\section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction}
The spin-charge stripe order was widely discussed in high-$T_{c}$
cuprates.\cite{kivelson03} In this scenario,
the two-dimensional CuO$_{2}$ plane
is assumed to have the instability of one-dimensional
charge order, the so-called stripe pattern, in the antiferromagnetic (AF)
background with a $\pi$ phase shift across the charge stripe.
However, the charge order signal was observed only for limited materials
with specific hole doping rates and had a broad spectrum with
very weak intensity,\cite{tranquada95,niemoller99,ichikawa00,fujita02}
implying that the charge order is usually not well developed.
Kivelson, Fradkin, and Emery introduced a new concept of electronic
nematic order,\cite{kivelson98} which was envisaged as the melting of
charge stripe order,\cite{nussinov08}
where the translational symmetry is recovered
but the orientational symmetry is still broken.

On the other hand, an alternative root to yield electronic
nematic order was found in minimal models of high-$T_{c}$ cuprates
such as the $t$-$J$\cite{yamase00,miyanaga06,edegger06}
and Hubbard\cite{metzner00,wegner02,honerkamp02,kampf03,neumayr03} models.
These models show a tendency toward $d$-wave type Fermi surface
deformations ($d$FSD), the so-called $d$-wave
Pomeranchuk instability.
The Fermi surface (FS) expands along the $k_{x}$ direction
and shrinks along the $k_{y}$ direction, or vice versa.
The $d$FSD state has the same symmetry as
the electronic nematic state. But the physical origin is different from
the stripe physics,\cite{kivelson98} since the $d$FSD is generated
by forward scattering processes of quasiparticles,
not by fluctuating charge stripes.

The $d$FSD competes with superconductivity.\cite{yamase07a}
In the slave-boson mean-field\cite{yamase00} and variational Monte Carlo\cite{edegger06}
analyses of the $t$-$J$ model, superconductivity becomes dominant.
Yet the system still has sizable $d$FSD correlations,\cite{yamase04b}
producing a giant response to a small external anisotropy,
e.g., due to a lattice structure
and anisotropic strain.\cite{yamase00,edegger06}
This theoretical insight yields a promising scenario\cite{yamase06}
to understand the pronounced anisotropy of magnetic excitations
observed in untwinned YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{y}$ (YBCO$_{y}$) with
$y=6.5$,\cite{stock04} $6.6$,\cite{hinkov04,hinkov07}
and $6.85$,\cite{hinkov04}
where the lattice yields a small $xy$ anisotropy.

Quite recently, a very strong anisotropy was observed in magnetic
excitations in untwinned
YBCO$_{6.45}$.\cite{hinkov08}
The observed spectra were qualitatively different
from typical observations in Y-based cuprates.
(i) The anisotropy starts to increase
below $\sim 150$ K and saturates below $\sim 50$ K,
in contrast to the case of
YBCO$_{6.6}$\cite{hinkov04,hinkov07} where the anisotropy
is most pronounced at relatively high temperature
and is reduced at low temperature.
(ii) The magnetic excitation spectra are hardly affected by the onset of
superconductivity and in fact a gap feature is not found in
the magnetic excitations. This is sharply different from the well-known
observation in Y-based cuprates, where
a broad spectrum around ${\boldsymbol q}=(\pi,\pi)$
becomes very sharp and
is strongly enhanced below the onset temperature
of superconductivity,
leading to a resonance at relatively high energy, followed by
suppression of low energy spectral weight.\cite{fong00,dai01}
These peculiar magnetic excitations in YBCO$_{6.45}$
are not captured even qualitatively by simple
application of the theory in Ref.~\onlinecite{yamase06}, implying failure of the
standard RVB mean-field theory in a strongly underdoped region.

Why do the qualitative features of
magnetic excitations change so drastic in YBCO$_{6.45}$?
Since YBCO$_{6.45}$ lies closer to the AF instability, strong
AF fluctuations might play an important role.
However, even for the lower hole-doped system
YBCO$_{6.353}$, and thus much closer to the AF instability,
the experimental data\cite{stock06}
showed that magnetic correlation length is
still short ranged.
In this paper, we show an integral role of $d$FSD correlations,
which are concomitantly enhanced by the suppression of
singlet pairing, leading to results very similar to
the experimental observation.\cite{hinkov08}

We analyze the bilayer $t$-$J$ model on a square lattice,
a minimal model for Y-based cuprates, \cite{miscbilayer}
\begin{equation}
 H = -  \sum_{{\bf r},\,{\bf r}',\, \sigma} t_{\tau}
 \tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\,\sigma}^{\dagger}\tilde{c}_{{\bf r}'\,\sigma}+
   \sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r}' \rangle}J_{\tau} \,
 {\boldsymbol S}_{{\bf r}} \cdot {\boldsymbol S}_{{\bf r}'}  \label{tJ}
\end{equation}
defined in the Fock space with no doubly occupied sites.
The operator $\tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\,\sigma}^{\dagger}$
($\tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\,\sigma}$) creates (annihilates) an electron with
spin $\sigma$ on site ${\bf r}$, and ${\boldsymbol S}_{{\bf r}}$ is the
spin operator.
$J_{\tau}$ $(>0)$ is a superexchange coupling between the
nearest neighbor sites along each direction, $\tau=x,y,z$.
We take into account hopping amplitudes $t_{\tau}$ between
${\bf r}$ and ${\bf r}'$ up to third-nearest neighbors, and
the direction of ${\bf r}'-{\bf r}$ is represented by $\tau$.
The Hamiltonian (\ref{tJ}) is analyzed in the standard slave-boson
method in the $t$-$J$ model by introducing the so-called
resonating-valence-bond (RVB) mean fields.
However, in contrast to the standard RVB theory,
we assume the mean field of singlet pairing $\Delta$ to be zero,
in order to mimic possibly substantial suppression of singlet pairing
in YBCO$_{6.45}$ as we will discuss later in detail.
The formalism and the band parameters are otherwise the same as
those in Ref.~\onlinecite{yamase06}, where
we successfully discussed the pronounced anisotropy of magnetic excitations
in YBCO$_{6.85}$\cite{hinkov04} and YBCO$_{6.6}$.\cite{hinkov04,hinkov07}
We introduce $5\%$ $xy$ anisotropy into the hopping integrals
$t_{\tau}$ and $10\%$ into the superexchange coupling $J_{\tau}$,
twice as large, as imposed by the superexchange mechanism.
The anisotropy then can be parameterized by a single parameter
$\alpha=-0.05$.
The minus sign indicates that the band parameters are more enhanced
along the $y$ direction, parallel to the direction of the CuO chains,
which indeed reproduces\cite{kao05,yamase06,schnyder06}
qualitatively the same anisotropic distribution
of magnetic excitations as observed previously.\cite{hinkov04,hinkov07}
Interestingly the negative sign of $\alpha$ is also implied in a spin spiral
state to understand the anisotropy of magnetic excitations.\cite{pardini08}

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{fig1.eps}}
\caption{$T$ dependence of the anisotropy of
renormalized band, $2\Delta \bar{t}/\Delta\bar{t}_{0}$,
for several choices of $\delta$ for $\alpha=-0.05$.}
\label{mean-field}
\end{figure}

The most important quantity is the renormalized in-plane
nearest-neighbor hopping
$\bar{t}_{\tau}$, which is given by
$\bar{t}_{\tau}=t_{\tau} \delta + \frac{3}{8} J_{\tau} \chi_{\tau}$
with $\tau=x, y$; $\delta$ is the hole density and $\chi_{\tau}$ is the
RVB bond order along the $\tau$ direction.
The order parameter of the $d$FSD is, then, defined
as $\chi_{d}=(\chi_{x}-\chi_{y})/2$.
Figure~\ref{mean-field} shows the temperature ($T$) dependence
of the anisotropy of
renormalized band $2 \Delta \bar{t}/\bar{t}_{0}$, where
$\Delta \bar{t} = |\bar{t}_{x} - \bar{t}_{y}|/2 = |(t_{x}-t_{y}) \delta /2
+ \frac{3}{8}(J_{x}- J_{y}) \chi_{d}|$ and
$\bar{t}_{0} = (\bar{t}_{x} + \bar{t}_{y})/2$.
The anisotropy is strongly enhanced at lower $T$,
especially for lower $\delta$.
This enhancement comes from the development of $\chi_{d}$, namely
the underlying $d$FSD instability
in the $t$-$J$ model.\cite{yamase00,miyanaga06,edegger06}
The presence of the anisotropy in $t_{\tau}$ and $J_{\tau}$, however,
smears the singularity associated with the
$d$FSD instability,
which would appear below
$T \approx 0.03J (0.05J)$ for $\delta = 0.08 (0.07)$
and disappear for $\delta \gtrsim 0.09$ if the input anisotropy
is zero.

The irreducible dynamical magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{0}({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$
reads
\begin{equation}
\chi_{0}({\boldsymbol q},\,\omega) = \frac{1}{4 N}
\sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} \frac{\tanh \frac{\xi_{{\boldsymbol k}}}{2T}
   -\tanh \frac{\xi_{{\boldsymbol k} +{\boldsymbol q}}}{2T}}
{\xi_{{\boldsymbol k}}-\xi_{{\boldsymbol k}+{\boldsymbol q}}+\omega+{\rm i}\Gamma}\,,
\label{xoqw}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of (bilayer) lattice sites and
$\Gamma$ is a positive infinitesimal.
We calculate magnetic excitations
in the renormalized random phase
approximation (RPA)\cite{brinckmann99,yamase99}
\begin{equation}
\chi({\boldsymbol q},\,\omega)=\frac{\chi_{0}({\boldsymbol q},\,\omega)}{1+
J({\boldsymbol q})\chi_{0}({\boldsymbol q},\,\omega)}\; . \label{RPA}
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation}
J({\boldsymbol q}) = 2r (J_{x}\cos q_{x}+J_{y}\cos q_{y}) +J_{z}\cos q_{z} \label{RPAJ}
\end{equation}
with a renormalization factor $r$.
While $r=1$ in the plain RPA, the value of $r$ is reduced in
the renormalized RPA such that the AF instability
appears in a doping region comparable with actual materials.
We set $r=0.4$, which confines the AF instability to
$\delta \lesssim 0.068$.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig2.eps}}
\caption{(Color online) Left-hand panels:
${\boldsymbol q}$ maps of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ for a sequence of
$T$ in $0.6\pi \leq q_{x}, q_{y} \leq 1.4\pi$ for $\delta=0.08$,
$\omega=0.05J$, and $\alpha=-0.05$.
Right-hand panels: corresponding results
for the bare anisotropy, namely without $d$FSD correlations.}
\label{q-map}
\end{figure}

We calculate $\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ numerically by choosing $\Gamma =0.05J$.
This choice of $\Gamma$ is mainly due to numerical convenience,
but simulates damping of electrons by static defects in real materials
and broadening due to limited energy resolution in neutron
scattering experiments.
Since neutron scattering measurements for untwinned YBCO are
performed for the odd channel,
we focus on this channel ($q_{z}=\pi$).
Considering that the hole density in
YBCO$_{6.45}$ is estimated as $8.5\%$,\cite{hinkov08} we fix
$\delta=0.08$.

The left-hand panels of \fig{q-map} show
two-dimensional ${\boldsymbol q}$ maps of the imaginary part
of $\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ at $\omega=0.05J$ for a sequence of temperatures.
At $T=0.01J$, significant spectral weight is centered around
${\boldsymbol q}=(\pi,\pi)$ and is strongly elongated along the $q_{x}$ direction.
This pronounced anisotropy originates from the strong
enhancement of the original band anisotropy due to
$d$FSD correlations (\fig{mean-field}).
The anisotropy of magnetic excitations
is reduced with increasing $T$.
In particular, the distribution of the spectral
weight becomes nearly symmetric around $(\pi,\pi)$ at $T=0.30J$.
To clarify the $d$FSD effect,
we show the corresponding result
for the {\it bare} anisotropy effect
by switching off $d$FSD correlations in the right-hand panels of
\fig{q-map}, where we impose the same
anisotropy $\alpha=-0.05$, but assume $\chi_{d} \equiv 0$.
Although the value of $\Delta\bar{t}$ does not depend on $T$, we see that
the anisotropy of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ depends weakly on $T$ and
becomes visible with decreasing $T$.
But the obtained anisotropy [Figs.~\ref{q-map}(a') and \ref{q-map}(b')]
is much weaker than the results due to $d$FSD
correlations  [Figs.~\ref{q-map}(a) and \ref{q-map}(b)].
Hence the underlying $d$FSD correlations are particularly important to
produce a strongly enhanced anisotropy at lower $T$.

To see the $\omega$ dependence of the anisotropy,
the $({\boldsymbol q}, \omega)$ map of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$
is shown in \fig{qw-map} at low $T$.
While the anisotropic distribution
is still discernible for a high energy where
the spectral intensity is substantially reduced,
a pronounced anisotropy appears especially in a low energy region.

The evolution of the spectral intensity of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$
is shown in \fig{w-scan}
as a function of $\omega$ for several choices of $T$
at ${\boldsymbol q}={\boldsymbol Q}=(\pi,\pi)$.
At high $T$, Im$\chi({\boldsymbol Q},\omega)$ shows
a broad maximum at a moderate energy.
With decreasing $T$, low-energy spectral weight is
substantially enhanced, yielding a peak structure at low energy.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{fig3.eps}}
\caption{(Color online)
$({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ map of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ at $T=0.01J$
for $\delta=0.08$ and $\alpha=-0.05$;
the ${\boldsymbol q}$ directions are shown in the inset.
}
\label{qw-map}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{fig4.eps}}
\caption{
$\omega$ dependence of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol Q},\omega)$ for several choices of
$T$ for $\delta=0.08$ and $\alpha=-0.05$.
}
\label{w-scan}
\end{figure}

When $d$FSD correlations strongly enhance a small $xy$ anisotropy
of the original
band dispersion, a strong anisotropy of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$
is induced with a characteristic $T$ dependence.
In YBCO$_{6.45}$, the experimental data\cite{hinkov08} suggest that
fermions responsible for magnetic excitations feel a rather small
mean field of singlet pairing in the sense that neither a gap
feature nor a clear impact of the onset of superconductivity is observed
in neutron scattering.
This special experimental situation is
mimicked by setting $\Delta \equiv 0$ in the slave-boson
scheme of the $t$-$J$ model. We have found that
this phenomenological treatment well
captures the most salient features
observed in YBCO$_{6.45}$:\cite{hinkov08}
(i) the strongly enhanced anisotropy of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ at lower
$T$ for low $\omega$ (Figs.~\ref{q-map} and ~\ref{qw-map})
and (ii) the enhanced spectral weight of
Im$\chi({\boldsymbol Q},\omega)$ at low $\omega$ for low $T$ (\fig{w-scan}).

