0.5,0.02)--(0,0.5);
  \draw[arrow](0,0.5)--(-0.5,0.02);
   \draw[arrow](0.5,-0.02)--(0,-0.25);
  \draw[arrow](0,-0.25)--(-0.5,-0.02);
  \node at (-0.55,0){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}$}};
  \node at (0.65,0){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(\vec{c})$}};
   \node at (0.05,0.6){\tiny{$S_1^{[p_1-1]}$}};
   \node at (0.06,-0.15){\tiny{$S_2^{[p_2-1]}$}};
  \node at (0,-0.35){\tiny{$\vdots$}};
  \draw[arrow](0.5,-0.02)--(0,-0.5);
  \draw[arrow](0,-0.5)--(-0.5,-0.02);
 \node at (0.05,-0.6){\tiny{$S_t^{[p_t-1]}$}};

 \draw[arrow](0,0.5)--(0.5,0.5);
 \node at (0.5,0.6){\tiny{$S_1^{[p_1-2]}$}};
 \draw[dashed line](0.5,0.5)--(1,0.5);
  \node at (1,0.6){\tiny{$S_1^{[2]}$}};
  \draw[arrow](1,0.5)--(1.5,0.5);
\node at (1.5,0.6){\tiny{$S_1^{[1]}$}};

  \draw[arrow](0,-0.25)--(0.5,-0.25);
 \node at (0.6,-0.15){\tiny{$S_2^{[p_2-2]}$}};
 \draw[dashed line](0.5,-0.25)--(1,-0.25);
  \node at (1,-0.15){\tiny{$S_2^{[2]}$}};
  \draw[arrow](1,-0.25)--(1.5,-0.25);
\node at (1.5,-0.15){\tiny{$S_2^{[1]}$}};

  \draw[arrow](0,-0.5)--(0.5,-0.5);
 \node at (0.5,-0.6){\tiny{$S_t^{[p_t-2]}$}};
 \draw[dashed line](0.5,-0.5)--(1,-0.5);
  \node at (1,-0.6){\tiny{$S_t^{[2]}$}};
  \draw[arrow](1,-0.5)--(1.5,-0.5);
\node at (1.5,-0.6){\tiny{$S_t^{[1]}$}};

 \node at (0.5, -0.35){\tiny{$\vdots$}};
 \node at (1, -0.35){\tiny{$\vdots$}};
\end{tikzpicture}

\caption{Quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ with weight sequence $(p_1, \dots, p_t)$.}~\label{f:1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tikzpicture}[
    scale=2.5,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
    arrow/.style={ ->, >=stealth'},
    important line/.style={thick},
    dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
    pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
    >=2pt},
    every node/.style={color=black}
    ]

  \draw[arrow](2,0)--(0.02,0);
  \node at (1,0.05){{\bf $t-2$}};
  \draw[arrow](0,0)--(0.4,0.4);
  \draw[arrow](0.4,0.4)--(0.8,0.4);
  \draw[dashed line](0.8,0.4)--(1.2, 0.4);
  \draw[arrow](1.2,0.4)--(1.6,0.4);
  \draw[arrow](1.6,0.4)--(2,0);

   \node at (-0.05,0){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}$}};
   \node at (2.15,0){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(\vec{c})$}};
    \node at (0.4,0.5){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_1)$}};
   \node at (0.8,0.5){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_1)$}};
    \node at (1.6,0.5){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}((p_1-1)\vec{x}_1)$}};

  \draw[arrow](0,0)--(0.4,-0.2);
  \draw[arrow](0.4,-0.2)--(0.8,-0.2);
  \draw[dashed line](0.8,-0.2)--(1.2, -0.2);
  \draw[arrow](1.2,-0.2)--(1.6,-0.2);
  \draw[arrow](1.6,-0.2)--(2,0);

  \node at (0.4, -0.1){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_2)$}};
  \node at (0.8, -0.1){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_2)$}};
  \node at (1.5, -0.1){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}((p_2-1)\vec{x}_2)$}};
  \draw[arrow](0,0)--(0.4,-0.5);
  \draw[arrow](0.4,-0.5)--(0.8,-0.5);
  \draw[dashed line](0.8,-0.5)--(1.2, -0.5);
  \draw[arrow](1.2,-0.5)--(1.6,-0.5);
  \draw[arrow](1.6,-0.5)--(2,0);

  \node at (0.4, -0.6){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_t)$}};
  \node at (0.8, -0.6){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_t)$}};
  \node at (1.6, -0.6){\tiny{$\mathcal{O}((p_t-1)\vec{x}_t)$}};
  \node at (0.4,-0.3){\tiny{$\vdots$}};
  \node at (0.8,-0.3){\tiny{$\vdots$}};
  \node at (1.2,-0.3){\tiny{$\vdots$}};
  \node at (1.6,-0.3){\tiny{$\vdots$}};

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Quiver $Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})}$ with weight sequence $(p_1,\dots, p_t)$, where the label $t-2$ means that there are $t-2$ arrows from $\mathcal{O}(\vec{c})$ to $\mathcal{O}.$ }~\label{f:2}
\end{figure}
The following is a direct consequence of \cite[Theorem 1.2]{FG}.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:mutation-equivalent}
Let $T$ be a basic cluster-tilting object of $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{X}$ and $Q_T$ the Gabriel quiver of the endomorphism algebra of $T$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Q_T$ is mutation-equivalent to $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$. In particular, the quiver $Q_{T_\text{can}(\mathbb{X})}$ is mutation-equivalent to $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$.
\item $Q_T$ admits a green-to-red sequence.
\end{enumerate}

\end{proposition}

\subsection{The classification}
Denote by $p=\operatorname{lcm}(p_1,\dots, p_t)$ the least common multiple of $p_1,\dots, p_t$. The {\it genus} $g_\mathbb{X}$ of $\mathbb{X}$ is defined as
\[g_\mathbb{X}=1+\frac{1}{2}((t-2)p-\sum_{i=1}^t\frac{p}{p_i}).
\]
A weighted projective line of genus $g_\mathbb{X}<1$($g_\mathbb{X}=1$, resp. $g_\mathbb{X}>1$) is  of {\it domestic} ({\it tubular}, resp. {\it wild}) type. The domestic types are, up to permutation, $(1,p) $ with $p\geq 1$, $(p,q)$ with $p,q\geq 2$, $(2,2,n)$ with $n\geq 2$, $(2,3,3)$, $(2,3,4)$ and $(2,3,5)$, whereas the tubular types are, up to permutation, $(2,2,2,2)$, $(3,3,3)$, $(2,4,4)$ and $(2,3,6)$.
It is worth pointing out that a weighted projective line of domestic type is derived equivalent to a finite dimensional hereditary algebra of tame type.

\begin{proposition}\label{p:finite-mutation-wpl}
Let $\mathbb{X}$ be a weighted projective line. The quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ is of  finite mutation type if and only if $\mathbb{X}$ is of domestic type or of tubular type.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The ``if'' part follows from Lemma \ref{l:finite-mutatin-type}. More precisely, if $\mathbb{X}$ is of domestic type, then $\opname{coh} \mathbb{X}$ is derived equivalent to a finite dimensional hereditary algebra of tame type. As a consequence, the quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ is mutation-equivalent to an acyclic quiver of extended Dynkin type. If $\mathbb{X}$ is of tubular type, then the quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ is as in Figure \ref{f:quiver-tubular-type}.

For the ``only if" part, it suffices to prove that $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ is not of finite mutation type provided that $\mathbb{X}$ is of wild type. According to Lemma \ref{l:non-finite-mutation-type}, it suffices to show that there is a quiver $Q$ in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})})$ such that $Q$ admits a full subquiver $Q_{a,b,c}$ for some $2\leq c\leq b\leq a$ and $a\geq 3$.

Let $\mathbb{X}$ be a wild weighted projective line.
According to the classification of weighted projective lines, the quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ admits one of the following quivers as a subquiver
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ with weight sequence $(2,3,7)$;
\item $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ with weight sequence $(2,4,5)$;
\item $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ with weight sequence $(3,3,4)$;
\item $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ with weight sequence $(2,2,2,3)$;
\item $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ with weight sequence $(2,2,2,2,2)$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathbf{p}$ be one of the weight sequences in $(1)$-$(5)$. According to Proposition \ref{p:mutation-equivalent}, there is a  quiver $Q_{\mathbf{p}}$ in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})})$ such that $Q_{\mathbf{p}}$ admits $Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ as a full subquiver, where $\mathbb{X}'$ has the weight sequence $\mathbf{p}$. It suffices to show that there is a quiver in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}')})$ which admits a subquiver $Q_{a,b,c}$ for $2\leq c\leq b\leq a$ and $3\leq a$. Let us label the vertices of $Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}')}$ as in Figure \ref{f:2}.
For $\mathbf{p}=(2,3,7)$, let
\begin{eqnarray*}\mathfrak{i}&=&(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(6\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(\vec{c}),\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_2),\mathcal{O}(6\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(5\vec{x}_3),\\ &&\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_2),\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_3),
\mathcal{O}(3\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_2),\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(\vec{c})).
\end{eqnarray*}
For $\mathbf{p}=(2,4,5)$, let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathfrak{i}&=&(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(\vec{c}),\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_3), \mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(3\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(3\vec{x}_2),\\
&&\mathcal{O}(\vec{c}),\mathcal{O}(3\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(4\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_2),\mathcal{O}(2\vec{x}_3)).
\end{eqnarray*}
For $\mathbf{p}=(3,3,4)$, let $\mathfrak{i}=(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_1),\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_2),\mathcal{O}(\vec{x}_3),\mathcal{O}(\vec{c}),\mathcal{O})$.
For $\mathbf{p}=(2,2,2,3)$, let $\mathfrak{i}=(\mathcal{O}(\vec{c}),\mathcal{O})$.  It is straightforward to check that $Q_{2,2,3}$ is a subquiver of $\mu_{\mathfrak{i}}(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}')})$ in each case. Finally, for $\mathbf{p}=(2,2,2,2,2)$, denote by $\mathfrak{i}=(\mathcal{O}(\vec{c}),\mathcal{O})$. We find that $Q_{2,3,5}$ is a subquiver of $\mu_{\mathcal{O}}\mu_{\mathcal{O}(\vec{c})}(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X}')})$ in this case. This completes the proof.

