GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

arXiv:1505.01913v3 [math.PR] 7 Nov 2016

JASON BEHRSTOCK, VICTOR FALGAS-RAVRY, MARK F. HAGEN, AND TIM SUSSE

Abstract. We study two global structural properties of a graph Γ, denoted AS and CFS,
which arise in a natural way from geometric group theory. We study these properties in the
Erdős–Rényi random graph model G(n, p), proving the existence of a sharp threshold for a
random graph to have the AS property asymptotically almost surely, and giving fairly tight
bounds for the corresponding threshold for the CFS property.
As an application of our results, we show that for any constant p and any Γ ∈ G(n, p),
the right-angled Coxeter group WΓ asymptotically almost surely has quadratic divergence and
thickness of order 1, generalizing and strengthening a result of Behrstock–Hagen–Sisto [8].
Indeed, we show that at a large range of densities a random right-angled Coxeter group has
quadratic divergence.

Introduction
In this article, we consider two properties of graphs motivated by geometric group theory.
We show that these properties are typically present in random graphs. We repay the debt
to geometric group theory by applying our (purely graph-theoretic) results to the large-scale
geometry of Coxeter groups.
Random graphs. Let G(n, p) be the random graph model on n vertices obtained by including
each edge independently at random with probability p = p(n). The parameter p is often referred
to as the density of G(n, p). The model G(n, p) was introduced by Gilbert [23], and the resulting
random graphs are usually referred to as the “Erdős–Rényi random graphs” in honor of Erdős
and Rényi’s seminal contributions to the field, and we follow this convention. We say that a
property P holds asymptotically almost surely (a.a.s.) in G(n, p) if for Γ ∈ G(n, p) we have
P(Γ ∈ P) → 1 as n → ∞. In this paper we will be interested in proving that certain global
properties hold a.a.s. in G(n, p) both for a wide range of probabilities p = p(n).
A graph property is (monotone) increasing if it is closed under the addition of edges. A
paradigm in the theory of random graphs is that global increasing graph properties exhibit
sharp thresholds in G(n, p): for many global increasing properties P, there is a critical density
pc = pc (n) such that for any fixed  > 0 if p < (1 − )pc then a.a.s. P does not hold in G(n, p),
while if p > (1 + )pc then a.a.s. P holds in G(n, p). A quintessential example is the following
classical result of Erdős and Rényi which provides a sharp threshold for connectedness:
Theorem (Erdős-Rényi; [21]). There is a sharp threshold for connectivity of a random graph
with critical density pc (n) = log(n)
n .
The local structure of the Erdős–Rényi random graph is well understood, largely due to the
assumption of independence between the edges. For example, Erdős–Rényi and others have
Date: November 8, 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 05C80, 20F65, 57M15, 60B99; Secondary 05C75, 20F55,
20F69.
Behrstock was supported by a Simons Fellowship and NSF grant DMS-0739392.
Hagen was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number NSF 1045119.
1

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

2

obtained threshold densities for the existence of certain subgraphs in a random graph (see e.g.
[21, Theorem 1, Corollaries 1–5]). In earlier applications of random graphs to geometric group
theory, this feature of the model was successfully exploited in order to analyze the geometry of
right-angled Artin and Coxeter groups presented by random graphs; this is notable, for example,
in the work of Charney and Farber [14]. In particular, the presence of an induced square implies
non-hyperbolicity of the associated right-angled Coxeter group [14, 21, 31].
In this paper, we take a more global approach. Earlier work established a correspondence
between some fundamental geometric properties of right-angled Coxeter groups and large-scale
structural properties of the presentation graph, rather than local properties such as the presence
or absence of certain specified subgraphs. The simplest of these properties is the property of
being the join of two subgraphs that are not cliques.
One large scale graph property relevant in the present context is a property studied in [8]
which, roughly, says that the graph is constructed in a particular organized, inductive way from
joins. In this paper, we discuss a refined version of this property, CF S, which is a slightlymodified version of a property introduced by Dani–Thomas [17]. We also study a stronger
property, AS, and show it is generic in random graphs for a large range of p(n), up 1 − ω(n−2 ).
AS graphs. The first class of graphs we study is the class of augmented suspensions, which we
denote AS. A graph is an augmented suspension if it contains an induced subgraph which is a
suspension (see Section 1 for a precise definition of this term), and any vertex which is not in
that suspension is connected by edges to at least two nonadjacent vertices of the suspension.
Theorems 3.4 and 3.5 (Sharp Threshold for AS). Let  > 0 be fixed. If p = p(n) satisfies
1