On the other hand,
in the standard slave-boson mena-field theory of
the $t$-$J$ model\cite{yamase06}, the onset temperature of singlet
pairing is higher than that of the $d$FSD, and
the singlet formation suppresses
the susceptibility of the $d$FSD,
which then does not diverge.\cite{yamase00}
The susceptibility, however, remains
appreciable\cite{yamase04b} so that
a small external anisotropy introduced in the $t$-$J$ model
is strongly enhanced
even in the singlet
pairing state.\cite{yamase00}
This effect is more pronounced for a lower doping rate.
Such an enhanced anisotropy nonetheless turns out not to be sufficient to
capture the anisotropy of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ observed
in YBCO$_{6.45}$\cite{hinkov08} even at qualitative level for
a realistic choice of parameters. In particular,
the anisotropy is enhanced at relatively high $T$
(Fig.~20 in Ref.~\onlinecite{yamase06}).
Moreover the experimental observation\cite{hinkov08} that the onset of
superconductivity hardly affects magnetic excitations is
difficult to be captured in existing microscopic theories for cuprates.

Inclusion of singlet pairing is not so straightforward,
and something beyond the existing theories happens in YBCO$_{6.45}$.
Here focusing on the context of the present paper we discuss several
possibilities that $d$FSD correlations still
remain strong enough to be compatible with the present result
even in a full calculation.
First, since the $d$FSD instability concerns discrete symmetry breaking,
the spontaneous symmetry breaking is allowed at finite temperature
even in the exact
analysis of the two-dimensional model,
in contrast to superconductivity and antiferromagnetism.
Hence suppression of the $d$FSD due to fluctuations is less crucial
than the latter two, in favor of strong correlations of the $d$FSD.
In the presence of a small external $xy$ anisotropy, then,
the anisotropy can be strongly enhanced as we have
seen in \fig{mean-field}.
The feedback of the enhanced anisotropy appears as further reduction
of the magnitude of singlet pairing compared with the mean-field
value in the slave-boson theory of the $t$-$J$ model.
Second, YBCO$_{6.45}$ has an orthorhombic crystal structure, but is
close to the continuous transition to a tetragonal structure.
The $d$FSD order parameter couples to a phonon related to the
orthorhombic-tetragonal structural transition, which
contributes to an enhancement of $d$FSD correlations.
In this case, the phonon spectrum may also show
strong anisotropy in the orthorhombic phase.
Last, there might be a phase segregation into hole-poor
AF domains with nano-scale correlation lengths
and hole-rich superconducting islands in
YBCO$_{6.45}$, and the neutron scattering signals
originate mainly from the AF domains.
Such finite-sized domains are often discussed in a strongly
underdoped superconducting region
in $\mu$SR measurements.\cite{niedermayer98,sanna04}

While the present result well captures the neutron scattering data
in YBCO$_{6.45}$,\cite{hinkov08} a detailed comparison
reveals disagreement about several aspects, which may be mainly due to
our simple calculation ignoring singlet pairing.
(i) A weakly incommensurate
structure was observed along the $q_{x}$ direction, whereas
we have obtained a single peak at $(\pi,\pi)$ as read off from
\fig{q-map}. In a fermiology scenario, the incommensurate structure in
Y-based cuprates is explained by the suppression of the commensurate
peak due to
the development of $d$-wave singlet pairing.\cite{zha93,yamase06}
Hence the observed weak incommensurate peak can be
due to the development of relatively weak singlet pairing.
(ii) The observed data at $\omega = 50$ meV was interpreted to be
isotropic.\cite{hinkov08} In the present calculation, the anisotropy
becomes less pronounced for high $\omega$, but is still
discernible (\fig{qw-map}).
On the other hand, if we include singlet pairing in the slave-boson
mean-field theory, it is known\cite{yamase06} that
the anisotropy of Im$\chi({\boldsymbol q},\omega)$ at high $\omega$
depends strongly on energy.
More detailed experiments as well as more complete calculations are
necessary to discuss the anisotropy at high $\omega$.

The present phenomenological
calculation suggests that $d$-wave
singlet pairing is substantially reduced in YBCO$_{6.45}$, which
then concomitantly enhances strong $d$FSD correlations,
leading to a magnetic excitation spectrum
very similar to the experimental data.\cite{hinkov08}
Since the magnitude of $d$-wave singlet pairing is often discussed
to become larger with decreasing doping rate,
the present study implies an interesting direction
to understand the evolution of $d$-wave singlet pairing
as well as its connection with $d$FSD correlations
in underdoped cuprates.
Recent angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy data\cite{tanaka06}
is in fact suggestive of relatively small $d$-wave
singlet pairing.
It demonstrated two distinct gaps,
the amplitude of one of which increases for lower doping rates
while the other, which shows $d$-wave symmetry, decreases.
In addition, strong $d$FSD fluctuations substantially reduce
the lifetime of quasiparticles
in the antinodal region of the FS while not in the nodal
direction as shown in Ref.~\onlinecite{metzner03}.
Hence strong $d$FSD fluctuations
may play an integral role to understand the pseudogap
in the strongly underdoped regime of YBCO.
Strong $d$FSD fluctuations are also expected in a
scenario of a quantum phase transition into the $d$FSD state
in a underdoped region.\cite{sachdev08}
Such a scenario is, however,  based on the assumption of the existence of robust
$d$-wave pairing, which is different from the present theory where
we have invoked
the substantial suppression of $d$-wave pairing due to the competition\cite{yamase04b,yamase07a}
with the $d$FSD in a strongly underdoped region.

The author is grateful to V. Hinkov and B. Keimer for sharing
their unpublished data with him and to W. Metzner and A. Toschi
for very helpful discussions.


\section*{Introduction}

Let $S=k[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ be the polynomial ring in $n$ variables over a field $k$. We order lexicographically the monomials of $S$ such that $x_1>x_2>\ldots> x_n$. Let $d\geq 2$ be an integer and $\mathcal{M}_d$ the set of monomials of degree $d$. For two monomials $u,v\in\mathcal{M}_d$, with $u\geq_{lex}v$, the set $$\mathcal L(u,v)=\{w\in\mathcal{M}_d\ |\ u\geq_{lex}w\geq_{lex}v\}$$ is called a lexsegment. A lexsegment ideal in $S$ is a monomial ideal of $S$ which is generated by a lexsegment. Lexsegment ideals have been introduced by Hulett and Martin \cite{HM}. Arbitrary lexsegment ideals have been studied by A. Aramova, E. De Negri, and J. Herzog in \cite{ADH} and \cite{DH}. They characterized the lexsegment ideals which have linear resolutions.

In this paper we show that any lexsegment ideal with linear resolution has linear quotients with respect to a suitable order of the generators.

Let $I\subset S$ be a monomial ideal and $G(I)$ its minimal monomial set of generators. $I$ has linear quotients if there exists an ordering $u_1,\ldots,u_m$ of the elements of $G(I)$ such that for all $2\leq j\leq m$, the colon ideals $(u_1,\ldots,u_{j-1}):u_j$ are generated by a subset of $\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$.

Lexsegment ideals which have linear quotients with respect to the lexicographical order of the generators have been characterized by the third author in \cite{S}.

In  Section \ref{Section1} we show that any completely lexsegment ideal with linear resolution has linear quotients with respect to the following order of the generators. Given two monomials of degree $d$ in $S$, $w=x_1^{\alpha_1}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_n}$ and $w'=x_1^{\beta_1}\ldots x_n^{\beta_n},$   we set $w\prec w'$ if $\alpha_1<\beta_1$ or $\alpha_1=\beta_1$ and $w>_{lex}w'$.

Let $u,v\in\mathcal{M}_d$ which define the completely lexsegment ideal $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ with linear resolution. If $\mathcal{L}(u,v)=\{w_1,\ldots, w_r\}$, where $w_1\prec w_2\prec\ldots\prec w_r$, we show that $I$ has linear quotients with respect to this ordering of the generators. The non-completely lexsegment ideal will be separately studied in Section $2$.

For the completely lexsegment ideals with linear resolution it will turn out that their decomposition function with respect to the ordering $\prec$  is regular . Therefore, one may apply the procedure developed in \cite{HT} to get the explicit resolutions for this class of ideals.

In the last section of our paper we study the depth and the dimension of lexsegment ideals. Our results show that one may compute these invariants just looking at the ends of the lexsegment. As an application, we characterize the Cohen-Macaulay lexsegment ideals.\\

We acknowledge the support provided by the Computer Algebra Systems \textsc{CoCoA} \cite{Co} and \textsc{Singular} \cite{GPS} for the extensive experiments which helped us to obtain some of the results of this work.

\section{Completely lexsegment ideals with linear resolutions}\label{Section1}

In the theory of Hilbert functions or in extremal combinatorics usually one considers initial lexsegment ideals, that is ideals generated by an initial lexsegment $\mathcal{L}^i(v)=\{w\in\mathcal{M}_d\ |\ w\geq_{lex} v\}$.   Initial lexsegment ideals are stable in the sense of Eliahou and Kervaire (\cite{EH}, \cite{AH}) and they have linear quotients with respect to lexicographical order  \cite[Proposition 2.1]{S}.

One may also define the final lexsegment $\mathcal{L}^f(u)=\{w\in\mathcal{M}_d\ |\ u\geq_{lex}w\}$. Final lexsegment ideals are generated by final lexsegments. They are also stable in the sense of Eliahou and Kervaire  with respect to $x_n>x_{n-1}>\ldots>x_1$. Therefore they have linear quotients.

Throughout this paper we use the following notations. If $m=x_1^{\alpha_1}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_n}$ is a monomial of $S$, we denote by $\nu_i(m)$ the exponent of the variable $x_i$ in $m$, that is $\nu_i(m)=\alpha_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$. Also, we will denote $\max(m)=\max\{i\mid x_i|m\}.$

Hulett and Martin call a lexsegment $L$  \it{completely lexsegment} \rm if all the iterated shadows of $L$ are again lexsegments. We recall that the shadow of a set $T$ of monomials is the set $\shad(T)=\{vx_i\mid v\in T,\ 1\leq i\leq n\}$. The $i$-th shadow is recursively defined as $\shad^i(T)=\shad(\shad^{i-1}(T))$. The initial lexsegments have the property that their shadow is again an initial lexsegment, a fact which is not true for arbitrary lexsegments. An ideal spanned by a completely lexsegment is called a \it completely lexsegment ideal\rm. All the completely lexsegment ideals with linear resolution are determined in \cite{ADH}:

\begin{Theorem}\cite{ADH}\label{completelylex} Let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, $v=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ be monomials of degree $d$ with $u\geq_{lex}v$, and let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ be a completely lexsegment ideal. Then $I$ has linear resolution if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
\begin{itemize}
	\item [(a)] $u=x_1^ax_2^{d-a},\ v=x_1^ax_n^{d-a}$ for some $a,\ 0< a\leq d;$
	\item [(b)] $b_1< a_1-1;$
	\item [(c)] $b_1 = a_1-1$ and for the largest $w <_{lex} v, w$ monomial of degree $d,$ one has $x_1 w/x_{\max(w)}\leq_{lex} u.$
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}

\begin{Theorem}\label{colex}
Let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},$ with  $a_1>0,$ and $ v=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ be monomials of degree $d$ with $u\geq_{lex} v,$ and let $I=({\mathcal L}(u,v))$ be a completely lexsegment ideal. Then $I$ has linear resolution if and only if $I$ has linear quotients.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
We have to prove that if $I$ has linear resolution then $I$ has linear quotients, since the other implication is known \cite{H}. By Theorem \ref{completelylex}, since $I$ has linear resolution, one of the conditions (a), (b), (c) holds.

We define on the set of the monomials of  degree $d$ from $S$ the following total order: for $$w=x_1^{\alpha_1}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_n},\ w^{\prime}=x_1^{\beta_1}\ldots x_n^{\beta_n},$$ we set $$w\prec w^{\prime}\text{ if }\alpha_1 < \beta_1 \text{ or }\alpha_1=\beta_1 \text{ and } w>_{lex} w^{\prime}.$$ Let $$\mathcal{L}(u,v)=\{w_1,\ldots,w_r\}, \text{ where }w_1\prec w_2\prec\ldots\prec w_r.$$ We will prove that $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ has linear quotients with respect to this ordering of the generators.

Assume that $u,v$ satisfy the condition (a) and $a<d$ (the case $a=d$ is trivial). Then $I$ is isomorphic as $S$--module with the ideal generated by the final lexsegment ${\mathcal L}^f(x_2^{d-a}) \subset S$ and the ordering $\prec$ of its minimal generators coincides with the lexicographical ordering $>_{lex}.$ The ideal $(\mathcal{L}^f(x_2^{d-a}))\cap k[x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ is the initial ideal in $k[x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ defined by $x_n^{d-a},$ which has linear quotients with respect to $>_{lex}.$ Hence $I$ has linear quotients with respect to $\prec$ since it is obvious that the extension in the ring $k[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ of a monomial  ideal with linear quotients in $k[x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ has linear quotients too.

Next we assume that $u,v$ satisfy the condition (b) or (c).