\end{proof}

\section{The existence and non-existence of maximal green sequence}\label{s:proof-main-result}
This section is devoted to proving the main result of this note. We begin with the hyperbolic case. Recall that a weighted projective line $\mathbb{X}$ with weight sequence $(p_1,\dots, p_t)$ is of {\it hyperbolic type} if $p_1=p_2=\cdots=p_t=2$.

Let  $\mathbb{X}$ be of hyperbolic type.  We denote by $Q_t$ the quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ in this case and relabel the vertices of $Q_t$ as in Figure~\ref{f:3}. We will always identify $Q_{t}$ with a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$ such that the vertex $t+1$ is the unique vertex which does not belong to $Q_t$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[
    scale=2.5,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
    arrow/.style={ ->, >=stealth'},
    important line/.style={thick},
    dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
    pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
    >=2pt},
    every node/.style={color=black}
    ]

\draw[arrow] (-0.5, 0.02)--(0.5, 0.02);
\draw[arrow] (-0.5, -0.02)--(0.5, -0.02);
\draw[arrow] (0.5, 0.02)--(0, 0.4);
\draw[arrow] (0, 0.4)--(-0.5, 0.02);
\node at (-0.55, 0){\tiny{$\diamond$}};
\node at (0.55,0){\tiny{$\star$}};
\node at (0,0.45){\tiny{$1$}};
\draw[arrow] (0.5, -0.02)--(0, -0.25);
\draw[arrow] (0, -0.25)--(-0.5, -0.02);
\node at (0,-0.15){\tiny{$2$}};
\draw[arrow] (0.5, -0.02)--(0, -0.5);
\draw[arrow] (0, -0.5)--(-0.5, -0.02);
\node at (0, -0.6){\tiny{$t$}};
\node at (0, -0.3){\tiny{$\vdots$}};

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Quiver $Q_{t}=Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ with weight sequence $(2,2,\dots, 2)$.}~\label{f:3}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}~\label{l:-mgs-induction}
Let ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t}}$ be a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t}$. Denote by $\bullet\rightrightarrows \circ$ the unique multiple arrows in $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t})$. If ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}:=({\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t}},\tiny{t+1},\circ,\bullet)$ is a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t+1}$, then $\circ\rightrightarrows \tiny{t+1}$ is the unique multiple arrows in $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(Q_{t+1})$ and ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+2}}:=( {\bf\mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}, t+2,t+1,\circ)$ is a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t+2}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We apply $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_{t}}$ to the quiver $Q_{t+2}$.  Since  ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}$ is a sequence  of vertices of $Q_t$, $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t})$ is a full subquiver of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t+2})$.
In particular, the vertex set of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t})$ is a subset of the vertex set of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t+2})$. Since $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t})\cong Q_t$,  we will denote the vertex set of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t})$ by $\{\bullet, \circ, 1,\dots, t\}$ and the vertex set of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t+2})$ by $\{\bullet, \circ, 1,\dots, t,t+1,t+2\}$.

Let $\hat{B}=(b_{ij})\in M_{2(t+4) }(\mathbb{Z})$ be the skew-symmetric matrix associated to the framed quiver $\hat{Q}_{t+2}$ and $\hat{B}^{\circ}$ the submatrix of $\hat{B}$ consisting of the first $t+4$ columns. We index the columns of $\hat{B}^{\circ}$ by $\bullet, \circ, 1,\dots, t+2$.

\noindent{\bf Claim $1$:} The principal part of $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_t}(\hat{B}^\circ)$ is
 \[\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
 0&-2&1&\cdots&1&1&1\\
 2&0&-1&\cdots&-1&-1&-1\\
 -1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0\\
 &\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&\\
 -1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0\\
 -1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0\\
 -1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0
 \end{bmatrix}\in M_{t+4}(\mathbb{Z}).
 \]
The proof of this claim will be separated into three steps.
Here we work on the quivers.

\noindent{\bf Step $1$:}
{\it The full subquiver of $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_{t}}(Q_{t+2})$ consisting of vertices $\bullet, \circ, t+1$ and  $t+2$ has the following form:}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[
    scale=2,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
    arrow/.style={ ->, >=stealth'},
    important line/.style={thick},
    dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
    pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
    >=2pt},
    every node/.style={color=black}
    ]

    \draw[arrow](0,0.02)--(1, 0.02);
    \draw[arrow](0,-0.02)--(1, -0.02);
    \node at(-0.05,0){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
     \node at(1.05,0){\tiny{$\circ$}};

 \draw[arrow](1,0.02)--(0.5, 0.5);
  \draw[arrow](0.5,0.5)--(0, 0.02);

   \node at(0.5,0.6){\tiny{$t+1$}};
   \node at(0.5,-0.6){\tiny{$t+2$}};

   \draw[arrow](1,0.02)--(0.5, -0.5);
   \draw[arrow](0.5,-0.5)--(0, 0.02);

    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

Suppose that there are $a$ arrows from vertex $t+1$ to vertex $\bullet$ and $b$ arrows from vertex $\circ$ to vertex $t+1$ and denote by $Q(a,b)$ the full subquiver consisting of vertices $\bullet, \circ$ and $t+1$. Since there is a symmetry between $t+1$ and $t+2$ in $Q_{t+2}$, it suffices to prove that $a=b=1$.

Denote by $B=\begin{bmatrix}0&-2&a\\ 2&0&-b\\ -a &b&0\end{bmatrix}$ the associated skew-symmetric matrix of $Q(a,b)$.  Denote by
\[c_{12}=-2+\opname{sgn}(a)[ab]_+, c_{13}=a-\opname{sgn}(c_{12})[bc_{12}]_+, c_{23}=-b+\opname{sgn}(c_{12})[-c_{12}c_{13}]_+.
\]

By Fomin-Zelevinsky's matrix mutation formula, we obtain
\[C:=\mu_{\bullet}(\mu_{\circ}(\mu_{t+1}(B)))=\begin{bmatrix} 0&c_{12}& c_{13}\\ -c_{12}&0&c_{23}\\ -c_{13}&-c_{23}&0
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
Note that the associated skew-symmetric matrix of $\mu_\bullet(\mu_\circ(\mu_{t+1}(Q(a,b))))$ is the matrix $C$. By the assumption that ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}$ is a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t+1}$, we have $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(Q_{t+1})\cong Q_{t+1}$. In particular, the quiver $\mu_\bullet(\mu_\circ(\mu_{t+1}(Q(a,b))))$ is a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$ via the isomorphism $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(Q_{t+1})\cong Q_{t+1}$. The remaining proof is a discussion of the values of $a$ and $b$, from which we can deduce that $a=1=b$. We will denote by $Q(C)$ the associated quiver of the skew-symmetric matrix $C$.

\noindent{\it Case $1$: $a<0$, $b>0$.}  A direct computation shows that $c_{12}=-2$, $c_{13}=a$ and $c_{23}=-b$. Consequently, the associate quiver $Q(C)$ is not a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$.

\noindent{\it Case $2$: $a>0, b<0$.} We have $c_{12}=-2$, $c_{13}=a-2b\geq 3$, which implies that the associated quiver $Q(C)$ is not a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$.

\noindent{\it Case $3$: $a\leq 0, b\leq 0$.}  We have $c_{12}=-2-ab\leq -2$. Since $Q(C)$ is a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$, we have $c_{12}=-2$. Hence $ab=0$, i.e., $a=0$ or $b=0$. In each case, one can show that $Q(C)$ is not a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$.

\noindent{\it Case $4$: $a\geq 0$, $b\geq 0$.} Similar to the Case $3$, we obtain $-2\leq c_{12}=-2+ab\leq 2$. In particular, $0\leq ab\leq 4$. A direct computation shows that $a=1=b$ is the unique value such that $Q(C)$ is a full subquiver of $Q_{t+1}$.  This completes the proof for the statement in {\bf Step $1$}.

As a direct consequence of the statement of {\bf Step $1$},  the quiver $Q(C)$ has the form as in Figure~\ref{f:quiver-c}.  Consequently, $\circ\rightrightarrows t+1$ is the unique multiple arrows in $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(Q_{t+1})$.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[
    scale=2,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
    arrow/.style={ ->, >=stealth'},
    important line/.style={thick},
    dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
    pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
    >=2pt},
    every node/.style={color=black}
    ]

    \draw[arrow](0,0.02)--(1, 0.02);
    \draw[arrow](0,-0.02)--(1, -0.02);
    \node at(-0.05,0){\tiny{$\circ$}};
     \node at(1.25,0){\tiny{$t+1$}.};

 \draw[arrow](1,0.02)--(0.5, 0.5);
  \draw[arrow](0.5,0.5)--(0, 0.02);

   \node at(0.5,0.55){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
    \end{tikzpicture}
    \caption{Quiver $Q(C)$.}~\label{f:quiver-c}
\end{figure}

\noindent{\bf Step $2$:} {\it  There are no arrows between vertex $k\in \{1,\dots, t\}$ and vertex $t+1$ in the quiver $\mu_{\mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t+2})$.}

Without loss of generality, we may assume that there are $a$ arrows from vertex $i$ to vertex $t+1$ and  we consider the full subquiver consisting of vertices $\bullet, \circ, t+1, i$:
\begin{figure}[h]
	\begin{tikzpicture}[
	scale=2,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
	arrow/.style={ ->, >=stealth'},
	important line/.style={thick},
	dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
	pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
		>=2pt},
	every node/.style={color=black}
	]

	\draw[arrow](0,0.02)--(1, 0.02);
	\draw[arrow](0,-0.02)--(1, -0.02);
	\node at(-0.05,0){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
	\node at(1.05,0){\tiny{$\circ$}.};
	\node at(0.5, -0.5){\tiny{$i$}};