log n 3
and (1 − p)n2 → ∞, then Γ ∈ G(n, p(n)) is a.a.s. in AS. On the other
p ≥ (1 + )
n
1

log n 3
hand, if p ≤ (1 − )
, then Γ ∈ G(n, p) a.a.s. does not lie in AS.
n
Intriguingly, Kahle proved that a function similar to the critical density in Theorem 3.4 is the
threshold for a random simplicial complex to have vanishing second rational cohomology [28].
Remark (Behaviour near p = 1). Note that property AS is not monotone increasing, since
it requires the presence of a number of non-edges. In particular, complete graphs are not in
AS. Thus unlike the global properties typically studied in the theory of random graphs, AS
will cease to hold a.a.s. when
the density p is very close to 1. In fact, [8, Theorem 3.9] shows

that if p(n) = 1 − Ω n12 , then a.a.s. Γ is either a clique or a clique minus a fixed number of
edges whose endpoints are all disjoint. Thus, with positive probability, Γ ∈ AS. However, [14,
Theorem 1] shows that if (1 − p)n2 → 0 then Γ is asymptotically almost surely a clique, and
hence not in AS.
CFS graphs. The second family of graphs, which we call CF S graphs (“Constructed From
Squares”), arise naturally in geometric group theory in the context of the large–scale geometry
of right–angled Coxeter groups, as we explain below and in Section 2. A special case of these
graphs was introduced by Dani–Thomas to study divergence in triangle-free right-angled Coxeter
groups [17]. The graphs we study are intimately related to a property called thickness, a feature
of many key examples in geometric group theory and low dimensional topology that is closely
related to divergence, relative hyperbolicity, and a number of other topics. This property is, in
essence, a connectivity property because it relies on a space being “connected” through sequences
of “large” subspaces. Roughly speaking, a graph is CF S if it can be built inductively by chaining
(induced) squares together in such a way that each square overlaps with one of the previous
squares along a diagonal (see Section 1 for a precise definition). We explain in the next section
how this class of graphs generalizes AS. Our next result about genericity of CF S combines with

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

3

Proposition 2.1 below to significantly strengthen [8, Theorem VI]. This result is an immediate
consequence of Theorems 4.1 and 4.7, which, in fact, establish slightly more precise, but less
concise, bounds.
Theorems 4.1 and 4.7 Suppose (1 − p)n2 → ∞ and let  > 0. Then Γ ∈ G(n, p) is a.a.s.
1
in CFS whenever p(n) > n− 2 + . Conversely, Γ ∈ G(n, p) is a.a.s. not in CF S whenever
1
p(n) < n− 2 − .
q
We actually show, in Theorem 4.1, that at densities above 5 logn n , with (1 − p)n2 → ∞, the
random graph is a.a.s. in CF S, while in Theorem 4.7 we show a random graph a.a.s. not in
CFS at densities below √n 1log n .
Theorem 4.1 applies to graphs in a range strictly larger than that in which Theorem 3.4
holds (though our proof of Theorem 4.1 relies on Theorem 3.4 to deal with the large p case).
1
Theorem 4.1 combines with Theorem 3.5 to show that, for densities between (log n/n) 2 and
1
(log n/n) 3 , a random graph is asymptotically almost surely in CF S but not in AS. We also note
1
that Babson–Hoffman–Kahle [3] proved that a function of order n− 2 appears as the threshold
for simple-connectivity in the Linial–Meshulam model for random 2–complexes [29]. It would be
interesting to understand whether there is a connection between genericity of the CF S property
and the topology of random 2-complexes.
Unlike our results for the AS property, we do not establish a sharp threshold for the CF S
property. In fact, we believe that neither the upper nor lower bounds, given in Theorem 4.1 and
Theorem 4.7, for the critical density around which CF S goes from a.a.s. not holding to a.a.s.
holding are sharp. Indeed, we believe that there is a sharp threshold for the CF S property
1
located at pc (n) = θ(n− 2 ). This conjecture is linked to the emergence of a giant component
in the “square graph” of Γ (see the next section for a definition of the square graph and the
heuristic discussion after the proof of Theorem 4.7).
Applications to geometric group theory. Our interest in the structure of random graphs
was sparked largely by questions about the large-scale geometry of right-angled Coxeter groups.
Coxeter groups were first introduced in [15] as a generalization of reflection groups, i.e., discrete
groups generated by a specified set of reflections in Euclidean space. A reflection group is rightangled if the reflection loci intersect at right angles. An abstract right-angled Coxeter group
generalizes this situation: it is defined by a group presentation in which the generators are
involutions and the relations are obtained by declaring some pairs of generators to commute.
Right-angled Coxeter groups (and more general Coxeter groups) play an important role in
geometric group theory and are closely-related to some of that field’s most fundamental objects,
e.g. CAT(0) cube complexes [18, 33, 27] and (right-angled) Bruhat-Tits buildings (see e.g. [18]).
A right-angled Coxeter group is determined by a unique finite simplicial presentation graph:
the vertices correspond to the involutions generating the group, and the edges encode the pairs
of generators that commute. In fact, the presentation graph uniquely determines the rightangled Coxeter group [32]. In this paper, as an application of our results on random graphs,
we continue the project of understanding large-scale geometric features of right-angled Coxeter
groups in terms of the combinatorics of the presentation graph, begun in [8, 14, 17]. Specifically,
we study right-angled Coxeter groups defined by random presentation graphs, focusing on the
prevalence of two important geometric properties: relative hyperbolicity and thickness.
Relative hyperbolicity, in the sense introduced by Gromov and equivalently formulated by
many others [24, 22, 10, 35], when it holds, is a powerful tool for studying groups. On the other
hand, thickness of a finitely-generated group (more generally, a metric space) is a property introduced by Behrstock–Druţu–Mosher in [6] as a geometric obstruction to relative hyperbolicity
and has a number of powerful geometric applications. For example, thickness gives bounds on