By definition, $I$ has linear quotients with respect to the monomial generators $w_1,\ldots,w_r$ if the colon ideals $(w_1,\ldots,w_{i-1}):w_i$ are generated by variables for all $i\geq 2,$ that is for all $j < i$ there exists an integer $1\leq k <i$ and an integer $l\in [n]$ such that $w_k/\gcd(w_k,w_i)=x_l \text{ and }x_l\text{ divides } w_j/\gcd(w_j,w_i).$

In other words, for any $w_j\prec w_i, w_j,w_i\in \mathcal{L}(u,v),$ we have to find a monomial $w^{\prime}\in \mathcal{L}(u,v)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
w^{\prime}\prec w_i,\ \frac{w^{\prime}}{\gcd(w^{\prime},w_i)}=x_l, \text{ for some }l\in [n]  \text{, and }x_l\text{ divides } \frac{w_j}{\gcd(w_j,w_i)}. \eqname{$*$}\label{*}
\end{eqnarray}

Let us fix  $w_i=x_1^{\alpha_{1}}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_{n}}$ and $w_j=x_1^{\beta_{1}}\ldots x_n^{\beta_{n}}, \ w_i,w_j\in \mathcal{L}(u,v),$ such that $w_j\prec w_i.$ By the definition of the  ordering $\prec,$ we must have $$\beta_{1} < \alpha_{1} \text { or }\beta_{1} = \alpha_{1} \text{ and } w_j>_{lex} w_i.$$

\underline{\textit{Case $1$}}: Let $\beta_1<\alpha_1$. One may find an integer $l$, $2\leq l\leq n$, such that $\alpha_s\geq \beta_s$ for all $s<l$ and $\alpha_l<\beta_l$ since, otherwise, $\deg(w_i)>\deg(w_j)=d$ which is impossible. We obviously have $\max(w_j)\geq l$. If $l\geq \max(w_i),$ one may take $\bar{w}=x_lw_i/x_1$ which satisfies the condition (\ref{*}) since the inequalities $\bar{w}\prec w_i,$ $\bar{w}\leq_{lex}w_i\leq_{lex} u$ hold, and we will show that $\bar{w}\geq_{lex}w_j$. This will imply that $\bar{w}\geq_{lex}v$, hence $\bar{w}\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$.

The inequality $\bar{w}\geq_{lex}w_j$ is obviously fulfilled if $\alpha_1-1>\beta_1$ or if $\alpha_1-1=\beta_1$ and at least one of the inequalities $\alpha_s\geq\beta_s$ for $2\leq s<l$, is strict. If $\alpha_1-1=\beta_1$ and $\alpha_s=\beta_s$ for all $s<l$, comparing the degrees of $w_i$ and $w_j$ it results $d=\alpha_1+\ldots+\alpha_l=\beta_1+1+\beta_2+\ldots+\beta_{l-1}+\alpha_l<(\beta_1+1)+\beta_2+\ldots+\beta_l.$ It follows that $d\geq\beta_1+\beta_2+\ldots+\beta_l>d-1,$ that is $\beta_1+\beta_2+\ldots+\beta_l=d.$ This implies that $l=\max(w_j)$ and $\beta_l=\alpha_l+1$, that is $\bar{w}=x_lw_i/x_1=x_1^{\alpha_1-1}x_2^{\alpha_2}\ldots x_l^{\alpha_l+1}=x_1^{\beta_1}\ldots x_l^{\beta_l}=w_j.$

From now on, in the Case $1$, we may assume that $l<\max(w_i)$. We will show that at least one of the following monomials: $$w'=\frac{x_lw_i}{x_{\max(w_i)}},\ w''=\frac{x_lw_i}{x_1}$$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. It is clear that both monomials are strictly less than $w_i$ with respect to the ordering $\prec.$ Therefore one of the monomials $w',\ w''$ will satisfy the condition (\ref{*}).

The following inequalities are fulfilled: $$w'>_{lex}w_i\geq_{lex}v,\ \text{and}$$ $$w''<_{lex}w_i\leq_{lex}u.$$

Let us assume, by contradiction, that $w'>_{lex}u$ and $w''<_{lex}v$. Comparing the exponents of the variable $x_1$, we obtain $a_1-1\leq\alpha_1-1\leq b_1$. Since the ideal generated by $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ has linear resolution, we must have $b_1=a_1-1$. Let $z$ be the largest monomial of degree $d$ such that $z<_{lex}v$. Then, by our assumption on $w''$, we also have the inequality $w''\leq_{lex}z$.

Now we need the following

\begin{Lemma}\label{lema1} Let $m=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ m'=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ be two monomials of degree $d$. If $m\leq_{lex}m'$ then $m/x_{\max(m)}\leq_{lex}m'/x_{\max(m')}$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $m <_{lex}m'$. Then there exists $s\geq1$ such that $a_1=b_1,\ldots, a_{s-1}=b_{s-1}$ and $a_s<b_s$. It is clear that $\max(m')\geq s$. Comparing the degrees of $m$ and $m'$  we get  $\max(m)>s.$

If $\max(m)>s$ and $\max(m')>s$, the required inequality is obvious.

Let $\max(m)>s$ and $\max(m')=s$. Let us suppose, by contradiction, that $m/x_{\max(m)}>_{lex}m'/x_{\max(m')}=m'/x_s.$ This implies that $a_s\geq b_s-1$, and, since $a_s<b_s$, we get $a_s=b_s-1$.
Looking at the degree of $m'$ we obtain $d=b_1+b_2+\ldots+b_s=a_1+a_2+\ldots+ a_{s-1}+a_s+1,$ that is $a_1+\ldots+a_s=d-1$. It follows that $a_{\max(m)}=1$ and $m/x_{\max(m)}=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_s^{a_s}=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_{s-1}^{b_{s-1}}x_s^{b_s-1}=m'/x_{\max(m')}$, contradiction.
\end{proof}
Going back to the proof of our theorem,
we apply the above lemma for the monomials $w''$ and $z$ and we obtain  $w''/x_{\max(w'')}\leq_{lex}z/x_{\max(z)},$ which implies that $x_1w''/x_{\max(w'')}\leq_{lex}x_1z/x_{\max(z)}.$
By using  condition (c) in the Theorem \ref{completelylex} it follows that $x_1w''/x_{\max(w'')}\leq_{lex}u.$ On the other hand, $x_1w''/x_{\max(w'')}=x_1x_lw_i/(x_1x_{\max(w_i)})$ $=x_lw_i/x_{\max(w_i)}=w'.$ Therefore, it results $w'\leq_{lex}u$, which contradicts our assumption on $w'$.

Consequently, we have $w'\leq_{lex}u$ or $w''\geq_{lex}v$, which proves that at least one of the monomials $w',\ w''$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$.

\underline{\textit{Case $2$:}} Let $\beta_1=\alpha_1$ and $w_j>_{lex}w_i$. Then there exists $l$, $2\leq l\leq n$, such that $\alpha_s=\beta_s$, for all $s<l$ and $\alpha_l<\beta_l$. If $\max(w_i)\leq l$, then, looking at the degrees of $w_i$ and $w_j$, we get $d=\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\ldots+\alpha_l<\beta_1+\beta_2+\ldots+\beta_l,$ contradiction. Therefore, $l<\max(w_i)$. We proceed in a similar way as in the previous case. Namely, exactly as in the Case $1,$ it results that at least one of the following two monomials $w'=x_lw_i/x_{\max(w_i)},\ w''=x_lw_i/x_1$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. It is clear that both monomials are strictly less than $w_i$ with respect to the order $\prec$.
\end{proof}

\begin{Example}\rm
Let $S=k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$. We consider the monomials: $u=x_1x_2x_3$ and $v=x_2x_3^2$, $u>_{lex} v,$ and let $I$ be the monomial ideal generated by $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. The minimal system of generators of the ideal $I$ is
	$$G(I)=\mathcal{L}(u,v)=\{x_1x_2x_3,\ x_1x_3^2,\ x_2^3,\ x_2^2x_3,\ x_2x_3^2\}.$$

Since $I$ verifies the condition (c) in Theorem \ref{completelylex}, it follows that $I$ is a completely lexsegment ideal with linear resolution. We denote the monomials from $G(I)$ as follows: $u_1=x_1x_2x_3,\ u_2=x_1x_3^2,\ u_3=x_2^3,\ u_4=x_2^2x_3,\ u_5=x_2x_3^2$, so $u_1>_{lex}u_2>_{lex}\ldots>_{lex}u_5.$ The colon ideal $(u_1,u_2):u_3=(x_1x_3)$ is not generated by a subset of $\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$. This shows that $I$ is not with linear quotients with respect to lexicographical order.

We consider now the  order $\prec$ and check by direct computation that $I$ has linear quotients.  We label the monomials from $G(I)$ as follows: $u_1=x_2^3,\ u_2=x_2^2x_3,\ u_3=x_2x_3^2,\ u_4=x_1x_2x_3,\ u_5=x_1x_3^2$, so $u_1\prec u_2\prec\ldots\prec u_5$. Then $(u_1):u_2=(x_2),\ (u_1,u_2):u_3=(x_2),\ (u_1,u_2,u_3):u_4=(x_2,x_3),$ $(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4):u_5=(x_2)$.
\end{Example}

We further study the decomposition function of a completely lexsegment ideal with linear resolution. The decomposition function of a monomial ideal was introduced by J. Herzog and Y. Takayama in \cite{HT}.

We recall the following notation. If $I\subset S$ is a monomial ideal with linear quotients with respect to the ordering $u_1,\ldots,u_m$ of its minimal generators, then we denote $$\set(u_j)=\{k\in[n]\ |\ x_k\in(u_1,\ldots,u_{j-1}):u_j\}$$
for $j=1,\ldots,m$.

\begin{Definition}\cite{HT} \rm Let $I\subset S$ be a monomial ideal with linear quotients with respect to the sequence of minimal monomial generators $u_1,\ldots, u_m$ and set $I_j=(u_1,\ldots, u_j)$, for $j=1,\ldots,m$. Let $\mathcal{M}(I)$ be the set of all monomials in $I$. The map $g:M(I)\rightarrow G(I)$ defined as: $g(u)=u_j$, where $j$ is the smallest number such that $u\in I_j$, is called \it the decomposition function \rm of $I$.
\end{Definition}

We say that the decomposition function $g:M(I)\rightarrow G(I)$ is \it regular \rm if $\set(g(x_su))$$\subseteq\set(u)$ for all $s\in\set(u)$ and $u\in G(I)$.

We show in the sequel that completely lexsegment ideals which have linear quotients with respect to $\prec$ have also regular decomposition functions.

In order to do this, we need some preparatory notations and results.

For an arbitrary lexsegment $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ with the elements ordered by $\prec$, we denote by $I_{\prec w}$, the ideal generated by all the monomials $z\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ with $z\prec w$. $I_{\preceq}w$ will be the ideal generated by all the monomials $z\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ with $z\preceq w$.

\begin{Lemma}\label{1nset} Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ be a  lexsegment ideal which has linear quotients with respect to the order $\prec$ of the generators. Then, for any $w\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$, $1\notin\set(w)$.
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof} Let us assume that $1\in\set(w)$, that is $x_1w\in I_{\prec w}$. It follows that there exists $w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$, $w'\prec w$, and a variable $x_j$ such that $x_1w=x_jw'$. Obviously, we have $j\geq2$. But this equality shows that $\nu_1(w')>\nu_1(w)$, which is impossible since $w'\prec w$.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lemma}\label{desc} Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ be a completely lexsegment ideal which has linear quotients with respect to the ordering $\prec$ of the generators. If $w\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ and $s\in\set(w)$, then
	\[g(x_sw)=
\left\{\begin {array}{cc}
			x_s w/x_1, & \mbox{if}\ x_sw\geq_{lex} x_1v,\\
			&\\
			x_s w/x_{\max(w)}, & \mbox{if}\ x_sw<_{lex} x_1v.
	\end{array}\right. \]
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n},\ a_1>0,$ and $w=x_1^{\alpha_1}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_n}$.

In the first place we consider $$x_sw\geq_{lex}x_1v.$$ Since, by Lemma \ref{1nset}, we have $s\geq 2$, the above inequality shows that $\nu_1(w)\geq1$. We have to show that $g(x_sw)=x_s w/x_1$, that is $x_s w/x_1=\min_{\prec}\{w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)\ |\ x_sw\in I_{\preceq w'}\}$. It is clear that $v\leq_{lex} x_sw/x_1<_{lex}w\leq_{lex}u$, hence $x_sw/x_1\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. Let $w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ such that $x_sw\in I_{\preceq w'}$. We have to show that $x_sw/x_1\preceq w'$. Let $w''\in\mathcal{L}(u,v),\ w''\preceq w'$ such that $x_sw=w''x_j$, for some variable $x_j$. Then
$w''=x_sw/x_j\succeq x_sw/x_1
$
by the definition of our ordering $\prec$. This implies that $w'\succeq x_sw/x_1$.

Now we have to consider the second inequality,
\begin{eqnarray}x_sw<_{lex}x_1v.\label{star}
\end{eqnarray}

Since $s\in\set(w)$, we have $x_sw\in I_{\prec w}$, that is there exists $w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$, $w'\prec w$, and a variable $x_j,\ j\neq s$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}x_sw=x_jw'.\label{1}
\end{eqnarray}

If $j=1$, then $x_sw=x_1w'\geq_{lex}x_1v$, contradiction. Hence $j\geq2$. We also note that $x_j|w$ since $j\neq s$, thus $j\leq\max(w)$. The following inequalities hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_s w/x_{\max(w)}\geq_{lex} x_s w/x_j= w'\geq_{lex} v. \label{4}
\end{eqnarray}

If $\nu_1(w)<a_1$, we obviously get $x_sw/x_{\max(w)}\leq_{lex}u$. Let $\nu_1(w)=a_1$. From the inequality (\ref{star}) we obtain  $a_1\leq b_1+1$.