	\draw[arrow](1,0.02)--(0.5, 0.5);
	\draw[arrow](0.5,0.5)--(0, 0.02);
	\draw[arrow](1.,0)--(0.5,-0.45);
	\draw[arrow](0.5,-0.45)--(0,-0.02);
	\draw[arrow](0.5,-0.45)--(0.5,0.45);

	\node at(0.55, 0.25){\tiny{$a$}};

	\node at(0.5,0.55){\tiny{$t+1$}};
	\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

By applying the mutation sequence $t+1, \circ, \bullet$ to the above quiver, we obtain
\begin{figure}[h]
	\begin{tikzpicture}[
	scale=2,axis/.style={ very thick, ->, >=stealth'},
	arrow/.style={ ->, >=stealth'},
	important line/.style={thick},
	dashed line/.style={dashed, thin},
	pile/.style={thick, ->, >=stealth', shorten <=2pt, shorten
		>=2pt},
	every node/.style={color=black}
	]

	\draw[arrow](-1,0.02)--(0, 0.02);
	\draw[arrow](-1,-0.02)--(0, -0.02);
	\node at(-1.05,0){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
	\node at(0.05,0){\tiny{$\circ$}};
	\node at(-0.5, -0.5){\tiny{$i$}};

	\draw[arrow](0,0.02)--(-0.5, 0.5);
	\draw[arrow](-0.5,0.5)--(-1, 0.02);
	\draw[arrow](0,0)--(-0.5,-0.45);
	\draw[arrow](-0.5,-0.45)--(-1,0);
	\draw[arrow](-0.5,-0.45)--(-0.5,0.45);

	\node at(-0.45, 0.25){\tiny{$a$}};

	\node at(-0.5,0.55){\tiny{$t+1$}};

	\draw[-](0.15, 0)--(0.45,0);
	\node at (0.3, 0.05){\tiny{$t+1$}};
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	\draw[arrow](0.55,0)--(1.5, 0);

	\node at(0.5,0){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
	\node at(1.6,0){\tiny{$\circ$}};
	\node at(1.05, -0.5){\tiny{$i$}};

	\draw[arrow](1.05, 0.5)--(1.55,0.02);
	\draw[arrow](0.55, 0.02)--(1.05,0.5);
	\draw[arrow](1.55,0)--(1.05,-0.45);
	\draw[arrow](1.05,-0.45)--(0.55,0);
	\draw[arrow](1.05,0.45)--(1.05,-0.4);

	\node at(1.1, 0.25){\tiny{$a$}};
	\node at(0.6,-0.3){\tiny{$a+1$}};

	\node at(1.05,0.55){\tiny{$t+1$}};