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

4

divergence (an important quasi-isometry invariant of a metric space) in many different groups
and spaces [5, 7, 11, 17, 37].
Thickness is an inductive property: in the present context, a finitely generated group G is
thick of order 0 if and only if it decomposes as the direct product of two infinite subgroups.
The group G is thick of order n if there exists a finite collection H of undistorted subgroups
of G, each thick of order n − 1, whose union generates a finite-index subgroup of G and which
has the following “chaining” property: for each g, g 0 ∈ G, one can construct a sequence g ∈
g1 H1 , g2 H2 , . . . , gk Hk 3 g 0 of cosets, with each Hi ∈ H, so that consecutive cosets have infinite
coarse intersection. Many of the best-known groups studied by geometric group theorists are
thick, and indeed thick of order 1: one-ended right-angled Artin groups, mapping class groups
of surfaces, outer automorphism groups of free groups, fundamental groups of 3–dimensional
graph manifolds, etc. [6].
The class of Coxeter groups contains many examples of hyperbolic and relatively hyperbolic
groups. There is a criterion for hyperbolicity purely in terms of the presentation graph due to
Moussong [31] and an algebraic criterion for relative hyperbolicity due to Caprace [13]. The
class of Coxeter groups includes examples which are non-relatively hyperbolic, for instance,
those constructed by Davis–Januszkiewicz [19] and, also, ones studied by Dani–Thomas [17]. In
fact, in [8], this is taken further: it is shown that every Coxeter group is actually either thick,
or hyperbolic relative to a canonical collection of thick Coxeter subgroups. Further, there is
a simple, structural condition on the presentation graph, checkable in polynomial time, which
characterizes thickness. This result is needed to deduce the applications below from our graph
theoretic results.
Charney and Farber initiated the study of random graph products (including right-angled
Artin and Coxeter groups) using the Erdős-Rényi model of random graphs [14]. The structure
of the group cohomology of random graph products was obtained in [20]. In [8], various results
are proved about which random graphs have the thickness property discussed above, leading
to the conclusion that, at certain low densities, random right-angled Coxeter groups are relatively hyperbolic (and thus not thick), while at higher densities, random right-angled Coxeter
groups are thick. In this paper, we improve significantly on one of the latter results, and also
prove something considerably more refined: we isolate not just thickness of random right-angled
Coxeter groups, but thickness of a specified order, namely 1:
Corollary 2.2 (Random Coxeter groups are thick of order 1.) There exists a constant
1