If $a_1=b_1$ then $u=x_1^{a_1}x_2^{d-a_1}$ and $v=x_1^{a_1}x_n^{d-a_1}$ by Theorem \ref{completelylex}. Since $w\leq_{lex} u$, by using Lemma \ref{lema1}, we have
$x_sw/x_{\max(w)}\leq_{lex}x_su/x_{\max(u)}=x_su/x_2\leq_{lex} u,
$ the last inequality being true by Lemma \ref{1nset}. Therefore, $x_s w/x_{\max(w)}\in \mathcal{L}(u,v).$

If $a_1=b_1+1$ then the condition (c) in Theorem \ref{completelylex} holds. Let $z$ be the largest monomial with respect to the lexicographical order such that $z<_{lex}v$. Since $x_sw/x_1<_{lex}v$ by hypothesis, we also have $x_sw/x_1\leq_{lex}z$. By Lemma \ref{lema1} we obtain
$x_sw/(x_1x_{\max(x_sw/x_1)})\leq_{lex}z/x_{\max(z)}.
$
Next we apply the condition (c) from Theorem \ref{completelylex} and get the following inequalities:

\begin{eqnarray}
x_1\frac{x_sw}{x_1x_{\max\left(\frac{x_sw}{x_1}\right)}}\leq_{lex}x_1\frac{z}{x_{\max(z)}}\leq_{lex}u.\label{2}
\end{eqnarray}
From the equality (\ref{1}) we have $w'=x_sw/x_j$.  As $j\neq1,\ \nu_1(w')=\nu_1(w),$ and the  inequality $w'\prec w$   gives $w'>_{lex} w,$ that is $x_s w/x_j>_{lex}w,$ which implies that $x_s>_{lex} x_j$. This shows that  $s<j\leq\max(w)$. Now looking at the inequalities (\ref{2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}x_sw/x_{\max(w)}\leq_{lex}u.\label{3}
\end{eqnarray}
From (\ref{3}) and (\ref{4}) we obtain  $x_sw/x_{\max(w)}\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$.

It remains to show that $x_s w/x_{\max(w)}=\min_{\prec}\{w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)\mid x_sw\in I_{\preceq w'}\}.$ Let $\tilde{w}=\min_{\prec}\{w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)\mid x_sw\in I_{\preceq w'}\}.$ We obviously have $\tilde{w}\preceq x_s w/x_{\max(w)}\prec w.$ By the choice of $\tilde{w}$ we have $$x_sw=x_t\tilde{w}$$ for some variable $x_t.$

If $t=s$ we get $w=\tilde{w}$ which is impossible since $\tilde{w}\prec w.$ Therefore, $t\neq s.$
Then $x_t| w,$  so $t\leq\max(w)$. It follows that $\tilde{w}=x_sw/x_t\leq_{lex}x_sw/x_{\max(w)}$. If $t=1$ we have $x_1\tilde{w}=x_sw <_{lex}x_1 v,$ which implies that $\tilde{w}<_{lex}v,$ contradiction. Therefore $t\neq 1$ and, moreover, $\tilde{w}\succeq x_sw/x_{\max(w)}$, the  inequality being true by the definition of the ordering $\prec$.
 This yields $\tilde{w}=x_sw/x_{\max(w)}.$ Therefore we have proved that $x_sw/x_{\max(w)}=g(x_sw)$.
\end{proof}

After this preparation, we  prove the following

\begin{Theorem} Let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n},\ u,v\in\mathcal{M}_d$, with $u\geq_{lex}v$,  and $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ be a completely lexsegment ideal which has linear resolution. Then the decomposition function $g:M(I)\rightarrow G(I)$ associated to the ordering  $\prec$ of the generators from $G(I)$ is regular.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof} Let $w\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ and $s\in\set(w)$. We have to show that $\set(g(x_sw))\subset\set(w)$.

Let $t\in\set(g(x_sw))$. In order to prove that $t\in\set(w)$, that is $x_tw\in I_{\prec w}$, we will consider the following two cases:

\underline{\textit{Case 1}}: Let $x_sw\geq_{lex}x_1v$. By Lemma \ref{desc}, $g(x_sw)=x_sw/x_1$. Since $t\in\set(g(x_sw))$, we have $$\frac{x_tx_sw}{x_1}\in I_{\prec\frac{x_sw}{x_1}},$$ so there exists $w'\prec x_sw/x_1$, $w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$, and a variable $x_j$, such that
$x_t x_sw/x_1=x_jw',
$
that is
	\begin{eqnarray}x_tx_sw=x_1x_jw'.\label{6}
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{1nset}, $s,t\neq1$ and, since $w'\prec\ x_sw/x_1$, we have $j\neq t$. Note also that $w'\prec w$ since $\nu_1(w')<\nu_1(w)$. If $j=s$ then $x_tw=x_1w'\in I_{\prec w}$ and $t\in\set(w)$.

Now let $j\neq s$. If $j=1$, we have
$x_tx_sw=x_1^2w',
$
which implies that $\nu_1(w')=\nu_1(w)-2$. The following inequalities hold:
$v<_{lex}x_1w'/x_s<_{lex}w\leq_{lex}u,
$
the first one being true since $v\leq_{lex}w'$, so $\nu_1(v)\leq\nu_1(w')$. These inequalities show that $x_1w'/x_s\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. But we also have $x_1w'/x_s\prec w$, hence $x_1w'/x_s\in I_{\prec w}$.

To finish this case we only need  to treat the case $j\neq1,\ j\neq s$. We are going to show that at least one of the monomials $x_1w'/x_s$ or $x_jw'/x_s$ belongs to $I_{\prec w}.$ In any case this will lead to the conclusion that $x_t w\in I_{\prec w}$ by using (\ref{6}).

From the equality (\ref{6}), we have $x_j|w$, hence $j\leq\max(w)$, and $\nu_1(w')=\nu_1(w)-1$. Since $w'\prec\ x_sw/x_1$ and $\nu_1(w')=\nu_1(w)-1=\nu_1(x_sw/x_1)$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}w'>_{lex}x_sw/x_1,\label{7}
\end{eqnarray} which gives
	\[x_1w'/x_s>_{lex}v.
\]
If the inequality \begin{eqnarray}x_1w'/x_s\leq_{lex}u\label{8}\end{eqnarray}holds, then we get $x_1w'/x_s\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. We also note that $\nu_1(x_1w'/x_s)=\nu_1(w)$ and $x_1w'/x_s>_{lex}w$ (by (\ref{7})). Therefore $x_1w'/x_s\prec w$ and we may write
$x_tw=x_j(x_1w'/x_s)\in I_{\prec w}.
$
This implies that $t\in\set(w)$.

Now we look at the monomial $x_jw'/x_s$ for which we have $\nu_1(x_jw'/x_s)=\nu_1(w')<\nu_1(w)$, so
$x_jw'/x_s<_{lex}w\leq_{lex}u.
$
If the inequality \begin{eqnarray}x_jw'/x_s\geq_{lex}v\label{9}\end{eqnarray}holds, we obtain  $x_jw'/x_s\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. Obviously we have $x_jw'/x_s\prec w$. By using (\ref{6}), we may write
$x_tw=x_1(x_jw'/x_s)\in I_{\prec w},
$
which shows that $t\in\set(w)$.

To finish the proof in the Case $1$ we need to consider the situation when both inequalities (\ref{8}) and (\ref{9}) fail. Hence, let
	\[x_1w'/x_s>_{lex}u\ \mbox{and}\ x_jw'/x_s<_{lex}v.
\]
We will show that this inequalities cannot hold simultaneously. Comparing the exponents of $x_1$ in the monomials involved in the above inequalities, we obtain  $\nu_1(w')=b_1\geq a_1-1$. Since, by hypothesis, $x_sw>_{lex} x_1v,$ we have $\nu_1(w)>b_1.$ On the other hand, $w\leq_{lex} u$ implies that $\nu_1(w)\leq a_1.$ So $b_1=a_1-1$ and $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ satisfies the condition (c) in Theorem \ref{completelylex}. Let, as usually, $z$ be the largest monomial with respect to the lexicographical order such that $z<_{lex}v$.

Since $x_jw'/x_s<_{lex}v$, we have $x_jw'/x_s\leq_{lex}z$. By Lemma \ref{lema1} and using the condition $x_1z/x_{\max(z)}\leq_{lex}u$, we obtain:
$x_1x_jw'/(x_sx_{\max(x_jw'/x_s)})\leq_{lex}u.
$
But our  assumption was that
$u<_{lex}x_1w'/x_s.
$
Therefore, combining the last two inequalities, after cancellation, one obtains that
$x_j<_{lex}x_{\max(x_jw'/x_s)}=x_{\max(x_tw/x_1)}=x_{\max(x_tw)}.
$
This leads to the inequality $j>\max(x_tw)$ and, since $j\leq\max(w)$, we get $\max(w)>\max(x_tw)$, which is impossible.

\underline{\textit{Case 2}}: Let $x_sw<_{lex}x_1v$. Then $g(x_sw)=x_sw/x_{\max(w)}$. In particular we have $x_sw/x_{\max(w)}\prec w$. Indeed, since $s\in \set(w),$ we have  $x_sw\in I_{\prec w}$, that is there exists $w'\in \mathcal{L}(u,v), w'\prec w,$ such that $x_sw\in I_{\preceq w'}.$ By the definition of the decomposition function we have $g(x_sw)\preceq w'$ and next we get  $g(x_sw)\prec w.$ Since $\nu_1(x_sw/x_{\max(w)})=\nu_1(w)$, the above inequality implies that $x_sw/x_{\max(w)}>_{lex}w$, that is $x_s>_{lex}x_{\max(w)}$ which means that $s<\max(w)$.

As $t\in\set(g(x_sw))$, there exists $w'\prec\ x_sw/x_{\max(w)}$, $w'\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$, and a variable $x_j$, such that
	\[x_tx_sw/x_{\max(w)}=x_jw',
\]
that is
	\begin{eqnarray}x_tx_sw=x_jx_{\max(w)}w'.\label{10}
\end{eqnarray}
As in the previous case, we would like to show that one of the monomials $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s$ or $x_jw'/x_s$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ and it is strictly less than $w$ with respect to $\prec$. In this way we  obtain  $x_tw\in I_{\prec w}$ and $t\in\set(w)$.

We begin our proof noticing that $s,t\neq1$, by Lemma \ref{1nset}. The equality $j=t$ is impossible since $w'\neq\ x_sw/x_{\max(w)}$. If $j=s$, then $x_tw=w'x_{\max(w)}\in I_{\preceq w'}$. But $w'\prec\ x_sw/x_{\max(w)}\prec w$, hence $x_tw\in I_{\prec w}$.

Let $j\neq s,t$. From the equality (\ref{10}) we have $x_j|w$, so $j\leq\max(w)$. We firstly consider $j=1$. Then the equality (\ref{10}) becomes
	\begin{eqnarray}x_tx_sw=x_1x_{\max(w)}w'.\label{11}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $s< \max(w)$, we have
$x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s<_{lex}w'\leq_{lex}u.
$
If the inequality $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s$ $\geq_{lex}v$ holds too, then $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ and, as $\nu_1(w')<\nu_1(w)$, it follows that $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s\prec w$. From (\ref{11}), we have $x_tw=x_1(x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s)\in I_{\prec w}$, hence $t\in\set(w)$.

From the inequality $x_sw<_{lex}x_1v$, we get
	\[x_sw<_{lex}x_1w',
\]
so
	\[x_1w'/x_s>_{lex}w.
\]
Let us assume that $x_1w'/x_s\leq_{lex}u$. Since $\nu_1(x_1w'/x_s)=\nu_1(w)$, by using the definition of the ordering $\prec$ we get  $x_1w'/x_s\in I_{\prec w}$. Then we may write $x_tw=x_{\max(w)}(x_1w'/x_s)\in I_{\prec w}$.

It remains to consider that
$x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s<_{lex}v\ \mbox{and}\ x_1w'/x_s>_{lex}u.
$
Proceeding as in the case 1 we show that we reach a contradiction and this ends the proof for $j=1$.
We only need to notice that we have to consider $b_1\leq a_1-1.$ Indeed, we can not have $b_1=a_1$ since one may find in $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ at least two monomials, namely $w$ and $w',$ with $\nu_1(w')<\nu_1(w).$

Finally, let $j\neq1$. Recall that in the equality (\ref{10})  we have $j\neq 1,t,s $ and $s<\max(w)$. From (\ref{10}) we obtain  $\nu_1(w)=\nu_1(w')$.  Since $w'\prec \ x_s w/x_{\max(w)}$, we have $w'>_{lex} x_sw/x_{\max(w)}$, that is \begin{eqnarray}w'x_{\max(w)}>_{lex}x_sw.\label{12}\end{eqnarray}

Replacing $w'x_{\max(w)}$ by $x_tx_sw/x_j$ in (\ref{12}), we get $x_t>_{lex}x_j$, which means $t<j$. It follows that:
$x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s=x_tw/x_j>_{lex} w\geq_{lex}v.
$
Since $s<\max(w)$, as in the proof for $j=1$, we have $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s\leq_{lex}u$. Therefore $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. In addition, from (\ref{12}), $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s>_{lex}w$ and $\nu_1(x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s)=\nu_1(w)$, so $x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s\prec w$. In other words, we have got that
$x_tw=x_j(x_{\max(w)}w'/x_s)\in I_{\prec w}
$
and $t\in\set(w)$.
\end{proof}