	\draw[-](1.7, 0)--(2,0);
	\node at (1.85, 0.05){\tiny{$\circ$}};
	~~~~~
	\draw[arrow](3.05, 0)--(2.1,0);

	\node at(2.05,0){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
	\node at(3.1,0){\tiny{$\circ$}};
	\node at(2.6, -0.5){\tiny{$i$}};

	\draw[arrow](3.1,0.05)--(2.6,0.5);
	\draw[arrow](2.05,0.05)--(2.6,0.5);
	\draw[arrow](2.6,0.5)--(2.6,-0.45);
	\draw[arrow](2.6,-0.45)--(2.05,-0.05);
	\draw[arrow](2.6,-0.45)--(3.1,-0.05);

	\node at(2.65, 0.25){\tiny{$a+1$}};
	\node at(2.15,-0.3){\tiny{$a$}};

	\node at(2.65,0.55){\tiny{$t+1$}};

	\draw[-](3.2, 0)--(3.55,0);
	\node at (3.4, 0.05){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	\draw[arrow](3.65,0)--(4.6, 0);

	\node at(3.6,0){\tiny{$\bullet$}};
	\node at(4.65,0){\tiny{$\circ$}};
	\node at(4.1, -0.5){\tiny{$i$}};
	\node at (4.95,0){\tiny{$=: Q_{(4)}$.}};

	\draw[arrow](4.55,0.05)--(4.1, 0.5);
	\draw[arrow](4.6,0.05)--(4.15,0.5);
	\draw[arrow](4.1,0.5)--(3.6,0.05);
	\draw[arrow](4.1,0.5)--(4.1,-0.45);
	\draw[arrow](4.15,-0.45)--(4.65,-0.05);
	\draw[arrow](3.6,-0.05)--(4.05,-0.45);

	\node at(3.7,-0.3){\tiny{$a$}};

	\node at(4.1,0.55){\tiny{$t+1$}};
	\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

By the assumption that ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}$ is a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t+1}$, we know that the quiver $Q_{(4)}$ is a full subquiver of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(Q_{t+1})$ and we conclude that $a=0$. This completes the proof of the statement in {\bf Step $2$}.

\noindent{\bf Step $3$:} {\it There are no arrows between vertex $k\in \{1,\dots, t+1\}$ and vertex $t+2$ in the quiver $\mu_{\mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t+2})$.}

Note that there is a symmetry between vertex $t+1$ and $t+2$ in the quiver $Q_{t+2}$ and the mutation sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}$ does not involve the vertices $t+1$ and $t+2$. Then the statement of {\bf Step $3$} follows the statement of {\bf Step $2$} directly.

Now {\bf Claim $1$} is a direct consequence of the statements in {\bf Step $1, 2, 3$.}

 \noindent{\bf Claim $2$:} {\it Up to a permutation of  the rows associated to $\bullet^*, \circ^*, 1^*,\dots, t^*$, the coefficient part $C_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}$ of $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_t}(\hat{B}^\circ)$  has the following form:}
 \[\begin{bmatrix}
 -I_{t+2}&X\\ 0& I_2
 \end{bmatrix}
 \]
 {\it where  $X\in M_{(t+2)\times 2}(\mathbb{Z})$ with non-negative entries. }

We fix a quiver pattern of the framed quiver $\hat{Q}_{t+2}$ of $Q_{t+2}$ by assigning $\hat{Q}_{t+2}$ to the root vertex $t_0\in \mathbb{T}_{t+4}$.
Each sequence $\mathfrak{i}$ of vertices of $Q_{t+2}$ induces a path of $\mathbb{T}_{t+4}$ with starting point $t_0$. We denote by the ending point $s_{\mathfrak{i}}$ and denote by $G_{\mathfrak{i}}:=G_{s_{\mathfrak{i}}}$ (resp. $C_{\mathfrak{i}}$) the $G$-matrix (resp. $C$-matrix) at $s_{\mathfrak{i}}$.

 Since the sequence ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}$ does not involves the vertices $t+1$ and $t+2$. It follows that
 $G_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}=\begin{bmatrix} A&0\\ Y&I_2
 \end{bmatrix}$,
 where $A\in M_{t+2}(\mathbb{Z})$ is invertible and $Y\in M_{2\times (t+2)}(\mathbb{Z})$ with non negative entries.
 By the tropical dualities between $G$-matrices and $C$-matrices (\ref{t:tropical-duality}), we have
 \[C_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}=G_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_t}^{-T}=\begin{bmatrix}
 A^{-T}&-A^{-T}Y^T\\ 0&I_2
 \end{bmatrix}.
 \]
 Since ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}$ is a maximal green sequence, it follows that $A^{-T}$ is a permutation of $-I_{t+2}$. On the other hand,  the entries of $-A^{-T}Y^T$ are non negative by the sign-coherence of $c$-vectors. This finishes the proof of {\bf Claim $2$}.

According to {\bf Claim $1$} and {\bf Claim $2$}, up to permutation of indices, we may assume that
\[\tiny \mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(\hat{B}^\circ)=\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
\text{$\bullet$}&\text{$\circ$}&\text{\color{blue}$1$}&\text{\color{blue}$\cdots$}&\text{\color{blue}$t$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+1$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}&\\
\begin{block}{[ccccccc]c}
0&-2&1&\cdots&1&1&1& \text{$\bullet$}\\
2&0&-1&\cdots&-1&-1&-1& \text{$\circ$}\\
-1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0& \text{\color{blue}$1$}\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots& &\text{\color{blue}$\vdots$}\\
-1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0& \text{\color{blue}$t$}\\
-1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0& \text{\color{blue}$t+1$}\\
-1&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}\\
-1&0&0&\cdots&0&a_{\bullet}&a_{\bullet}&\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&a_{\circ}&a_{\circ}&\\
0&0&-1&\cdots&0&a_1&a_1&\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&-1&a_t&a_t&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&1&0&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&1&\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}
\]
where $\bullet, \circ, {\color{blue}1},\cdots, {\color{blue} t+2}$ are (relabelled) vertices of $\mu_{\bf\mathfrak{i}_t}(Q_{t+2})$, $a_{\bullet}, a_{\circ}, a_1,\ldots, a_t$ are non negative integers.

By Fomin-Zelevinsky's mutation rule, we obtain $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$ as in Figure \ref{m:t+1}.
\begin{figure}

\begin{eqnarray*} \mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(\hat{B}^\circ)&=&\mu_{\bullet}\circ \mu_{\circ}\circ \mu_{t+1}(\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_t}(\hat{B}^{\circ}))\\
&=& \tiny\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
\text{$\bullet$}&\text{$\circ$}&\text{\color{blue}$1$}&\text{\color{blue}$\cdots$}&\text{\color{blue}$t$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+1$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}&\\
\begin{block}{[ccccccc]c}
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{$\bullet$}\\
1&0&1&\cdots&1&-2&1& \text{$\circ$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{\color{blue}$1$}\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots& &\text{\color{blue}$\vdots$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{\color{blue}$t$}\\
-1&2&-1&\cdots&-1&0&-1& \text{\color{blue}$t+1$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}\\
1-a_{\bullet}&-1&0&\cdots&0&0&a_{\bullet}&\\
1-a_{\circ}&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&a_{\circ}&\\
-a_1&0&-1&\cdots&0&0&a_1&\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&&\\
-a_t&0&0&\cdots&-1&0&a_t&\\
-1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+1^*$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&1&\text{\color{blue}$t+2^*$}\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}
\end{eqnarray*}
\caption{The matrix $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$.}\label{m:t+1}
\end{figure}
 Note that ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}=( {\bf \mathfrak{i}_t},t+1, \circ,\bullet)$ is a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t+1}$. It follows that the submatirx formed by the first $t+3$ row indices and the first $t+3$ column indices of the coefficient part of $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$ is a permutation of $-I_{t+1}$.
Hence we have
\[a_\bullet=1, a_\circ=1, a_1=0,\ldots, a_t=0.
\]
Finally, we apply the mutation sequence $\circ, t+1, t+2$ to the matrix $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$, we compute the matrix $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+2}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$  as in Figure \ref{m:t+2}.
\begin{figure}
\[\xymatrix{{\tiny \mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+1}}(\hat{B}^\circ)= \begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
\text{$\bullet$}&\text{$\circ$}&\text{\color{blue}$1$}&\text{\color{blue}$\cdots$}&\text{\color{blue}$t$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+1$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}&\\
\begin{block}{[ccccccc]c}
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{$\bullet$}\\
1&0&1&\cdots&1&-2&1& \text{$\circ$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{\color{blue}$1$}\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots& &\text{\color{blue}$\vdots$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{\color{blue}$t$}\\
-1&2&-1&\cdots&-1&0&-1& \text{\color{blue}$t+1$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&0&1&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1&\\
0&0&-1&\cdots&0&0&0&\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&-1&0&0&\\
-1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+1^*$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&1&\text{\color{blue}$t+2^*$}\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}}\ar[r]^{\quad\ \ \ ~~~t+2}&{\tiny\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
\text{$\bullet$}&\text{$\circ$}&\text{\color{blue}$1$}&\text{\color{blue}$\cdots$}&\text{\color{blue}$t$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+1$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}&\\
\begin{block}{[ccccccc]c}
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{$\bullet$}\\
1&0&1&\cdots&1&-1&-1& \text{$\circ$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{\color{blue}$1$}\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots& &\text{\color{blue}$\vdots$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&0& \text{\color{blue}$t$}\\
-1&1&-1&\cdots&-1&0&1& \text{\color{blue}$t+1$}\\
0&1&0&\cdots&0&-1&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&1&-1&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&-1&\\
0&0&-1&\cdots&0&0&0&\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&-1&0&0&\\
-1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+1^*$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&1&-1&\text{\color{blue}$t+2^*$}\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}}\ar[d]^{t+1}\\ \mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+2}}(\hat{B}^{\circ})={\tiny\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
\text{$\bullet$}&\text{$\circ$}&\text{\color{blue}$1$}&\text{\color{blue}$\cdots$}&\text{\color{blue}$t$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+1$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}&\\
\begin{block}{[ccccccc]c}
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{$\bullet$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{$\circ$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{\color{blue}$1$}\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots& &\text{\color{blue}$\vdots$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{\color{blue}$t$}\\
1&1&1&\cdots&1&0&-2& \text{\color{blue}$t+1$}\\
-1&-1&-1&\cdots&-1&2&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&0&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&-1&\\
0&0&-1&\cdots&0&0&0&\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&-1&0&0&\\
-1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+1^*$}\\
0&-1&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2^*$}\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}} &{\tiny\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
\text{$\bullet$}&\text{$\circ$}&\text{\color{blue}$1$}&\text{\color{blue}$\cdots$}&\text{\color{blue}$t$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+1$}&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}&\\
\begin{block}{[ccccccc]c}
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{$\bullet$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&1&-1& \text{$\circ$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{\color{blue}$1$}\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots& &\text{\color{blue}$\vdots$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&1& \text{\color{blue}$t$}\\
1&-1&1&\cdots&1&0&-1& \text{\color{blue}$t+1$}\\
-1&1&-1&\cdots&-1&1&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2$}\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&-1&0&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&-1&\\
0&0&-1&\cdots&0&0&0&\\
&\vdots&&\vdots&&\vdots&&\\
0&0&0&\cdots&-1&0&0&\\
-1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+1^*$}\\
0&1&0&\cdots&0&-1&0&\text{\color{blue}$t+2^*$}\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}}\ar[l]_{\ \ \ \ \circ}
}
\]
\caption{The matrix  $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+2}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$.}\label{m:t+2}
\end{figure}
Note that the coefficient part of the matrix $\mu_{\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+2}}(\hat{B}^\circ)$ is a permutation of $-I_{t+4}$. According to Remark~\ref{r:mgs}, we conclude that ${\bf \mathfrak{i}_{t+2}}$ is  a maximal green sequence of $Q_{t+2}$. This completes the proof of the lemma.

\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{p:existenc-mgs}
Assume that $t\geq 3$.
The quiver $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ admits a maximal green sequence.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma~\ref{l:CL-lemma}, it suffices to show that the quiver $Q_t$ admits a maximal green sequence for $t\geq 3$. We label the vertices of $Q_t$ as in Figure~\ref{f:3}. It is straightforward to check that $\mathfrak{i}_3=(\diamond, 1,2,\diamond, \star, 3,2,1,\star, \diamond)$ is a maximal green sequence for $Q_3$ and $\star\rightrightarrows 3$ is the unique multiple arrows of $\mu_{\mathfrak{i}_3}(Q_3)$. Furthermore, $\mathfrak{i}_4:=(\mathfrak{i}_3, 4,3,\star)$ is a maximal green sequence of $Q_4$. Now the result follows from Lemma~\ref{l:-mgs-induction}.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{t:main-result}
Let $\mathbb{X}$ be a weighted projective line.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] There is a quiver $Q'$ in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})})$ such that $Q'$ admits a maximal green sequence.
\item[(2)] There is a quiver $Q''$ in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})})$ such that $Q''$ does not admit a maximal green sequence if and only if $\mathbb{X}$ is of wild type.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
	If $t=2$, then $Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})}$ is an acyclic quiver. Hence $Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})}$ admits a maximal green sequce (cf. \cite{BDP} for instance). Now assume that $t\geq 3$.
According to Proposition \ref{p:mutation-equivalent}, we know that $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ belongs to $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})})$. Consequently, the first statement follows from Proposition~\ref{p:existenc-mgs} directly.

The ``only if" part of $(2)$ follows from the main result of \cite{Mills}. Namely, let us assume that $\mathbb{X}$ is not of wild type, then $Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})}$ is of finite mutation type by Proposition \ref{p:finite-mutation-wpl}. According to the main result of \cite{Mills}, each quiver in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{sq}}(\mathbb{X})})$ admits a maximal green sequence.  To prove the ``if" part, we use Lemma \ref{l:muller-existence}.
Let $\mathbb{X}$ be a weighted projective line of wild type. Similar to the proof of the ``only if" of Proposition \ref{p:finite-mutation-wpl}, we conclude that there is a quiver $Q$ in $\mut(Q_{T_{\text{can}}(\mathbb{X})})$ such that $Q_{a,b,c}$ is a full subquiver of $Q$, where $2\leq c\leq b\leq a$ and $3\leq a$. Consequently, $Q$ does not admit a maximal green sequence by Lemma \ref{l:muller-existence}.
\end{proof}

\def$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
  \href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}


\section{Introduction and main results}
In this paper, we consider the defocusing-focusing mass-energy double critical nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation (DFDCNLS)
\begin{equation}\label{NLS}
i\pt_t u+\Delta u-|u|^{2_*-2}u+|u|^{2^*-2}u=0\quad\text{in $\R\times \R^d$}
\end{equation}
with $d\geq 5$, $\tas=2+\frac{4}{d}$ and $\tbs=2+\frac{4}{d-2}$. \eqref{NLS} is a special case of the NLS with combined nonlinearities
\begin{equation}\label{NLS0}
i\pt_t u+\Delta u+\mu_1|u|^{p_1-2}u+\mu_2|u|^{p_2-2}u=0\quad\text{in $\R\times \R^d$}
\end{equation}
with $d\geq 1$, $\mu_1,\mu_2\in\R$ and $p_1,p_2\in(2,\infty)$. \eqref{NLS0} is a prototype model in many applications of quantum physics such as nonlinear optics and Bose-Einstein condensation. For example, in the study of Bose-Einstein condensation, the nonlinearities $|u|^2 u$, $|u|^3u$ and $|u|^4u$ model the two-body interaction, quantum fluctuation and three-body interaction respectively. The signs $\mu_i$ can be tuned to be defocusing ($\mu_i<0$) or focusing ($\mu_i>0$), indicating the repulsivity or attractivity of the nonlinearity. For a comprehensive introduction on the physical background of \eqref{NLS0}, we refer to \cite{phy_double_crit_1,phy_double_crit_2} and the references therein.

From a mathematical point of view, we are particularly interested in problems with critical nonlinearities due to the following aspects: On the one hand, the nonlinear estimates for non-critical problems can usually be derived from the critical ones by means of interpolation; on the other hand, by dealing with critical problems additional symmetry operator such as dilation or Galilean boosts will also come into play, which makes the problem more challenging and interesting. The above mentioned reasons hence motivate our study on the mass-energy double critical NLS, whose mixed type nature also prevents any potential applications concerning scaling invariance property. At this point, we also refer the readers to the representative papers \cite{TaoVisanZhang,Akahori2013,MiaoDoubleCrit,killip_visan_soliton,Cheng2020,Carles_Sparber_2021,luo2021sharp} for scattering results of \eqref{NLS0}, in which at least one of the nonlinearities has critical growth.

We restrict our attention to the radial DFDCNLS \eqref{NLS}, which was studied by Cheng, Miao, Zhao \cite{MiaoDoubleCrit} in the case $d\leq 4$. The precise statement is as follows:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{MiaoDoubleCrit}]\label{thm miao}
Let $d\in\{3,4\}$. Define
\begin{align*}
\mH(u)&:=\frac{1}{2}\|\nabla u\|_2^2+\frac{1}{\tas}\|u\|_\tas^\tas-\frac{1}{\tbs}\|u\|_\tbs^\tbs,\nonumber\\
\mK(u)&:=\|\nabla u\|_2^2+\frac{d}{d+2}\|u\|_\tas^\tas-\|u\|_\tbs^\tbs
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\mA:=\{u\in H_{\mathrm{rad}}^1(\R^d):\mH(u)<d^{-1}\mS^{\frac{d}{2}},\mK(u)\geq 0\},
\end{align*}
where $\mS$ is the optimal constant of the Sobolev inequality, i.e.
\begin{align*}
\mS:=\inf_{\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\R^d)\setminus\{0\}}\frac{\|\nabla u\|_2^2}{\|u\|_\tbs^2}.
\end{align*}
Then the unique solution $u$ of \eqref{NLS} with $u(0)\in\mA$ is global and scatters in time.
\end{theorem}
The main obstacle that prevents Theorem \ref{thm miao} to hold in $d\geq 5$ is the absence of a suitable long time perturbation theory. More precisely, since the gradient of the nonlinearity $|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}u$ is merely H\"older continuous for $d\geq 5$, the proof of the long time perturbation result for $d\leq 4$ is no longer valid. By appealing to fractional calculus we show that such a long time perturbation result  indeed continues to hold also in the case $d\geq 5$.
\begin{theorem}\label{long time pert}
Let $d\geq 5$ and let $u\in C(I;H^1(\R^d))$ be a solution of \eqref{NLS} defined on some interval $I\ni t_0$. Assume also that $w$ is an approximate solution of the following perturbed NLS
\begin{align}
i\pt_t w+\Delta w=|w|^{\frac{4}{d}}w-|w|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}w+e
\end{align}
such that
\begin{align}
\|u\|_{L_t^\infty H_x^1(I)}&\leq B_1,\label{condition c1}\\
\|u(t_0)-w(t_0)\|_{H^1}&\leq B_2,\label{condition c3}\\
\|w\|_{W_\tas\cap W_\tbs (I)}&\leq B_3\label{condition c2}
\end{align}
for some $B_1,B_2,B_3>0$. Then there exists some positive $\alpha=\alpha(B_1,B_2,B_3)\ll 1$ with the following property: if
\begin{align}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{W_\tas(I)}&\leq \beta,\label{condition a}\\
\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{X (I)}&\leq \beta,\label{condition aa}\\
\|\la \nabla \ra e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}&\leq\beta\label{condition b}
\end{align}
for some $0<\beta<\alpha$, then
\begin{align}
\|\la\nabla \ra u\|_{S(I)}\lesssim_{B_1,B_2,B_3}1.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
By interpolation, \eqref{condition a} and \eqref{condition aa} can be replaced by the stronger condition
\begin{align}
\| \la\nabla\ra e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{W_\tas(I)}&\leq \beta,
\end{align}
which is the smallness condition given in the long time perturbation theory \cite[Prop. 3.2]{MiaoDoubleCrit}.
\end{remark}
For the precise definition of the function spaces defined in Theorem \ref{long time pert}, we refer to Section \ref{notations and definitions} below for details. The main challenge for proving Theorem \ref{long time pert} lies in the fact that both nonlinearities of \eqref{NLS} are endpoint critical nonlinearities and there is no chance to estimate one by another using interpolation. This will force us to directly derive suitable estimates for both of the nonlinearities using fractional calculus.

As a direct consequence, we immediately deduce the following generalization of Theorem \ref{thm miao}. The proof is a straightforward modification of the arguments from \cite{MiaoDoubleCrit}, thus we omit the details.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm miao luo}
Theorem \ref{thm miao} continues to hold for all $d\geq 5$.
\end{theorem}

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section \ref{notations and definitions} we introduce the notation and definitions which will be used throughout the paper. In Section \ref{pert section} we give the proof of Theorem \ref{long time pert}.

\subsection{Notations and definitions}\label{notations and definitions}
We use the notation $A\lesssim B$ whenever there exists some positive constant $C$ such that $A\leq CB$. Similarly we define $A\gtrsim B$ and we use $A\sim B$ when $A\lesssim B\lesssim A$. For an interval $I\subset \R$, the space $L_t^qL_x^r(I)$ is defined by
\begin{align*}
L_t^qL_x^r(I):=\{u:I\times \R^2\to\C:\|u\|_{L_t^qL_x^r(I)}<\infty\},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\|u\|^q_{L_t^qL_x^r(I)}:=\int_{\R}\|u\|^q_r\,dt.
\end{align*}
When $q=r$, we simply write $L_{t,x}^q:=L_t^qL_x^r$. A pair $(q,r)$ is said to be $\dot{H}^s$-admissible with $s\in[0,1]$ if $q,r\in[2,\infty]$ and $\frac{2}{q}+\frac{d}{r}=\frac{d}{2}-s$. When $s=0$, we simply say the pair $(q,r)$ is $L^2$-admissible. For any $L^2$-admissible pairs $(q_1,r_1)$ and $(q_2,r_2)$ we have the following Strichartz estimate: if $u$ is a solution of
\begin{align*}
i\pt_t u+\Delta u=F(u)
\end{align*}
in $I\subset\R$ with $t_0\in I$ and $u(t_0)=u_0$, then
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{L_t^q L_x^r(I)}\lesssim \|u_0\|_2+\|F(u)\|_{L_t^{q_2'} L_x^{r_2'}(I)},
\end{align*}
where $(q_2',r_2')$ is the H\"older conjugate of $(q_2,r_2)$. For a proof, we refer to \cite{EndpointStrichartz,Cazenave2003}. For $s\in\R$, the multipliers $|\nabla|^s$ and $\la\nabla\ra^s$ are defined by the symbols
\begin{align*}
|\nabla|^s f(x)&=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\bg(|\xi|^s\hat{f}(\xi)\bg)(x),\\
\la\nabla\ra^s f(x)&=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\bg((1+|\xi|^2)^{\frac{s}{2}}\hat{f}(\xi)\bg)(x).
\end{align*}
The following function spaces will be used throughout the paper:
\begin{align*}
W_{\tas}&:=L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}},\quad W_{\tbs}:=L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d-2}},\\
V_{\tbs}&:=L_t^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d-2}}L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{d^2+4}},\\
S&:=L_t^\infty L_x^2\cap L_t^2 L_x^{\tbs},\\
X&:=L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_x^{\frac{2d^2(d+2)}{d^3-4d+16}},\\
Y&:=L_t^{\frac{d}{2}}L_x^{\frac{2d^2(d+2)}{d^3+4d^2+4d-16}},\\