The general problem of determining the resolution of arbitrary lexsegment ideals is not completely solved. The resolutions of the lexsegment ideals with linear quotients are described in \cite{HT} using iterated mapping cones. We recall this construction from \cite{HT}. Suppose that the monomial ideal $I$ has linear quotients with respect to the ordering $u_1,\ldots,u_m$ of its minimal generators. Set $I_j=(u_1,\ldots,u_j)$ and $L_j=(u_1,\ldots,u_j):u_{j+1}.$ Since $I_{j+1}/I_j\simeq S/L_j,$ we get the exact sequences $$0\rightarrow S/L_j \rightarrow S/I_j\rightarrow S/I_{j+1}\rightarrow 0,$$ where the morphism $S/L_j \rightarrow S/I_j$ is the multiplication by $u_{j+1}.$ Let $F^{(j)}$ be a graded free resolution of $S/I_j$, $K^{(j)}$ the Koszul complex associated to the regular sequence $x_{k_1},\ldots,x_{k_l}$ with $k_i\in\set(u_{j+1}),$ and $\psi^{(j)}:K^{(j)}\rightarrow F^{(j)}$ a graded complex morphism lifting the map $S/L_j \rightarrow S/I_j$. Then the mapping cone $C(\psi^{(j)})$ of $\psi^{(j)}$ yields a free resolution of $S/I_{j+1}.$ By iterated mapping cones we obtain step by step a graded free resolution of $S/I.$

\begin{Lemma}\cite{HT} Suppose $\deg\ u_1 \leq \deg\ u_2 \leq \ldots\leq \deg\ u_m.$ Then the iterated mapping
cone $\mathbb{F}$, derived from the sequence $u_1,\ldots,u_m,$ is a minimal graded free resolution
of $S/I$, and for all $i > 0$ the symbols
\[f(\sigma; u)\ \mbox{with}\ u\in G(I),\ \sigma \subset \set(u),\  |\sigma| = i - 1
\]
form a homogeneous basis of the $S-$module $F_i$. Moreover $\deg(f(\sigma; u)) = |\sigma| +\deg(u)$.
\end{Lemma}

\begin{Theorem}\cite{HT} Let $I$ be a monomial ideal of $S$ with linear quotients, and $\mathbb{F}_{\bullet}$ the graded
minimal free resolution of $S/I$. Suppose that the decomposition function $g : M(I) \rightarrow G(I)$ is regular. Then the chain map $\partial$ of $\mathbb{F}_{\bullet}$ is given by
\[\partial(f(\sigma; u)) = -\sum_{s\in\sigma}(-1)^{\alpha(\sigma;s)}x_sf(\sigma\setminus s;u)+\sum_{s\in\sigma}(-1)^{\alpha(\sigma;s)}\frac{x_su}{g(x_su)}f(\sigma\setminus s;g(x_su)),\]
if $\sigma\neq\emptyset$, and
\[\partial(f(\emptyset; u)) = u\] otherwise.
Here $\alpha(\sigma;s)=|\{t\in\sigma\ |\ t<s\}|$.
\end{Theorem}

In our specific context we get the following
\begin{Corollary} Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))\subset S$ be a completely lexsegment ideal with linear quotients with respect to $\prec$ and $\mathbb{F}_{\bullet}$ the graded minimal free resolution of $S/I$. Then the chain map of $\mathbb{F}_{\bullet}$ is given by
\[\partial(f(\sigma; w)) = -\sum_{s\in\sigma}(-1)^{\alpha(\sigma;s)}x_sf(\sigma\setminus s;w)+\sum_{\stackrel{s\in\sigma:}{x_sw\geq_{lex}}x_1v}(-1)^{\alpha(\sigma;s)}x_1f\left(\sigma\setminus s;\frac{x_sw}{x_1}\right)+\]\[+\sum_{\stackrel{s\in\sigma:}{x_sw<_{lex}}x_1v}(-1)^{\alpha(\sigma;s)}x_{\max(w)}f\left(\sigma\setminus s;\frac{x_sw}{x_{\max(w)}}\right),\]
if $\sigma\neq\emptyset$, and
\[\partial(f(\emptyset; w)) = w\] otherwise. For convenience we set $f(\sigma;w)=0$ if $\sigma\nsubseteq\set{w}$.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{Example}\rm
Let $u=x_1^2x_2$ and $v=x_2^3$  be monomials in the polynomial ring $S=k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$. Then $$\mathcal{L}(u,v)=\{x_2^3,\ x_1x_2^2,\ x_1x_2x_3,\ x_1x_3^2,\ x_1^2x_2\}.$$ The ideal $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ is a completely lexsegment ideal with linear quotients with respect to this ordering of the generators. We denote $u_1=x_2^3,\ u_2=x_1x_2^2,\ u_3=x_1x_2x_3,\ u_4=x_1x_3^2,\ u_5=x_1^2x_2$. We have  $\set(u_1)=\emptyset,\ \set(u_2)=\{2\},\ \set(u_3)=\{2\},\ \set(u_4)=\{2\},\ \set(u_5)=\{2,3\}$. Let $\mathbb{F}_{\bullet}$ be the minimal graded free resolution of $S/I$.

Since $\max\{|\set(w)|\mid w\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)\}=2$, we have $F_i=0$, for all $i\geq4$.

A basis for the $S-$module $F_1$ is $\{f(\emptyset;u_1),\ f(\emptyset;u_2),\ f(\emptyset;u_3),\ f(\emptyset;u_4),\ f(\emptyset;u_5)\}$.

A basis for the $S-$module $F_2$ is $$\{f(\{2\};u_2),\ f(\{2\};u_3),\ f(\{2\};u_4),\ f(\{2\};u_5),\ f(\{3\};u_5)\}.$$

A basis for the $S-$module $F_3$ is $\{f(\{2,3\};u_5)\}$.

We have the minimal graded free resolution $\mathbb{F}_{\bullet}$:
	\[0\rightarrow S(-5)\stackrel{\partial_2}{\rightarrow} S(-4)^5\stackrel{\partial_1}{\rightarrow} S(-3)^5\stackrel{\partial_0}{\rightarrow} S\rightarrow S/I\rightarrow 0
\]
where the maps  are
	\[\partial_0(f(\emptyset;u_i))=u_i,\ \mbox{for}\ 1\leq i\leq 5,
\]
so \[\partial_0=
\left(\begin {array}{ccccc}
			x_2^3& x_1x_2^2& x_1x_2x_3& x_1x_3^2& x_1^2x_2
	\end{array}\right) .\]
\[\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_1(f(\{2\};u_2))&= &-x_2f(\emptyset;u_2)+x_1f(\emptyset;u_1),\\
\partial_1(f(\{2\};u_3))&= &-x_2f(\emptyset;u_3)+x_3f(\emptyset;u_2),\\
\partial_1(f(\{2\};u_4))&= &-x_2f(\emptyset;u_4)+x_3f(\emptyset;u_3),\\
\partial_1(f(\{2\};u_5))&= &-x_2f(\emptyset;u_5)+x_1f(\emptyset;u_2),\\
\partial_1(f(\{3\};u_5))&= &x_3f(\emptyset;u_5)-x_1f(\emptyset;u_3),\\
\end{array}\]
so
\[\partial_1=
\left(\begin {array}{ccccc}
			x_1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\
			-x_2& x_3& 0& x_1& 0\\
			0& -x_2& x_3& 0& -x_1\\
			0& 0& -x_2& 0& 0\\
			0& 0& 0& -x_2& x_3
	\end{array}\right) .\]

	\[\partial_2(f(\{2,3\};u_5))=-x_2f(\{3\};u_5)+x_3f(\{2\};u_5)+x_1f(\{3\};u_2)-x_1f(\{2\};u_3)=\]\[=-x_2f(\{3\};u_5)+x_3f(\{2\};u_5)-x_1f(\{2\};u_3),
\]
since $\{3\}\nsubseteq\set(u_2)$, so\[\partial_2=
\left(\begin {array}{c}
			0\\
			-x_1\\
			0\\
			x_3\\
			-x_2
	\end{array}\right) .\]
\end{Example}
\section{Non-completely lexsegment ideals with linear resolutions}

\begin{Theorem}\label{noncompletely}
Let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_2^{b_2}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ be monomials of degree $d$ in $S,$  $a_1> 0.$ Suppose that the ideal $I=({\mathcal L}(u,v))$ is not completely lexsegment ideal. Then $I$ has linear resolution if and only if $I$ has linear quotients.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
We only have to prove that if $I$ has linear resolution then $I$ has linear quotients for a suitable ordering of its minimal monomial
 generators. By \cite[Theorem 2.4]{ADH}, since $I$ has linear resolution,  $u$ and $v$ have the form: $$u=x_1x_{l+1}^{a_{l+1}}\ldots
  x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_lx_n^{d-1}, \text {for some } l\geq 2.$$ Then the ideal $I=({\mathcal L}(u,v))$ can be written as a sum of ideals $I=J+K,$ where $J$ is the ideal generated by all the monomials of ${\mathcal L}(u,v)$ which are not divisible by $x_1$ and $K$ is
 generated by all the monomials of ${\mathcal L}(u,v)$ which are  divisible by $x_1.$  More precise, we have $$J=(\{w\mid
  x_2^d\geq_{lex} w\geq_{lex} v\})$$ and $$K=(\{w\mid u\geq_{lex} w\geq_{lex} x_1x_n^{d-1}\}).$$ One may see that $J$ is generated by
 the initial lexsegment $\mathcal{L}^i(v)\subset k[x_2,\ldots,x_n],$ and hence it has linear quotients with respect to
 lexicographical order $>_{lex}.$ Let $G(J)=\{g_1\prec \ldots\prec g_m\},$ where $g_i\prec g_j\ \text{if and only if}\
 g_i>_{lex} g_j.$ The ideal $K$ is isomorphic with the ideal generated by the final lexsegment of degree $d-1$
 $$\mathcal{L}^f(u/x_1)=\{w\mid u/x_1\geq_{lex} w\geq_{lex} x_n^{d-1},\ \deg(w)=d-1\}.$$ Since final lexsegments
  are stable with respect to the order  $x_n>\ldots >x_1$ of the variables, it follows that the ideal $K$ has linear quotients
 with respect to $>_{\overline{lex}},$ where by $\overline{lex}$ we mean the lexicographical order corresponding to
 $x_n>\ldots >x_1.$ Let $G(K)=\{h_1\prec \ldots\prec h_p\},$ where $h_i\prec h_j\ \text{if and only if}\
 h_i>_{\overline{lex}} h_j.$ We consider the following ordering of the monomials of $G(I):$ $$G(I)=\{g_1\prec \ldots\prec
 g_m\prec h_1\prec \ldots\prec h_p\}.$$ We claim that, for this ordering of its minimal monomial generators, $I$ has linear quotients. In order to check this, we firstly notice that $I_{\prec g}:g=J_{\prec g}:g$ for every  $g\in G(J).$ Since $J$
 has linear quotients with respect to $\prec$ it follows that $J_{\prec g}:g$ is generated by variables. Now it is enough
to show that, for any generator $h$ of $K,$ the colon ideal $I_{\prec h}:h$ is generated by variables.
We note that $$I_{\prec h}:h=J:h + K_{\prec h}:h.$$ Since $K$ is with linear quotients, we already know that
$K_{\prec h}:h$ is generated by variables. Therefore we only need to prove that $J:h$ is generated by variables. We
will show that $J:h=(x_2,\ldots,x_l)$ and this will end our proof. Let $m\in J:h$ be a monomial. It follows that $mh\in J.$ Since $h$ is a generator of $ K,$ $h$ is of the form $h=x_1x_{l+1}^{\alpha_{l+1}}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_n},$ that is $h\not\in (x_2,\ldots,x_l).$ But this implies that $m$ must be in the ideal $(x_2,\ldots,x_l).$ For the reverse inclusion, let $2\leq t\leq  l.$ Then $x_t h=x_1 \gamma$ for some monomial $\gamma,$ of degree $d.$ Replacing $h$ in the equality we get  $\gamma=x_tx_{l+1}^{\alpha_{l+1}}\ldots x_n^{\alpha_n}$ which shows that $\gamma$ is a generator of $J.$ Hence $x_th\in J.$
\end{proof}

\begin{Example}\rm
Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))\subset k[x_1,\ldots,x_6]$ be the lexsegment ideal of degree $4$ determined by the monomials $u=x_1x_3^2x_5$ and $v=x_2x_6^3.$  $I$ is not a completely lexsegment ideal as it follows applying \cite[Theorem 2.3]{DH}, but $I$ has linear resolution by \cite[Theorem 2.4]{ADH}. $I$ has linear quotients if we order its minimal monomial generators as indicated in the proof of the above theorem. On the other hand, if we order the generators of $I$ using the order relation defined in the proof of Theorem  \ref{colex} we can easy see that $I$ does not have linear quotients. Indeed, following the definition of the order relation from Theorem \ref{colex} we should take $$G(I)=\{x_2^4\prec x_2^3x_3\prec\ldots\prec x_2x_6^3\prec x_1x_3^2x_5\prec x_1x_3^2x_6\prec x_1x_3x_4^2\prec\ldots\prec x_1x_6^3\}.$$ For $h=x_1x_3x_4^2$ one may easy check that  $I_{\prec h}:h$ is not generated by variables.
\end{Example}

\begin{Example}\rm Let $u=x_1x_3^2$, $v=x_2x_4^2$ be monomials in $k[x_1,\ldots, x_4]$. Then $I=(L(u,v))\subset k[x_1,\ldots, x_4]$ is a non-completely ideal with linear resolution and, by the proof of Theorem \ref{noncompletely}, $I$ has linear quotients with respect to the following ordering  of its minimal  monomial generators:
$$x_2^3,\ x_2^2x_3,\ x_2^2x_4,\ x_2x_3^2,\ x_2x_3x_4,\ x_2x_4^2,\ x_1x_4^2,\ x_1x_3x_4,\ x_1x_3^2.$$
We note that $\set(x_1x_4^2)=\{2\}$ and $\set(g(x_1x_2x_4^2))=\set(x_2x_4^2)=\{2,3\}\nsubseteq\set(x_1x_4^2)$, so the decomposition function is not regular for this ordering of the generators.
\end{Example}
\section{Cohen-Macaulay lexsegment ideals} \label{Section3}

In this section we study the dimension and the depth of arbitrary lexsegment ideals. These results are applied to describe the lexsegments ideals which are Cohen-Macaulay. We begin with the study of the dimension. As in the previous sections, let $d\geq 2$ be an integer. We denote $\frak{m}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n).$ It is clear that if $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))\subset S$ is a lexsegment ideal of degree $d$ then $\dim(S/I)=0$ if and only if $I=\frak{m}^d.$

\begin{Proposition}\label{dim} Let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_q^{b_q}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$, $1\leq q\leq n$, $a_1,b_q>0,$ be two monomials of degree $d$ such that $u\geq_{lex}v$ and let $I$ be the lexsegment ideal generated by $\mathcal{L}(u,v)$. We assume that $I\neq\frak{m}^d$. Then
\[\dim(S/I)=
\left\{\begin {array}{ll}
			n-q, & \mbox{if}\ 1\leq q<n,\\
			1, & \mbox{if}\ q=n.
	\end{array}\right. \]
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof} For $q=1$, we have $I\subset(x_1)$. Obviously $(x_1)$ is a minimal prime of $I$ and $\dim(S/I)=n-1$.