Z&:=L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_{x}^{\frac{2d^2(d+2)}{d^3+2d^2-8d+16}}.
\end{align*}
One easily verifies using H\"older and Sobolev that
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^{s}\bg(|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}u\bg)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}&\lesssim \||\nabla|^s u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_{\tas}(I)},\label{inter1}\\
\||\nabla|^{s}\bg(|u|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}u\bg)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}&\lesssim \||\nabla|^s u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_{\tbs}(I)}\label{inter3}
\end{align}
for $s\in\{0,1\}$, and
\begin{align}
\|u\|_{W_{\tbs}(I)}&\lesssim\|\nabla u\|_{V_\tbs(I)}\leq\|\nabla u\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2(I)}^{\frac{2}{d}}\|\nabla u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}^{1-\frac{2}{d}}\label{inter4}.
\end{align}
We also record here the following useful elementary inequalities: By fundamental calculus we have the following elementary inequality
\begin{align}
\bg|\bg|\sum_{j=1}^kz^j\bg|^{\alpha}-\sum_{j=1}^k|z^j|^{\alpha}\bg|&\lesssim\sum_{1\leq i,j\leq k,i\neq j}|z^i|^{\alpha-1}|z^j|\label{tele2}
\end{align}
for $z\in\C^k$ and $\alpha\in(1,\infty)$; For function $H(z)=|z|^{\frac{4}{d}}z$ we have
\begin{align}
|(H(u)-H(v)|\lesssim (|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}+|v|^{\frac{4}{d}})|u-v|\label{diff1}
\end{align}
for $d\geq3$,
\begin{align}
\bg|\nabla \bg(H(u)-H(v)\bg)\bg|\lesssim|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}|\nabla u-\nabla v|+|\nabla v|(|u|^\frac{4-d}{d}+|v|^\frac{4-d}{d})|u-v|\label{diff2}
\end{align}
for $d=3$, and
\begin{align}
\bg|\nabla \bg(H(u+v)-H(u)-H(v)\bg)\bg|\lesssim|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}|\nabla v|+|v|^{\frac{4}{d}}|\nabla u|\label{diff3}
\end{align}
for $d\geq 4$.
\section{Perturbation theory}\label{pert section}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{long time pert}. The proof relies on a modification of the arguments involving fractional calculus given in \cite{KillipVisanNotes}. To proceed, we first record some auxiliary tools (Lemma \ref{fractional product rule} to Lemma \ref{lemma of exotic 1}). For details of their proofs, we refer to \cite{KillipVisanNotes} and the references therein. We will also restrict the space dimension $d$ to be larger than four in this section.
\begin{lemma}\label{fractional product rule}
Let $s\in(0,1]$ and $q,q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4\in(1,\infty)$ with
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}=\frac{1}{q_3}+\frac{1}{q_4}.
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^s(uv)\|_{q}\lesssim\|u\|_{{q_1}}\||\nabla|^s v\|_{{q_2}}+\||\nabla|^s u\|_{{q_3}}\|v\|_{{q_4}}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{fractional chain rule}
Let $G:\C\to \C$ be a $C^1$-function and let $s\in(0,1]$. Then for all $1<p,p_1,p_2<\infty$ with $\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$ we have
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^sG(u)\|_{p}\lesssim \|G'(u)\|_{p_1}\||\nabla|^s u\|_{p_2}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{fractional holder cont}
Let $h:\C\to\C$ be a H\"older continuous function of order $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Then for any $s\in(0,\alpha)$, $q\in(1,\infty)$ and $\sigma\in(\frac{s}{\alpha},1)$ we have
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^s h(u)\|_{q}\lesssim\|u\|^{\alpha-\frac{s}{\sigma}}_{{(\alpha-\frac{s}{\sigma})q_1}}
\||\nabla|^\sigma u\|_{{\frac{s}{\sigma}q_2}}^{\frac{s}{\sigma}},
\end{align}
provided that $\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}$ and $(\alpha-\frac{s}{\sigma})q_1>\alpha$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma of exotic 3}
For any interval $I$ we have
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}&\lesssim \|u\|^{\frac{1}{d+2}}_{W_\tbs(I)}\|\nabla u\|^{\frac{d+1}{d+2}}_{S(I)}\lesssim \|\nabla u\|_{S(I)},\label{inter a}\\
\|u\|_{W_\tbs(I)}&\lesssim \||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|^{c}_{X(I)}\|\nabla u\|^{1-c}_{S(I)}\label{inter d}
\end{align}
for some $c=c(d)\in(0,1)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma of exotic 0}
For any interval $I$ we have
\begin{align}\label{inter e}
\bg\|\int_{t_0}^t |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-s)\Delta}f(s)\,ds\bg\|_{X(I)}\lesssim \||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}f\|_{Y(I)}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma of exotic 1}
For any interval $I$ we have
\begin{align}\label{inter f}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}u)\|_{Y(I)}\lesssim \||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}_{X(I)}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{inter g}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}v)\|_{Y(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim&\,\bg( \||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|^{\frac{8}{d^2-4}}_{X(I)}\|\nabla u\|^{\frac{4d}{d^2-4}}_{S(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}w\|^{\frac{8}{d^2-4}}_{X(I)}\|\nabla w\|^{\frac{4d}{d^2-4}}_{S(I)}\bg)\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

Next, we prove an exotic dual Strichartz estimate for the mass-critical term:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma of exotic 2}
For any interval $I$ we have
\begin{align}\label{exotic 1}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}u)\|_{Y(I)}\lesssim \|u\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{exotic 2}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}}v)\|_{Y(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim&\,\bg(\|u\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}
+\|w\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S(I)}\|w\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}\bg)\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+\bg(\|\la\nabla\ra u\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{S}+\|\la\nabla\ra w\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{S}\bg)\bg(\|u\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d(d+1)}}_{S(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z(I)}+
\|w\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d(d+1)}}_{S(I)}\|w\|^{\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z(I)}\bg)\nonumber\\
&\,\times \bg(\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{Z(I)}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{d-3}{d+1}}_{X(I)}\bg)
\end{align}
for some $c=c(d)\in(0,1)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
To simplify notations we omit the symbol $I$ in the following proof. First notice that using interpolation, for any $L^2$-admissible pair $(q,r)$ with $q\in(2,\tbs)$ we have
\begin{align}\label{l2 interpolation}
\|u\|_{L_t^q L_x^r}\lesssim \|u\|^{1-c}_{S}\|u\|^c_{Z}
\end{align}
for some $c=c(q,r)\in(0,1)$. For different $L^2$-admissible pairs $(q_1,r_1)$ and $(q_2,r_2)$ with $c_1=c(q_1,r_1)>c(q_2,r_2)=c_2$, we also have
\begin{align}
 \|u\|^{1-c_1}_{S}\|u\|^{c_1}_{Z}= \|u\|^{1-c_1}_{S}\|u\|^{c_1-c_2}_{Z}\|u\|^{c_2}_{Z}\lesssim  \|u\|^{1-c_2}_{S}\|u\|^{c_2}_{Z}.
\end{align}
We will thus refer to a unified (and possibly small) $c\in(0,1)$ by the application of \eqref{l2 interpolation} for different $L^2$-admissible pairs. Using Lemma \ref{fractional chain rule} we infer that
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}u)\|_{Y}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\|u^{\frac{4}{d}}\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{8}}L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+2)}{2(d^2+2d-8)}}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X}\nonumber\\
=&\,\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{L_t^{\frac{d+2}{2}}L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{d^2+2d-8}}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\|u\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X},
\end{align}
which gives \eqref{exotic 1}. By Lemma \ref{fractional product rule} and \eqref{l2 interpolation} we have
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}}v)\|_{L_t^{\frac{d}{2}}L_x^{\frac{2d^2(d+2)}{d^3+4d^2+4d-16}}}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,\|(u+w)^{\frac{4}{d}}\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{8}}L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+2)}{2(d-2)(d+4)}}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X}\nonumber\\
&\,+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}})\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{8}}L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^3+3d^2-8d-8)}}}
\|v\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_{x}^{\frac{2d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{d^4+d^3-4d^2+20d+16}}}\nonumber\\
=&\,\|u+w\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{L_t^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{(d-2)(d+4)}}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X}\nonumber\\
&\,+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}})\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{8}}L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^3+3d^2-8d-8)}}}
\|v\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_{x}^{\frac{2d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{d^4+d^3-4d^2+20d+16}}}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\bg(\|u\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z}
+\|w\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S}\|w\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z}\bg)\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X}\nonumber\\
&\,+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}})\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{8}}L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^3+3d^2-8d-8)}}}
\|v\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_{x}^{\frac{2d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{d^4+d^3-4d^2+20d+16}}}.\label{exotic 3}
\end{align}
It is left to estimate the second product in \eqref{exotic 3}. Using H\"older and Sobolev we obtain that
\begin{align}
&\,\|v\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_{x}^{\frac{2d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{d^4+d^3-4d^2+20d+16}}}\nonumber\\
\leq &\,\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{Z}
\|v\|^{\frac{d-3}{d+1}}_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{2(d-2)}}L_{x}^{\frac{2d^2(d+2)}{(d-2)^2(d+4)}}}\nonumber\\
\leq &\,\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{Z}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{d-3}{d+1}}_{X}.\label{exotic 4}
\end{align}
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{fractional holder cont} we know that
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}})\|_{L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^3+3d^2-8d-8)}}}\nonumber\\
\leq &\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{d+1}{d+2}}(u+w)\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{d^2+2d-10}}}
\|u+w\|^{\frac{4}{d(d+1)}}_{L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{d^2+2d-8}}},
\end{align}
where we set
\begin{align*}
\sigma=\frac{d+1}{d+2},\quad q_1=\frac{d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^2+2d-8)},\quad q_2=\frac{d(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^2+2d-10)}
\end{align*}
therein. Using H\"older, Sobolev and interpolation we finally conclude that
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(|u+w|^{\frac{4}{d}})\|_{L_t^{\frac{d(d+2)}{8}}L_x^{\frac{d^2(d+1)(d+2)}{2(d^3+3d^2-8d-8)}}}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{d+1}{d+2}}(u+w)\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{L_t^{\frac{d+2}{2}}L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{d^2+2d-10}}}
\|u+w\|^{\frac{4}{d(d+1)}}_{L_t^{\frac{d+2}{2}}L_x^{\frac{2d(d+2)}{d^2+2d-8}}}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,\bg(\|\la\nabla\ra u\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{S}+\|\la\nabla\ra w\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{S}\bg)\nonumber\\
&\,\times\bg(\|u\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d(d+1)}}_{S}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z}
+\|w\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d(d+1)}}_{S}\|w\|^{\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z}\bg)\label{exotic 5}
\end{align}
for some $c\in(0,1)$. \eqref{exotic 3}, \eqref{exotic 4} and \eqref{exotic 5} then imply \eqref{exotic 2}.
\end{proof}

Next, we formulate a small data well-posedness result for \eqref{NLS}, which is slightly different from the standard one and is suitable for the proof of Lemma \ref{short time pert} given below.
\begin{lemma}\label{well posedness lemma}
For any $A>0$ there exists some $\beta>0$ such that the following is true: Suppose that $t_0\in I$ for some interval $I$. Suppose also that $u_0=u(t_0)\in H^1(\R^d)$ with
\begin{align*}
\|u_0\|_{H^1}\leq A
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}\leq \beta.
\end{align*}
Then \eqref{NLS} has a unique solution $u\in C(I;H^1(\R^d))$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}&\lesssim \|u_0\|_{H^1},\\
\|u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}&\leq 2\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0\|_{W_{\tas}(I)},\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} u\|_{X(I)}&\leq 2\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We define the space $B(I)$ by
\begin{align}
B(I):=\bg\{u\in L_t^\infty H_x^1(I):\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}&\leq 2C \|u_0\|_{H^1},\nonumber\\
\|u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}&\leq 2\| e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\nonumber\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} u\|_{X(I)}
&\leq 2\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}
\bg\}.
\end{align}
One easily checks that the set $B(I)$ equipped with the metric $\rho$ defined by
$$\rho(u,v):=\|u-v\|_{S(I)}$$
is a complete metric space. Now define the operator $\Phi$ by
\begin{align}
\Phi(u):= e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0-i\int_{t_0}^t e^{i(t-s)\Delta}(|u|^{\frac{4}{d}}u-|u|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}u)\,ds.
\end{align}
We show that $\Phi$ is a contraction on $B(I)$. Using \eqref{inter d} we infer that there exists some $c\in(0,1)$ such that
\begin{align}
\|u\|_{W_\tbs(I)}\leq (2CA)^{1-c}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|^c_{X(I)}\leq (2CA)^{1-c}2^{c}\beta^c.\label{new 3}
\end{align}
Combining with Strichartz, \eqref{inter1} and \eqref{inter3} we deduce that
\begin{align}
&\,\|\la\nabla\ra \Phi(u)\|_{S(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq &\,\|\la\nabla\ra e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{S(I)}+C\sum_{s=1}^2\bg(\||\nabla|^s\bg(|u|^{\frac{4}{d}} u\bg)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}\bg)\nonumber\\
&\,+C\sum_{s=1}^2\bg(\||\nabla|^s\bg(|u|^{\frac{4}{d-2}} u\bg)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}\bg)\nonumber\\
\leq&\, \|\la\nabla\ra e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{S(I)}+C\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_{\tas}(I)}+C\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_{\tbs}(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\, \|\la\nabla\ra e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{S(I)}+C\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_{\tas}(I)}+C\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_{\tbs}(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq& \,C\| u_0\|_{H^1}+2C((2\beta)^{\frac{4}{d}}+((2CA)^{1-c}2^{c}\beta^c)^{\frac{4}{d-2}})\|u_0\|_{H^1}.\label{modi1}
\end{align}
Analogously, we have
\begin{align}
&\,\|\Phi(u)\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\, \| e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{W_\tas(I)}+C\||u|^{\frac{4}{d}} u\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}
+C\||u|^{\frac{4}{d-2}} u\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\, \|e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{W_\tas(I)}+C\|u\|^{1+\frac{4}{d}}_{W_{\tas}(I)}
+C\| u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_{\tbs}(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq& \, \|e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{W_\tas(I)}+2C((2\beta)^{\frac{4}{d}}+((2CA)^{1-c}2^{c}\beta^c)^{\frac{4}{d-2}})\|e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{W_\tas(I)}.\label{modi2}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{inter f} and \eqref{exotic 1} we see that
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}\Phi(u)\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}+C\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}\bg(|u|^{\frac{4}{d}} u\bg)\|_{Y(I)}
+C\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}\bg(|u|^{\frac{4}{d-2}} u\bg)\|_{Y(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}+C\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}_{X(I)}
+C(2CA)^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}\|u\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}.\label{modi3}
\end{align}
Since $Z$ corresponds to an $L^2$-admissible pair, we know that there exists some $\kappa\in(0,1)$ such that
\begin{align}
\|u\|_{Z(I)}\leq \|u\|^{1-\kappa}_{S(I)}\|u\|^\kappa_{W_\tas(I)}.
\end{align}
Summing up we have
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}\Phi(u)\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}+2C(2\beta)^{\frac{4}{d-2}}\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+2C(2CA)^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}(2CA)^{\frac{4c(1-\kappa)}{d}}(2\beta)^{\frac{4c\kappa}{d}}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{it\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)},
\end{align}
Hence by choosing ${\beta}$ sufficiently small we see that $\Phi$ maps $B(I)$ into itself. In a similar way, using \eqref{diff1} followed by Strichartz, H\"older and \eqref{new 3} we obtain that
\begin{align}
&\,\|\Phi(u)-\Phi(v)\|_{S(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq &\,C(\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_\tas(I)}+\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_\tas(I)}+\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_\tbs(I)}+\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_\tbs(I)})\|u-v\|_{W_\tas(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,C\bg(\|u\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_\tas(I)}+\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_\tas(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+(2CA)^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d-2}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|^{\frac{4c}{d-2}}_{X(I)}+(2CA)^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d-2}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{4c}{d-2}}_{X(I)}\bg)
\|u-v\|_{S(I)}\nonumber\\
\leq&\,2C\big((2{\beta})^{\frac{4}{d}}+(2CA)^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d-2}}(2\beta)^{\frac{4c}{d-2}}\big)\|u-v\|_{S(I)}.
\end{align}
Thus choosing even smaller ${\beta}$ if necessary we infer that $\Phi$ is a contraction on $B(I)$. Now the existence and uniqueness of a solution $u$ of \eqref{NLS} are ensured by the Banach fixed point theorem. The continuity of $u$ follows immediately from the fact that $u$ satisfies the integral equation.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[Short time perturbation]\label{short time pert}
Let $u\in C(I;H^1(\R^d))$ be a solution of \eqref{NLS} defined on some interval $I\ni t_0$. Assume also that $w$ is an approximate solution of the following perturbed NLS
\begin{align}
i\pt_t w+\Delta w=|w|^{\frac{4}{d}}w-|w|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}w+e
\end{align}
such that
\begin{align}
\|w\|_{L_t^\infty H_x^1(I)}\leq B_1,\quad \|u(t_0)-w(t_0)\|_{H^1}\leq B_2
\end{align}
for some $B_1,B_2>0$. Then there exist some positive $\beta_0,\beta_1\ll  1$, depending on $B_1$ and $B_2$, with the following property: if
\begin{align}\label{condition 1}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}w\|_{X(I)}+\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{W_\tas(I)}\leq\beta_0
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{W_\tas(I)}&\leq \beta,\label{condition 3}\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{X(I)}&\leq \beta,\label{condition 2}\\
\|\la \nabla \ra e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}&\leq\beta\label{condition 4}
\end{align}
for some $0<\beta\leq \beta_1$, then
\begin{align}
\| u-w\|_{Z\cap W_\tas (I)}&\lesssim \beta^\kappa,\label{short time 2}\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(u-w)\|_{X(I)}&\lesssim \beta^{\kappa},\label{short time 1}\\
\|F(u)-F(w)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}&\lesssim \beta^\kappa,\label{short time 3}\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(F(u)-F(w))\|_{Y(I)}&\lesssim \beta^\kappa,\label{short time 6}\\
\|\la \nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}+\|\la \nabla\ra w\|_{S(I)}&\lesssim B_1+B_2\label{short time 5}
\end{align}
for some $\kappa\in(0,1)$. Here $F(z)=-|z|^{\frac{4}{d}}z+|z|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}z$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
First denote by $\kappa_1$ the number such that
\begin{align}\label{kappa}
\|u\|_{Z}&\lesssim \|u\|^{1-\kappa_1}_S\|u\|_{W_\tas}^{\kappa_1}.
\end{align}
By definition of $u$ and $w$ we have
\begin{align}
u(t)&=e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u(t_0)+i\int_{t_0}^t e^{i(t-s)\Delta} F(u)\,ds,\\
w(t)&=e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}w(t_0)+i\int_{t_0}^t e^{i(t-s)\Delta} (F(w)-e)\,ds.
\end{align}
Using Strichartz, \eqref{inter1}, \eqref{inter3}, \eqref{condition 1} and \eqref{inter4} we obtain that
\begin{align}
&\,\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim&\,\|w(t_0)\|_{H_x^1}+\bg(\|w\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_\tas(I)}+\|w\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_\tbs(I)}\bg)\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(I)}+\|\la \nabla \ra e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}\nonumber\\
\lesssim& \,B_1+\beta+(\beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}+B_1^{\frac{8}{d(d-2)}}\beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}})\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(I)}.
\end{align}
By choosing $\beta_0$ sufficiently small we infer that
\begin{align}\label{inter aa}
\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(I)}\lesssim B_1.
\end{align}
Now \eqref{kappa} and \eqref{condition 1} also yield
\begin{align}\label{kappa2}
\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{Z(I)}\lesssim\beta_0^{\kappa_1}.
\end{align}
Using Strichartz, \eqref{condition 1}, \eqref{inter1}, \eqref{inter3}, \eqref{inter aa}, \eqref{inter4} and \eqref{condition 4} we infer that
\begin{align}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}w_0\|_{W_\tas(I)}&\lesssim \| w\|_{W_\tas(I)}+\| F(w)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}
+\|e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \beta_0+\beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}+\beta\lesssim \beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}.
\end{align}
Similarly, \eqref{inter f}, \eqref{exotic 1}, \eqref{inter aa}, \eqref{condition 1} and \eqref{condition 4} yield
\begin{align}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}w_0\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim& \,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}w\|_{X(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}F(w)\|_{Y(I)}+\|\la\nabla\ra e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}\nonumber\\
\lesssim& \,\beta_0+\beta_0^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}+\beta_0+\beta\lesssim\beta_0.
\end{align}
Combining with \eqref{condition 3}, \eqref{condition 2} and the triangular inequality we deduce that
\begin{align}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u(t_0)\|_{W_\tas(I)}&\lesssim \beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}},\label{interbb}\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u(t_0)\|_{X(I)}&\lesssim\beta_0\label{intercc}.
\end{align}
Hence, by choosing $\beta_0$ sufficiently small, we know from Lemma \ref{well posedness lemma} that
\begin{align}
\|\la \nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}&\lesssim \|u(t_0)\|_{H^1}\lesssim B_1+B_2,\label{bound of nabla u0}\\