Let $q=n$, that is $v=x_n^d$ and $\mathcal{L}(u,v)=\mathcal{L}^f(u)$. We may write the ideal $I$ as a sum of two ideals,
$I=J+K,$ where
$J=(x_1\mathcal{L} (u/x_1,x_n^{d-1}))
$
and
$K=(\mathcal{L}(x_2^d,x_n^d)).
$
Let $p\supset I$ be a monomial prime ideal. If $x_1\in p$, then $J\subseteq p$. Since $p$ also contains $K$, we have  $p\supset (x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. Hence $p=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. If $x_1\notin p$, we obtain  $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)\subset p$. Hence, the only minimal prime ideal of $I$ is $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. Therefore, $\dim(S/I)=1$.

Now we consider $1<q<n$ and write $I$ as before,
$I=J+K,
$
where $J=(x_1\mathcal{L}(u/x_1,x_n^{d-1}))$ and $K=(\mathcal{L}(x_2^d,v))$.

Firstly we consider $u=x_1^d.$ Let $p\supset I$ be a monomial prime ideal. Then $p\ni x_1$ and, since $p\supset K,$ we also have $p\supset (x_2,\ldots,x_q).$ Hence $(x_1,\ldots,x_q)\subset p.$ Since $I\subset (x_1,\ldots,x_q),$ it follows that $(x_1,\ldots,x_q)$ is the only minimal prime ideal of $I.$ Therefore $\dim(S/I)=n-q.$

Secondly, let $a_1>1$ and $u\neq x_1^d.$ The lexsegment $\mathcal{L}(u/x_1,x_n^{d-1})$ contains the lexsegment $\mathcal{L}(x_2^{d-1},x_n^{d-1})$. Let $p$ be a monomial prime ideal which contains $I$ and such that $x_1\not\in p$. Then $p\supset\mathcal{L}(x_2^{d-1},x_n^{d-1})$ which implies that $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)\subset p$. Obviously we also have $I\subset(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$, hence $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$ is a minimal prime ideal of $I$.

Let $p\supset I$ be a monomial prime ideal which contains $x_1$. Since $p\supset K$, we also have $(x_2,\ldots,x_q)\subset p$. This shows that $(x_1,\ldots, x_q)$ is a minimal prime ideal of $I$. In conclusion, for $a_1>1$, the minimal prime ideals of $I$ are $(x_1,\ldots,x_q)$ and $(x_2,\ldots, x_n)$. Since $q\leq n-1$, we get  $\height(I)=q$ and $\dim(S/I)=n-q$.

Finally, let $a_1=1$, that is $u=x_1 x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, for some $a_l>0$, $l\geq2$. As in the previous case, we obtain  $(x_1,\ldots,x_q)$  a minimal prime ideal of $I$. Now we look for those minimal prime ideals of $I$ which do not contain $x_1$.

If $a_l=d-1$, the ideal $J=(x_1\mathcal{L}(u/x_1,x_n^{d-1}))$ becomes $J=(x_1\mathcal{L}(x_l^{d-1},x_n^{d-1}))$. If $p\supset I$ is a monomial prime ideal such that  $x_1\notin p$, we get  $(x_l,\ldots,x_n)\subset p$, and, since $p$ contains $K$, we obtain  $(x_2,\ldots,x_q)\subset p$. This shows that if $q<l$ then $(x_2,\ldots,x_q,x_l,\ldots,x_n)$ is a minimal prime ideal of $I$ of height $q+n-l\geq q$, and if $q\geq l$, then $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$ is a minimal prime ideal of height $n-1\geq q$. In both cases we may draw the conclusion that $\height(I)=q$ and, consequently, $\dim(S/I)=n-q$.

The last case we have to consider is $a_l<d-1$. Then $l<n$ and, with similar arguments as above, we obtain  $\dim(S/I)=n-q$.
\end{proof}

In order to study the depth of arbitrary lexsegment ideals, we  note that one can restrict to those lexsegments defined by monomials of the form $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ of degree $d$ with $a_1>0$ and $b_1=0$.

Indeed, if $a_1=b_1$, then $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ is isomorphic, as an $S-$module, with the ideal generated by the lexsegment $\mathcal{L}(u/x_1^{a_1},v/x_1^{b_1})$ of degree $d-a_1$. This lexsegment may be studied in the polynomial ring in a smaller number of variables.

If $a_1>b_1$, then $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ is isomorphic, as an $S-$module, with the ideal generated by the lexsegment $\mathcal{L}(u',v')$, where $u'=u/x_1^{b_1}$ has $\nu_1(u')=a_1-b_1>0$ and $v'=v/x_1^{b_1}$ has $\nu_1(v')=0$.

Taking into account these remarks, from now on, we  consider lexsegment ideals of ends $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, $v=x_q^{b_q}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$, for some $q\geq2$, $a_1,b_q>0$.

The first step in the depth's study  is the next

\begin{Proposition}\label{depthzero} Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$, where $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, $v=x_q^{b_q}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$, $q\geq2$, $a_1,b_q>0$. Then $\depth(S/I)=0$ if and only if $x_nu/x_1\geq_{lex} v$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $x_nu/x_1\geq_{lex} v$. We claim that
$(I\colon (u/x_1))=(x_1,\ldots,x_n).
$
Indeed, for $1\leq j\leq n$, the  inequalities
$u\geq_{lex}x_ju/x_1\geq_{lex}x_nu/x_1\geq_{lex}v
$ hold.
They show that $x_ju/x_1\in I$ for $1\leq j\leq n$. Therefore $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\subseteq(I\colon (u/x_1))$. The other inclusion is obvious. We conclude that $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in \Ass(S/I)$, hence $\depth(S/I)=0$.

For the converse, let us assume, by contradiction, that $x_nu/x_1<_{lex}v$. We will show that $x_1-x_n$ is regular on $S/I$. This will imply that $\depth(S/I)>0$, which contradicts our hypothesis. We firstly notice that, from the above inequality, we have $a_1-1=0$, that is $a_1=1$. Therefore, $u$ is of the form $u=x_1x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, $l\geq2,\ a_l>0$. Moreover, we have $l\geq q.$

Let us suppose that $x_1-x_n$ is not regular on $S/I$, that is there exists at least a polynomial $f\notin I$ such that $f(x_1-x_n)\in I$. One may assume that all monomials of $\supp(f)$ do not belong to $I$. Let us choose such a polynomial $f=c_1w_1+\ldots+c_tw_t,\ c_i\in k,\ 1\leq i\leq t$, with $w_1>_{lex}w_2>_{lex}\ldots>_{lex}w_t,\ w_i\notin I,\ 1\leq i\leq t$.

Then $\ini_{lex}((x_1-x_n)f)=x_1w_1\in I$. It follows that there exists $\alpha\in G(I)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}x_1w_1=\alpha\cdot\alpha\,'.\label{3.1}
\end{eqnarray}
for some monomial $\alpha\,'$. We have $x_1\nmid\alpha\,'$ since, otherwise, $w_1\in I$, which is false. Hence $\alpha$ is a minimal generator of $I$ which is divisible by $x_1$, that is $\alpha$ is of the form $\alpha=x_1\gamma$, for some monomial $\gamma$ such that $x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}\gamma\leq_{lex}u/x_1$. Looking at $(\ref{3.1})$, we get  $w_1=\gamma \alpha\,'$. This equality shows that $x_1\nmid w_1$. We claim that the monomial $x_nw_1$ does not cancel in the expansion of $f(x_1-x_n)$. Indeed, it is clear that $x_nw_1$ cannot cancel by some monomial $x_nw_i$,  $i\geq2$. But it also cannot cancel by some monomial of the form $x_1w_i$ since $x_nw_1$ is not divisible by $x_1$. Now we may draw the conclusion that there exists a monomial $w\notin I$ such that $w(x_1-x_n)\in I$, that is $wx_1,\ wx_n\in I$.

Let $w\notin I$ be a monomial  such that $wx_1,\ wx_n\in I$, let $\alpha,\ \beta\in\mathcal{L}(u,v)$ and $\alpha\,',\ \beta\,'$ monomials such that
\begin{eqnarray}x_1w=\alpha\cdot\alpha\,'\label{3.2}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}x_nw=\beta\cdot\beta\,'.\label{3.3}
\end{eqnarray}
As before, we get  $x_1\nmid w$, hence $\beta$ must be a minimal generator of $I$ such that
$x_2^d\geq_{lex}\beta\geq_{lex}v.
$ By using (\ref{3.3}), we can see that $x_n$ does not divide $\beta\,',$ hence $x_n|\beta.$  It follows that $w$ is divisible by $\beta/ x_n$. $w$ is also divisible by $\alpha/x_1$. Therefore,
 $\delta=\lcm(\alpha/x_1,\beta/x_n) | w.$ If $\deg \delta\geq d$ there exists a variable $x_j,$ with $j\geq 2,$ such that $(x_j\beta/x_n )| \delta,$ thus $(x_j\beta/x_n) | w.$ It is obvious that $x_2^d\geq_{lex} x_j\beta/x_n \geq_{lex} \beta\geq_{lex} v,$ hence $x_j\beta/x_n $ is a minimal generator of $I$ which divides $w,$ contradiction. This implies that $\delta$ has the degree $d-1.$ This yields $\alpha/x_1=\beta/x_n.$ Then $\beta=x_n\alpha /x_1\leq_{lex} x_n u/x_1<_{lex} v,$ contradiction.

\end{proof}

\begin{Corollary}
Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$, where $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, $v=x_q^{b_q}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$, $q\geq2$, $a_1,b_q>0$. Then $\projdim(S/I)=n$ if and only if $x_nu/x_1\geq_{lex} v$.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{Corollary}Let $I=\left(\mathcal{L}^f(u)\right)$ be the ideal generated by the final lexsegment defined by $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ a_1>0$. Then $\depth(S/I)=0$.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{Corollary}
Let $I=\left(\mathcal{L}^i(v)\right)$ be the ideal generated by the initial lexsegment defined by the monomial $v$. Then $\depth(S/I)=0$ if and only if $v\leq_{lex}x_1^{d-1}x_n$.
\end{Corollary}

Next we are going to characterize the lexsegment ideals $I$ such that $\depth\ S/I>0$, that is $x_nu/x_1<_{lex}v$, which implies that $u$ has the form $u=x_1x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, for some $l\geq2,\ a_l>0$ and $l>q,$ or $l=q$ and $a_q\leq b_q$. We  denote $u\,'=u/x_1=x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$. Then we have $x_nu\,'<_{lex}v$. From the proof of Proposition \ref{depthzero} we know that $x_1-x_n$ is regular on $S/I$. Therefore
	\[\depth(S/I)=\depth(S\,'/I\,')+1,
\]
where $S\,'=k[x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ and $I\,'$ is the ideal of $S\,'$ whose minimal monomial generating set is $G(I\,')=x_n\mathcal{L}(u\,',x_n^{d-1})\cup\mathcal{L}^i(v)$.

\begin{Lemma}\label{depthneq0} In the above notations and  hypothesis on the lexsegment ideal $I$, the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
	\item[(a)] If $v=x_2^d$ and $l\geq4$, then $\depth(S\,'/I\,')=l-3$.
	\item[(b)] If $v=x_2^{d-1}x_j$ for some $3\leq j\leq n-2$ and $l\geq j+2$ then $\depth(S\,'/I\,')=l-j-1$.
	\item[(c)] $\depth(S\,'/I\,')=0$ in all the other cases.
\end{itemize}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof} (a) Let $v=x_2^d$ and $l\geq4$. The ideal $I\,'\subset S '$ is minimally generated by all the monomials $x_n\gamma$, where $x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}\gamma\leq_{lex}u\,'$, $\deg(\gamma)=d-1$, and by the monomial $x_2^d$. Then it is clear that $\{x_3,\ldots,x_{l-1}\}$ is a regular sequence on $ S\,'/I\,'$, hence
$$\depth S\,'/I\,'=\depth\frac{S\,'/I\,'}{(x_3,\ldots,x_{l-1})S\,'/I\,'}+l-3.
$$We have
$$\frac{S\,'/I\,'}{(x_3,\ldots,x_{l-1})S\,'/I\,'}\cong\frac{k[x_2,x_l,\ldots,x_n]}{I\,'\cap k[x_2,x_l,\ldots,x_n]}.
$$In this way we may reduce the computation of $\depth(S\,'/I\,')$ to the case (c).

(b) Let $v=x_2^{d-1}x_j$, for some $3\leq j\leq n-2$ and $l\geq j+2$. Hence $I\,'$ is minimally generated by the following set of monomials
	\[\{x_n\gamma\ |\ \gamma\ \mbox{monomial of degree}\ d-1\ \mbox{such that}\ x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}\gamma\leq_{lex}u\,' \}\cup\]\[\cup\{x_2^d,\ x_2^{d-1}x_3,\ldots,x_2^{d-1}x_j\}.
\]
Then $\{x_{j+1},\ldots,x_{l-1}\}$ is a regular sequence on $S\,'/I\,'$ and
$$\depth S\,'/I\,'=\depth\frac{S\,'/I\,'}{(x_{j+1},\ldots,x_{l-1})S\,'/I\,'}+(l-j-1).
$$
Since
$$\frac{S\,'/I\,'}{(x_{j+1},\ldots,x_{l-1})S\,'/I\,'}\cong\frac{k[x_2,\ldots,x_j,x_l,\ldots,x_n]}{I\,'\cap k[x_2,\ldots,x_j,x_l,\ldots,x_n]},
$$
we may reduce the computation of $\depth(S\,'/I\,')$ to the case (c).

(c) In each of the cases that it remains to treat, we will show that $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)\in \Ass(S '/I ')$, that is there exists a monomial $w\notin I\,'$ such that $I\,':w=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. This implies that $\depth(S\,'/I\,')=0$.

{\textit{Subcase $C_1$}:} $v=x_2^d,\ l=2$. Then $w=x_n^{d-1}\notin I\,'$ and
$x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}x_jw/x_n=x_jx_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex}x_2x_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex}x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n}=u',
$
for all $2\leq j\leq n$. Hence $\gamma=x_jw/x_n$ has the property that $x_n\gamma\in G(I\,')$. Therefore, $x_j\in I\,':w$ for all $2\leq j\leq n$. It follows that $I\,':w=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$.

{\textit{Subcase $C_2$}:} $v=x_2^d,\ l=3$. Then $w=x_2^{d-1}x_n^{d-1}\notin I\,'$. Indeed, $x_2^d\nmid w$ and if we assume that there exists $x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}\gamma\leq_{lex}u\,'$, $\deg\gamma=d-1,$ such that $x_n\gamma|w$,  we obtain  $x_n\gamma|x_n^{d-1}$ which is impossible.

We show that $x_jw\in I\,'$ for all $2\leq j\leq n$. Indeed, $x_2w=x_2^dx_n^{d-1}\in I\,'$. Let $3\leq j\leq n$. Then $x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}x_jx_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex}x_3x_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex} u\,'$. It follows that $\gamma=x_jx_n^{d-2}$ has the property that $x_n\gamma=x_jx_n^{d-1}\in G(I\,')$. Since $x_n\gamma|x_jw$, we have  $x_jw\in I\,'$. This arguments shows that $I\,':w=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$.

{\textit{Subcase $C_3$}:} $v=x_2^{d-1}x_j$ for some $3\leq j\leq n-1$ and $2\leq l\leq j+1$. Let us consider again the monomial $w=x_2^{d-1}x_n^{d-1}$. It is clear that $x_tw\in I$ for all $2\leq t\leq j$. Let $t\geq j+1$. Then $x_tw$ is divisible by $x_tx_n^{d-1}$. Since $x_tx_n^{d-2}$ satisfies the  inequalities
$x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}x_tx_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex}u\,',
$
we have  $x_tx_n^{d-1}\in G(I\,')$. It follows that $x_t w\in I\,'$ for $t\geq j+1$. Assume that $w\in I\,'$. Since $x_2^{d-1}x_t\nmid w$ for $2\leq t\leq j$, we should have $x_n\gamma|w$ for some $\gamma$ of degree $d-1$ such that $x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}\gamma\leq_{lex}u\,'$. Since $\gamma|x_2^{d-1}x_n^{d-2}$ and $\gamma\leq_{lex}u\,'$, we get  $l=2$ and $a_2=\nu_2(u\,')\geq\nu_2(\gamma)$. Let $\gamma=x_2^ax_n^{d-1-a}$, for some $a\geq1$. In this case we change the monomial $w.$ Namely, we consider the monomial $w'=x_2x_n^{d-2}$ which does not belong to $G(I\,')$ since it has degree $d-1$.

 If $a_2\geq2$, for any $j$ such that $2\leq j\leq n$, we have
$x_n^{d-1}<_{lex}x_jw'/x_n=x_2x_jx_n^{d-3}<_{lex}x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n}=u\,'.
$
This shows that $x_jw'\in I\,'$ for $2\leq j\leq n$ and hence, $I\,':w=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$.

If $a_2=1$, we take $w\,''=x_n^{d-1}\notin I\,'$. For all $j$ such that $2\leq j\leq n$, we have
$x_n^{d-1}\leq_{lex}x_j w\,''/x_n=x_jx_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex}x_2x_n^{d-2}\leq_{lex} u\,'.
$
Therefore $x_jw\,''\in I\,'$ for $2\leq j\leq n$, hence
$I\,':w\,''=(x_2,\ldots,x_n).
$
In conclusion we have proved that in every case one may find a monomial $w\notin I\,'$ such that $I':w=(x_2,\ldots, x_n)$.

{\textit{Subcase $C_4$}}: Finally, let $v\leq_{lex} x_2^{d-1}x_n$. In this case, the ideal $I\,':x_2^{d-1}$ obviously contains $(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. Since the other inclusion is trivial, we get $I\,':x_2^{d-1}=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. It is clear that $x_2^{d-1}\notin I\,'$.
\end{proof}

By using Lemma \ref{depthneq0} we get:

\begin{Proposition}\label{depth} Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ be a lexsegment ideal defined by the monomials $u=x_1x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_q^{b_q}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ where $a_l,\ b_q>0$, $l,q\geq2$ and $x_n u/x_1<_{lex} v$. Then the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
	\item[(a)] If $v=x_2^d$ and $l\geq4$ then $\depth(S/I)=l-2$;
	\item[(b)] If $v=x_2^{d-1}x_j$ for some $3\leq j\leq n-2$ and $l\geq j+2$ then $\depth(S/I)=l-j$;
	\item[(c)] $\depth(S/I)=1$ in all the other cases.
\end{itemize}
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof} Since $x_1-x_n$ is regular on $S/I$ if $x_nu/x_1<_{lex}v$, we have $\depth(S/I)=\depth(S\,'/I\,')+1$. The conclusion follows  applying Lemma \ref{depthneq0}.
\end{proof}

\begin{Corollary}
Let $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))$ be a lexsegment ideal defined by the monomials $u=x_1x_l^{a_l}\ldots x_n^{a_n},\ v=x_q^{b_q}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$ where $a_l,\ b_q>0$, $l,q\geq2$ and $x_nu/x_1<_{lex} v$. Then the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
	\item[(a)] If $v=x_2^d$ and $l\geq4$ then $\projdim(S/I)=n-l+2$;
	\item[(b)] If $v=x_2^{d-1}x_j$ for some $3\leq j\leq n-2$ and $l\geq j+2$ then $\projdim(S/I)=n-l+j$;
	\item[(c)] $\projdim(S/I)=n-1$ in all the other cases.
\end{itemize}
\end{Corollary}

As a consequence of the results of this section we may characterize the Cohen--Macaulay lexsegment ideals.

In the first place, we note that the only Cohen--Macaulay lexsegment ideal such that $\dim(S/I)=0$ is $ I=\frak m^d$. Therefore it remains to consider Cohen--Macaulay ideals $I$ with $\dim(S/I)\geq1$.

\begin{Theorem} Let $n\geq3$ be an integer, let $u=x_1^{a_1}\ldots x_n^{a_n}$, $v=x_1^{b_1}\ldots x_n^{b_n}$, with $a_1>b_1\geq0,$   monomials of degree $d,$  and $I=(\mathcal{L}(u,v))\subset S$  the lexsegment ideal defined by $u$ and $v.$ We assume  that $\dim(S/I)\geq 1$. Then $I$ is Cohen--Macaulay if and only if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:
\begin{itemize}
	\item[(a)] $u=x_1x_n^{d-1}$ and $v=x_2^d$;
	\item[(b)] $v=x_{n-1}^ax_n^{d-a}$ for some $a>0$ and $x_n\ u/x_1<_{lex}v$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $u,v$ be as in (a). Then $\dim(S/I)=n-2$, by Proposition \ref{dim} and $\depth(S/I)=n-2$ by using (a) in Proposition \ref{depth} for $n\geq4$ and (c) for $n=3$.

Let $u,\ v$ as in (b). Then $\dim(S/I)=1$ by Proposition \ref{dim}. By using Proposition \ref{depth}(c), we obtain  $\depth(S/I)=1$, hence $S/I$ is Cohen--Macaulay.

For the converse, in the first place, let us take $I$ to be Cohen--Macaulay of $\dim(S/I)=1$. By Proposition \ref{dim} we have $q=n$ or $q=n-1$. If $q=n$, then $v=x_n^d$ and $x_n u/x_1\geq_{lex}v$. By Proposition \ref{depthzero}, $\depth(S/I)=0$, so $I$ is not Cohen--Macaulay.

Let $q=n-1$, that is $v=x_{n-1}^ax_n^{d-a}$ for some $a>0$. By Proposition \ref{depthzero}, since $\depth(S/I)>0$, we must have $x_nu/x_1<_{lex}v$, thus we get (b).

Finally, let $\dim(S/I)\geq2$, that is $q\leq n-2$. By using Proposition \ref{depth}, we obtain  $q=2$. Therefore $\dim(S/I)=\depth(S/I)=n-2$. Using again Proposition \ref{depth} (a),(b), it follows that $u=x_1x_n^{d-1}$ and $v=x_2^d$.
\end{proof}


\section{Introduction}

Phase conversions are of importance in physics, chemistry and other
fields.  Examples are numerous and include crystal physics \cite{Zh65},
metallurgy \cite{Sm07}, polymer physics \cite{Bi95,St07},
ferroelectric domain switching \cite{IT70}, magnetization and
metastability in statistical physics models \cite{RG94,LB00},
phase transitions in particle physics \cite{MO07}, as well as
ecological landscapes~\cite{OM06}.

Specific phenomena are nucleation and spinodal decomposition
\cite{spinodal}.  Conventionally, for a review see \cite{La92},
nucleation is characterized by metastability, while spinodal
decomposition is considered to be the mechanism by which phase
conversion occurs in an unstable system. We shall discuss the
crossover of these phenomena as function of the nucleation time,
the expansion speed, and the volume.

In Kolmogorov-Johnson-Mehl-Avrami (KJMA) theory \cite{Ko37,JM39,Av39}
phase conversion is based on the rate of nucleation of critical
nuclei \cite{droplets} and their subsequent expansion speed due to
gain in free energy. Independently, this approach was developed a few
years later in a concise paper by Evans \cite{Ev45}. More recent work
derived space-time correlation functions \cite{Se90} and dealt with
screening effects \cite{Bu05}. KJMA theory is formulated in an infinite
volume. But in physics there are no truly infinite volumes. Our
investigation of finite volumes leads to interesting scaling laws.

There are several scenarios of KJMA theory. Some deal also with
non-critical nuclei \cite{Av39}.
We consider here the limit in which critical nuclei, compared
to the total volume are small enough to be considered pointlike.
Extension of our considerations are possible, but would at present
distract from the main point.

In accordance with KJMA theory we make the following assumptions:
\medskip

\begin{enumerate}

\item Critical nuclei are created with a constant nucleation rate
      $R=1/(\tau_{\rm nu}V)$ at uniformly distributed random positions
      in the volume $V$. Let us denote by $V^0$ the unit volume, and
      by $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$ the nucleation time (average time it
      takes to create a critical nucleus in the unit volume). Then
      the nucleation time in the volume $V$ is given by $\tau_{\rm nu}
      =\tau^0_{\rm nu} V^0/V$.

\item Subsequent growth: A nucleus created at time $t_i$ covers at
      time $t>t_i$ the spherical volume $V_i(t)=C_d\,[v\,(t-t_i)]^d$,
      where $v$ is the expansion speed, $d$ the space dimension
      and $C_d$ a dimension dependent factor ($C_1=2$, $C_2=\pi$,
      and $C_3=4\pi/3$).

\item The converted volume $V_{\rm con}(t)$ is the union of the
      volumes $V_i(t)$ ($V_i(t)=0$ for $t\le t_i$), intersected
      by the total volume $V$.

\end{enumerate}

Assumption~1 allows the creation of nuclei in the already converted
volume $V_{\rm con}(t)$. From assumptions~2 and~3 it is clear that
they do not contribute to phase conversion and, therefore, they are
not added to the number of nuclei in the volume $V$. Note that KJMA
theory of phase conversion is kinetic with no details of the
responsible interactions involved.

The time it takes to transform the bulk system into the new phase is
the conversion time $\tau_{\rm con}$. There is some arbitrariness in
its definition. In essence any converted volume in the range $0.5\le
V_{\rm con}(\tau_{\rm con})/V<1$ , e.g. $V_{\rm con}(\tau_{\rm con})
/V=0.90$, defines a suitable conversion time. Only, $V_{\rm con}
(\tau_{\rm con}) /V=1$ is not admissible: $\tau_{\rm con}$ will then
diverge in the infinite volume limit, because due to statistical
fluctuations some points stay always unconverted in an infinite volume.
This is well-known in KJMA theory and even more obvious for systems
with fluctuations due to interactions.

For practical reasons we define the conversion time by distributing
a finite number of trial points uniformly over the volume and its
boundaries and taking $\tau_{\rm con}$ as the time at which all
points are first covered by the new phase. The number of points is
taken to be a constant, independent of the size of the volume. We
restrict ourselves to cubic volumes of size $V=L^d$, and choose as trial
points the sites of a hypercubic lattice that includes the $2^d$ corner
points of $V$.  Extensions to other geometries are straightforward. In
particular geometries can be chosen to fit actual experimental situations.