\|u\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}&\leq 2\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0\|_{W_{\tas}(I)}\lesssim \beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}},\label{bound of nabla u1}\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} u\|_{X(I)}&\leq 2\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u_0\|_{X(I)}\lesssim \beta_0.\label{bound of nabla u2}
\end{align}
Combining with \eqref{inter aa} we already have \eqref{short time 5}. Using Strichartz, \eqref{interbb}, \eqref{bound of nabla u0}, \eqref{inter1}, \eqref{inter3}, \eqref{bound of nabla u2} and \eqref{inter d} we obtain
\begin{align}
\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{W_\tas(I)}&\lesssim \| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u(t_0)\|_{W_\tas(I)}+\| F(u)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}+\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{W_\tas(I)}^{1+\frac{4}{d}}+\beta_0^{\frac{4c}{d-2}}\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{W_\tas(I)}.
\end{align}
By standard continuity arguments we conclude that
\begin{align}\label{new 1}
\|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{W_\tas(I)}\lesssim \beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}.
\end{align}
Similarly, from Strichartz, \eqref{intercc}, \eqref{bound of nabla u0}, \eqref{inter f}, \eqref{exotic 1}, \eqref{kappa} and \eqref{new 1} we infer that
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}&\lesssim \||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}u(t_0)\|_{X(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}F(u)\|_{Y(I)}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \beta_0+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}+\beta_0^{\frac{4\kappa_1 c}{d}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}
\end{align}
and using standard continuity arguments we see that
\begin{align}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}u\|_{X(I)}\lesssim \beta_0.
\end{align}
Next, we define $v:=u-w$. Then
\begin{align}
v(t)=e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))+i\int_{t_0}^t e^{i(t-s)}(F(v+w)-F(w)+e)\,ds
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{shorttime1}
\|\la\nabla\ra v\|_{S(I)}\leq \|\la\nabla\ra u\|_{S(I)}+\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{S(I)}\lesssim B_1+B_2.
\end{align}
From Strichartz, \eqref{kappa}, \eqref{bound of nabla u0}, \eqref{inter aa} and \eqref{condition 3} we know that
\begin{align}\label{kappa1}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{Z(I)}\lesssim \beta^{\kappa_1}.
\end{align}
By Strichartz, Sobolev, \eqref{condition 3}, \eqref{inter1}, \eqref{inter3}, \eqref{diff1}, \eqref{kappa1}, \eqref{condition 1}, \eqref{inter4}, \eqref{inter d} and \eqref{inter aa} we have
\begin{align}
&\,\| v\|_{Z\cap W_\tas(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim& \,\|  e^{i(t-t_0)}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{Z\cap W_\tas(I)}
+\|  e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}\nonumber\\
&\,+\| (F(v+w)-F(w))\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim&\, \beta^{\kappa_1}+(\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_{\tas}(I)}+\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_{\tbs}(I)}
+\|w\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_{\tas}(I)}+\|w\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_{\tbs}(I)})\| v\|_{W_\tas (I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim&\, \beta^{\kappa_1}+\| v\|^{1+\frac{4}{d}}_{Z\cap W_{\tas}(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{4c}{d-2}}_{X(I)}\| v\|_{Z\cap W_{\tas}(I)}
+\beta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}\|v\|_{Z\cap W_\tas (I)}.\label{long 3}
\end{align}
Now using Strichartz, Sobolev, \eqref{kappa2}, \eqref{condition 1}, \eqref{condition 2}, \eqref{shorttime1}, \eqref{inter e}, \eqref{inter g}, \eqref{exotic 2} and the identity
\begin{align*}
F(v+w)-F(w)=v\int_0^1 F_z(v+(1+\theta) w)\,d\theta+\bar{v}\int_0^1 F_{\bar{z}}(v+(1+\theta) w)\,d\theta
\end{align*}
we obtain that
\begin{align}\label{long2}
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\| |\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_0)}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{X(I)}
+\|\la\nabla\ra e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}}\nonumber\\
&\,+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(F(v+w)-F(w))\|_{Y(I)}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\beta+\bg( \||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{8}{d^2-4}}_{X(I)}\|\nabla v\|^{\frac{4d}{d^2-4}}_{S(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}w\|^{\frac{8}{d^2-4}}_{X(I)}\|\nabla w\|^{\frac{4d}{d^2-4}}_{S(I)}\bg)\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+\bg(\|v\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S(I)}\|v\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}
+\|w\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d}}_{S(I)}\|w\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}\bg)\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+\bg(\|\la\nabla\ra v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{S(I)}+\|\la\nabla\ra w\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{S(I)}\bg)\bg(\|v\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d(d+1)}}_{S(I)}\|v\|^{\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z(I)}
+\|w\|^{\frac{4(1-c)}{d(d+1)}}_{S(I)}\|w\|^{\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z(I)}\bg)\nonumber\\
&\,\times\bg(\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{Z(I)}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{d-3}{d+1}}_{X(I)}\bg)\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\beta+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{1+\frac{8}{d^2-4}}_{X(I)}+\beta_0^{\frac{8}{d^2-4}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}
+\|v\|^{\frac{4c}{d}}_{Z(I)}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+\beta_0^{\frac{4c\kappa_1}{d}}\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}
+\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}+\frac{4c}{d(d+1)}}_{Z(I)}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{d-3}{d+1}}_{X(I)}\nonumber\\
&\,+\beta_0^{\frac{4c\kappa_1}{d(d+1)}}\|v\|^{\frac{4}{d+1}}_{Z(I)}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|^{\frac{d-3}{d+1}}_{X(I)}.
\end{align}
Define
\begin{align}
\|v\|_{W(I)}:=\| v\|_{Z\cap W_\tas(I)}+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}v\|_{X(I)}.
\end{align}
Adding \eqref{long2} to \eqref{long 3} and absorbing the terms with powers of $\beta_0$ on the r.h.s. to the l.h.s., we obtain
\begin{align}
\|v\|_{W(I)}\lesssim \beta^{\kappa_1}+\|v\|^{1+\frac{4}{d}}_{W(I)}+\|v\|^{1+\frac{4c}{d-2}}_{W(I)}+\|v\|^{1+\frac{8}{d^2-4}}_{W(I)}
+\|v\|^{1+\frac{4c}{d}}_{W(I)}+\|v\|^{1+\frac{4}{d+1}}_{W(I)}.
\end{align}
By standard continuity arguments we infer that
\begin{align}\label{small final1}
\|v\|_{W(I)}\lesssim \beta^{\kappa_1}
\end{align}
and we conclude \eqref{short time 2} and \eqref{short time 1}. \eqref{short time 3} and \eqref{short time 6} follow already from the calculation given in \eqref{long 3} and \eqref{long2}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Having all the preliminaries, we are at the position to prove Theorem \ref{long time pert}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{long time pert}]
We first show that
\begin{align}\label{w finiteness S}
\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(I)}\leq C
\end{align}
for some $C=C(B_1,B_2,B_3)>0$. By \eqref{condition c2} we may subdivide $I$ into $J_1=J_1(B_3)$ subintervals $K_j=[s_j,s_{j+1}]$, $j=0,\cdots,J_1-1$, such that
\begin{align}\label{w finiteness W}
\|w\|_{W_\tas\cap W_\tbs(K_j)}\leq \delta_0
\end{align}
for some small $\delta_0$ to be chosen later. On $K_0$, using Strichartz, H\"older and \eqref{condition b} we obtain that
\begin{align}
\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{S(K_0)}
&\lesssim \|w(s_0)\|_{H^1}+\|\la \nabla \ra e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(K_0)}+\|\la \nabla \ra F(w)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(K_0)}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim B_1+B_2+\beta+\bg(\|w\|^{\frac{4}{d}}_{W_\tas(K_0)}+\|w\|^{\frac{4}{d-2}}_{W_\tbs(K_0)}\bg)\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(K_0)}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim B_1+B_2+\beta+(\delta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}+\delta_0^{\frac{4}{d-2}})\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(K_0)}.
\end{align}
We can choose $\delta_0$ sufficiently small to absorb the term $(\delta_0^{\frac{4}{d}}+\delta_0^{\frac{4}{d-2}})\|\la\nabla \ra w\|_{S(K_0)}$ to the l.h.s. This yields
\begin{align*}
\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{S(K_0)}\lesssim B_1+B_2.
\end{align*}
In particular,
\begin{align*}
\|w(s_1)\|_{H^1}\lesssim B_1+B_2.
\end{align*}
Notice also that $\delta_0$ is only dependent on $B_3$. Thus we may iterate the previous step over all $j$ to infer that
\begin{align*}
\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{S(K_j)}\lesssim B_1+B_2
\end{align*}
for all $j$. Summing all the estimates on $K_j$ over $j$ up yields \eqref{w finiteness S}. Using \eqref{inter a} and \eqref{w finiteness S} we are able to divide $I$ into $J_2=J_2(B_1,B_2,B_3)$ intervals $L_j=[t_j,t_{j+1}]$, $j=0,\cdots,J_{2}-1$, such that
\begin{align}\label{final long 1}
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}w\|_{X(L_j)}+\|\la\nabla\ra w\|_{W_\tas(L_j)}\leq\beta_0,
\end{align}
with $\beta_0=\beta_0(C(B_1,B_2,B_3),C(B_1,B_2,B_3)+B_1)$ defined by Lemma \ref{short time pert}. By \eqref{condition a} and \eqref{condition aa} we have
\begin{align}
\| e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{W_\tas(L_0)}&\leq\beta,\label{gg1}\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} e^{i(t-t_0)\Delta}(u(t_0)-w(t_0))\|_{X(L_0)}&\leq\beta\label{gg2}
\end{align}
by setting initially $\alpha=\beta_1$ with $\beta_1=\beta_1(B_1,B_2,B_3)$ from Lemma \ref{short time pert} . Thus Lemma \ref{short time pert} is applicable for $L_0$. In particular, we have for all $j=1,\cdots,J_2-1$ and $\beta\in(0,\alpha)$
\begin{align*}
\|u-w\|_{Z\cap W_\tas (L_j)}&\leq C_0\beta^\kappa,\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(u-w)\|_{X(L_j)}&\leq C_0\beta^{\kappa},\\
\|F(u)-F(w)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}(L_j)}&\leq C_0\beta^\kappa,\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(F(u)-F(w))\|_{Y(L_j)}&\leq C_0\beta^\kappa,\\
\|\la \nabla\ra u\|_{S(L_j)}&\leq C_0C(B_1,B_2,B_3),
\end{align*}
with $\kappa\in(0,1)$ and $C_0=C_0(B_1,B_2,B_3)>0$, provided that
\begin{align}
\| e^{i(t-t_j)\Delta}(u(t_j)-w(t_j))\|_{W_\tas(L_j)}&\leq \beta,\\
\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}} e^{i(t-t_j)\Delta}(u(t_j)-w(t_j))\|_{X(L_j)}&\leq \beta
\end{align}
hold for all $j=1,\cdots,J_2-1$. We prove this using inductive arguments. One checks that
\begin{align}
&\,\| e^{i(t-t_{j})\Delta}(u(t_{j})-w(t_{j}))\|_{W_\tas(I_{j})}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\| e^{i(t-t_{0})\Delta}(u(t_{0})-w(t_{0}))\|_{W_\tas(I_{j})}+\|e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}[t_0,t_{j}]}\nonumber\\
&\,+\|F(u)-F(w)\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}[t_0,t_{j}]}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\, \beta+\beta+C_0j\beta^\kappa,\\
\nonumber\\
&\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_{j})\Delta}(u(t_{j})-w(t_{j}))\|_{X(I_{j})}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\,\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}e^{i(t-t_{0})\Delta}(u(t_{0})-w(t_{0}))\|_{X(I_{j})}+\|\nabla e\|_{L_{t,x}^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d+4}}[t_0,t_{j}]}\nonumber\\
&\,+\||\nabla|^{\frac{4}{d+2}}(F(u)-F(w))\|_{Y[t_0,t_{j}]}\nonumber\\
\lesssim &\, \beta+\beta+C_0 j\beta^\kappa.
\end{align}
Choosing $\alpha$ iteratively small completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
The author acknowledges the funding by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the Priority Programme SPP-1886 (No. NE 21382-1).

\selectlanguage{English}

\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}