To calculate the average conversion time turns out to be easier than
one might expect. There are only two independent parameters with the
dimension of a time, $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$ and an expansion time
$\tau_{\rm ex}$, which we define by
\begin{equation} \label{tauex}
  \tau_{\rm ex} =\frac{L}{v}\ .
\end{equation}
The functional dependence $\tau_{\rm con}(\tau^0_{\rm nu},v,V)$ is
determined by a scaling function $f_d(q)$ \cite{Be07} as presented
below. Instead of $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$ we use the nucleation time
$\tau_{\rm nu}$ of the total volume $V$,
\begin{equation} \label{taunu}
  \tau_{\rm nu} = \frac{\tau^0_{\rm nu}}{\lambda^d}~~{\rm with}~~
  \lambda^d = \frac{V}{V^0}\ ,
\end{equation}
and the scaling function $f_d(q)$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{taucon}
  \frac{\tau_{\rm con}}{\tau_{\rm nu}} =\left[ 1 + f_d(q)\right]~~
  {\rm with}~~ q = \frac{\tau_{\rm ex}}{\tau_{\rm nu}}\ .
\end{equation}
The reduction from three variables to one is a mayor simplification.
That $\tau_{\rm con}/\tau_{\rm nu}$ depends indeed only on $q$ is shown
in the following. Natural independent variables are $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$,
$v$ and $L$. Using $\tau_{\rm nu}$ instead of $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$ as
independent variable is mathematically equivalent. One can then
define three transformations, which leave $q$ invariant:
(1)~$L_1'=\lambda_1 L$, $v_1'=\lambda_1 v$;
(2)~$L_2'=\lambda_2 L$, $\tau'_{2,\rm nu}=\lambda_2 \tau'_{\rm nu}$;
(3)~$v'_3=\lambda_3 v$, $\tau'_{3,\rm nu}=\tau'_{\rm nu}/\lambda_3$.
Combinations of the three transformations allow us to create all values
$\tau'_{\rm nu}$, $v'$ and $L'$ for which $q'=q$ holds. Now, nuclei
at the appropriately scaled positions in the volume $V'=(L')^d$ are
created with the same probabilities as in the initial volume $V$.
In case~(1) the change in volume (length) is compensated by the
increase in velocity, so that the conversion time stays constant,
$\tau'_{1,\rm con}=\tau_{\rm con}$. In case~(2) the nucleation
time is scaled, so that the fixed velocity $v$ creates up to scaling
in size the same patterns as before. Therefore, the conversion time
scales according to $\tau'_{2,\rm con}=\lambda_2 \tau'_{\rm con}$ and
$\tau'_{2,\rm con}/\tau'_{2,\rm nu}=\tau_{\rm con}/\tau_{\rm nu}$.
Similarly, in case~(3) the change in velocity is compensated by
the change of the nucleation time, so that the created patterns
stay the same and $\tau'_{3,\rm con}/\tau'_{3,\rm nu}=
\tau_{\rm con}/\tau_{\rm nu}$ holds.

In the limit of large expansion speeds ($v\to\infty$, volume fixed)
we find
\begin{equation} \label{qtozero}
  f_d^{\rm small}(q)=A_d\,q~~{\rm for}~~ q\to 0\ ,
\end{equation}
where $A_d$ is a dimension and geometry dependent constant. In this
limit, creation of a first critical nucleus takes much longer than its
subsequent expansion to the size of the volume $V$. Therefore, creation
of several critical nuclei is unlikely and $\tau_{\rm nu}$ becomes the
time of metastability. The conversion time is determined by the farthest
away corner of the $L^d$ volume, once the nucleus is created. By
integration over the possible positions of the nucleus one finds
$A_1=0.75$, $A_2=1.0704$, $A_3=1.315$, and (for string theorists)
$A_{10}=2.4110$. The limit (\ref{qtozero}) describes the nucleation
scenario of phase conversion.

At large $q$, the function $f_d(q)$ is up to a multiplicative constant
also analytically determined. Imagine, we calculate the conversion
time simultaneously on $n^d$ non-interacting systems with identical
parameters (nucleation time, volume, expansion speed). The conversion
time is a random variable, which has the same mean value $\tau_{\rm
con}$ on each system. Let us combine them into one. For $\tau_{\rm ex}
\gg \tau_{\rm nu}$ the effects due to propagation of phase conversion
over the boundaries becomes negligible and $\tau'_{\rm con}$ averaged
over the combined system is $\tau'_{\rm con}=\tau_{\rm con}$. As we
have $q\to q'=n^{d+1}q$ and $\tau_{\rm nu}\to\tau'_{\rm nu} = n^{-d}
\tau_{\rm nu}$ for $V\to V' =n^dV$, invariance of the conversion time
requires
\begin{equation} \label{qtoinfty}
  f_d^{\rm large}(q)=B_d\,q^{d/(d+1)}~~{\rm for}~~ q\to \infty\ .
\end{equation}
This is the limit of spinodal conversion, obtained in volumes of
fixed size for small expansion speeds, $v\to 0$. Many critical nuclei
contribute then to the phase conversion. For physical parameters
$\tau^0_{\rm nu}$, $v$ fixed, and volume $V\to\infty$, i.e.,
$\lambda\to\infty$ in Eq.~(\ref{taunu}), the theory always describes
spinodal decomposition, because $q$ scales as $q\to\lambda^{d+1}\,q$.

This is in contradiction to the mean-field approach, which leads on
infinite volumes to a nucleation region with a so called spinodal
endpoint \cite{LB00,La92}. Within the more realistic scenario of
KJMA theory the spinodal can only be an effective concept for finite
volumes. In contrast to the comparison with mean-field theory, our
results are consistent with studies of magnetic field driven phase
conversion by Rikvold et al.~\cite{Ri94}, in which a ``dynamical
spinodal field'' separates the two regimes.

Let us turn to the general evaluation of $f_d(q)$ by Monte Carlo
(MC) simulations (here not Markov chain MC). The implementation of
the nucleation process is relatively straightforward and allows
variations of the expansion speed, and hence $q$, over many orders
of magnitudes. This comes, because we have to implement only kinetics
and no complicating dynamics (for instance, due to interactions
between spins). We use 100 trial points in 1D, $10\times 10 =100$
in 2D, and $5\times 5\times 5 =125$ in 3D. For a volume of edge
length one this corresponds, in the lattice of trial points, to a
lattice spacing of 1/99 in 1D, 1/9 in 2D, and 1/4 in 3D.

\begin{figure}[tb] \begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=figs/KJMAq.eps,width=\columnwidth}
\caption{Scaling function $f_d(q)$ versus $q$.
\label{fig_q} } \end{center} \end{figure}

\begin{table}[tb]
\caption{$B_d$ (\ref{qtoinfty}) for our trial points from MC
simulations.} \label{tab_KJMA}
\medskip \centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}   \hline
                       & 1D         & 2D         & 3D         \\ \hline
 $q_d^{\min}$          & 0.5        &   1        &  1         \\ \hline
 $q_d^{\max}$          & 4$\,$096   & 128        & 64         \\ \hline
 $B_d$                 & 2.3285 (60)& 2.0990 (53)& 2.1427 (43)\\ \hline
$n_d$, $\chi^2_d({\rm pdf})$& 6, 1.24& 7, 1.07   & 10, 0.74   \\ \hline
\end{tabular} \end{table}

The results in 1D, 2D and 3D together with the analytical $q\to 0$ and
$q\to\infty$ asymptotic behavior are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_q} on
a log-log scale. When taking data our stepsize was a factor two in $q$.
For crosschecks at a few $q$ values various combinations of $\tau^0_{
\rm nu}$, $v$ and $V$ were used that combine to the same $q$ value.

Performing Gaussian difference tests (e.g., Ref.~\cite{Bbook}), the
first four data are in each case consistent with the small $q$
approximation (\ref{qtozero}). For $q\le q_d^{\min}$, $q_d^{\min}$
listed in table~\ref{tab_KJMA}, the data are found to agree with an
relative error $|f_d(q)-f_d^{\rm small}(q)|/f_d(q)<5\%$ with the
analytical small $q$ behavior. In the same way they are consistent
with the large $q$ behavior (\ref{qtoinfty}) for $q\ge q_d^{\max}$,
where the $B_d$ values listed in table~\ref{tab_KJMA} are determined
by one-parameter fits to $n_d$ data with the largest $q$ values
(chi-squared per degree of freedom of the fit, $\chi^2_d({\rm pdf})=
\chi^2_d/(n_d-1)$, is also given). In the sense of these approximations
we have nucleation for $q<q_d^{\min}$, spinodal decomposition for
$q>q_d^{\max}$, and a crossover region in-between.

In particular, we have in this classification for a 3D cubic box
$\tau_{\rm nu}/\tau_{\rm con}<0.02$ for spinodal decomposition and
$\tau_{\rm nu}/\tau_{\rm con}>0.43$ for nucleation. While the
coefficients $A_d$ and $B_d$ in Eqs.~(\ref{qtozero})
and~(\ref{qtoinfty}) depend on the geometry, the power laws do not.
Therefore, they can be employed to characterize the limits universally.

\begin{figure}[tb] \begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=figs/KJMAqsmall.eps,width=\columnwidth}
\caption{Scaling function: End of the small $q$ region~(\ref{qtozero}).
\label{fig_qsmall} }
\end{center} \end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tb] \begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=figs/KJMAqlarge.eps,width=\columnwidth}
\caption{Scaling function: Beginning of the large $q$
region~(\ref{qtoinfty}) in 2D and 3D. \label{fig_qlarge} }
\end{center} \end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{fig_qsmall} we exhibit the end of the small $q$ region
on a scale with higher resolution than that of the logarithmic scale
of Fig.~\ref{fig_q}. Correspondingly the beginning of the large $q$
region in 2D and 3D is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_qlarge}. In 1D the
asymptotic behavior sets in for considerably larger $q$ values. The
reason appears to be that there are not yet sufficiently many nuclei
participating in the phase conversion. At the largest $q$ value of
Fig.~\ref{fig_qlarge} $(q=512)$ the deviation of the 1D MC result from
its large $q$ asymptotics is still 11\%.

\begin{figure}[tb] \begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=figs/nnuclei.eps,width=\columnwidth}
\caption{Ratio of contributing nuclei versus $q$. \label{fig_nuclei} }
\end{center} \end{figure}

The average number of participating nuclei, $N_{\rm nuclei}$ is smaller
than $\tau_{\rm con}/\tau_{\rm nu}$ of Eq.~(\ref{taucon}) as nuclei
created inside an already converted region do not contribute. In
Fig.~\ref{fig_nuclei} we show the ratio $R=N_{\rm nuclei}/(
\tau_{\rm con}/\tau_{\rm nu})$. For large $q$ it approaches $R=0.38$
in 1D and $R=0.42$ in 2D and 3D. These numbers are specific to our
choice of trial points.

We continue with illustrations.
Changes in physical conditions, for instance of the temperature, can
influence the nucleation time $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$, the expansion speed
$v$, and the volume $V$.

Let us assume a constant volume. If the nucleation time varies from
$\tau_{\rm nu}\to \tau'_{\rm nu}$ for fixed expansion velocity $v$,
while we stay in the spinodal region $q>q_d^{\max}$, the scaling
$q\to q'=(\tau_{\rm nu}/\tau'_{\rm nu})\,q$ yields for the conversion
time change $\tau_{\rm con}' = (\tau'_{\rm nu}/\tau_{\rm nu})^{1/(d+1)}
\,\tau_{\rm con}$. If in the same situation the nucleation time
$\tau_{\rm nu}$ is fixed and the expansion speed varies from $v\to v'$,
we find for the new conversion time $\tau_{\rm con}'=(v/v')^{d/(d+1)}\,
\tau_{\rm con}$.  When staying in the nucleation region the
corresponding equations are $\tau'_{\rm con} = (\tau'_{\rm nu}/
\tau_{\rm nu})\,\tau_{\rm con}+A_d\,(\tau_{\rm nu}-\tau'_{\rm nu})\,q$
and $\tau'_{\rm con}/\tau_{\rm nu}=1+A_d\,(v/v')\,q$, respectively.

Assume a 2D Ising model on a $100\times 100$ lattice is prepared in
its initial state with all spins down. It is then simulated by Markov
chain Monte Carlo \cite{Bbook} below the critical temperature and with a
magnetic field opposite to the initial orientation of the spins.
For suitable choices of temperature and magnetic field the following
numbers are realistic: (A)~Seven nucleation events in one sweep with
a subsequent expansion speed of 5 lattice spacings in 20 sweeps.
(B)~One nucleation event in 1680 sweeps and a subsequent expansion
speed of 50 lattice site in 800 sweeps. A brief calculation puts
case~(A) with $q=2800$ solidly into the spinodal asymptotics, while
with $q=0.95$ case~(B) is at the end of nucleation region. Enlarging
the lattice to $1\,000\times 1\,000$ sites moves case~(B) to $q=953$
into the the spinodal region.

Consider a metastable liquid in a cubic box of size $(0.1\,{\rm meter}
)^3$ with a nucleation time of 1 minute in that volume and a subsequent
explosion-like conversion at the speed of 100 km/h. With $q=6\times
10^{-5}$ this is deep in the nucleation region. This is no longer true
if the same system is a pool of size $(10\,{\rm meter})^3$. Then we
are at $q=6\,000$, though the preparation of such a large homogeneous
system may in practice be impossible.

Conversion times of the order of minutes are observed in polyethylene
crystallization \cite{Lu01}. To be definite, let $\tau_{\rm con}=180
\,$s. If the nucleation time for the relevant volume is $\tau_{\rm nu}
\le 3.6\,$s, we would classify the process as spinodal decomposition,
and for $\tau_{\rm nu}\ge 77.8\,$s as nucleation, with the crossover
region in the range $3.6\,{\rm s}<\tau_{\rm nu}<77.8\,$s.

Let us consider the deconfining phase transition \cite{MO07} and choose
$(1\,{\rm fermi})^3$ as the unit volume which defines $\tau^0_{\rm nu}$.
Suppose the relevant volume at
a heavy ion collider is of size $(10\,{\rm fermi})^3$, and that the
deconfined phase spreads out at the speed of light once a nucleus is
created. What is the range of nucleation times so that the phase
conversion (confined $\to$ deconfined) proceeds by spinodal
decomposition ($q\ge 64$)? The answer is $\tau^0_{\rm nu}< 5\times
10^{-22}$ seconds. This estimate goes up when the expansion speed
is slower than the speed of light.

Conclusions.
Our equations will need corrections, once the critical nuclei can
no longer be considered pointlike, and their size introduces a new
dimensional parameter. Further, correlations between nuclei are
presently neglected and the constant expansion speed of KJMA theory
may be a too crude approximation for the actual dynamical, stochastic
expansion process. Nevertheless, we think that the scaling laws
outlined in this paper are at the heart of the distinction between
nucleation and spinodal regimes of phase transitions.

\acknowledgments
We like to thank Per Arne Rikvold and Sachin Shanbhag for useful
discussions. This work was in part supported by the DOE grant
DE-FG02-97ER41022.