(1 + ) log n
C log n 2
for some  > 0,
≤ p(n) ≤ 1 −
C > 0 such that if p : N → (0, 1) satisfies
n
n
then the random right-angled Coxeter group WGn,p is asymptotically almost surely thick of order
exactly 1, and in particular has quadratic divergence.
Corollary 2.2 significantly improves on Theorem 3.10 of [8], as discussed in Section 2. This
theorem follows from Theorems 4.1 and 3.4, the latter being needed to treat the case of large
p(n), including the interesting special case in which p is constant.
Remark 0.1. We note that characterizations of thickness of right-angled Coxeter groups in
terms of the structure of the presentation graph appear to generalize readily to graph products
of arbitrary finite groups and, probably, via the action on a cube complex constructed by Ruane
and Witzel in [36], to arbitrary graph products of finitely generated abelian groups, using
appropriate modifications of the results in [8].
Organization of the paper. In Section 1, we give the formal definitions of AS and CF S
and introduce various other graph-theoretic notions we will need. In Section 2, we discuss the
applications of our random graph results to geometric group theory, in particular to right-angled
Coxeter groups and more general graph products. In Section 3, we obtain a sharp threshold

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

5

result for AS graphs. Section 4 is devoted to CF S graphs. Finally Section 5 contains some
simulations of random graphs with density near the threshold for AS and CF S.
Acknowledgments. J.B. thanks the Barnard/Columbia Mathematics Department for their
hospitality during the writing of this paper. J.B. thanks Noah Zaitlen for introducing him
to the joy of cluster computing and for his generous time spent answering remedial questions
about programming. Also, thanks to Elchanan Mossel for several interesting conversations about
random graphs. M.F.H. and T.S. thank the organizers of the 2015 Geometric Groups on the
Gulf Coast conference, at which some of this work was completed.
This work benefited from several pieces of software, the results of one of which is discussed
in Section 5. Some of the software written by the authors incorporates components previously
written by J.B. and M.F.H. jointly with Alessandro Sisto. Another related useful program
was written by Robbie Lyman under the supervision of J.B. and T.S. during an REU program
supported by NSF Grant DMS-0739392, see [30]. This research was supported, in part, by a
grant of computer time from the City University of New York High Performance Computing
Center under NSF Grants CNS-0855217, CNS-0958379, and ACI-1126113.
We thank the anonymous referee for their helpful comments.
1. Definitions
Convention 1.1. A graph is a pair of finite sets Γ = (V, E), where V = V (Γ) is a set of vertices,
and E = E(Γ) is a collection of pairs of distinct elements of V , which constitute the set of edges
of G. A subgraph of Γ is a graph Γ0 with V (Γ0 ) ⊆ V (Γ) and E(Γ0 ) ⊆ E(Γ); Γ0 is said to be
an induced subgraph of Γ if E(Γ0 ) consists exactly of those edges from E(Γ) whose vertices lie
in V (Γ0 ). In this paper we focus on induced subgraphs, and we generally write “subgraph” to
mean “induced subgraph”. In particular we often identify a subgraph with the set of vertices
inducing it, and we write |Γ| for the order of Γ, that is, the number of vertices it contains. A
clique of size t is a complete graph on t ≥ 0 vertices. Note this includes the degenerate case of
the empty graph on t = 0 vertices.
Definition 1.2 (Link, join). Given a graph Γ, the link of a vertex v ∈ Γ, denoted LkΓ (v), is
the subgraph spanned by the set of vertices adjacent to v. Given graphs A, B, the join A ? B
is the graph formed from A t B by joining each vertex of A to each vertex of B by an edge. A
suspension is a join where one of the factors A, B is the graph consisting of two vertices and no
edges.
We now describe a family of graphs, denoted CF S, which satisfy the global structural property
that they are “constructed from squares.”
Definition 1.3 (CF S). Given a graph Γ, let (Γ) be the auxiliary graph whose vertices are
the induced 4–cycles from Γ, with two distinct 4–cycles joined by an edge in (Γ) if and only
if they intersect in a pair of non-adjacent vertices of Γ (i.e., in a diagonal). We refer to (Γ) as
the square-graph of Γ. A graph Γ belongs to CF S if Γ = Γ0 ? K, where K is a (possibly empty)
clique and Γ0 is a non-empty subgraph such that (Γ0 ) has a connected component C such that
the union of the 4–cycles from C covers all of V (Γ0 ). Given a vertex F ∈ (Γ), we refer to the
vertices in the 4–cycle in Γ associated to F as the support of F .
Remark 1.4. Dani–Thomas introduced component with full support graphs in [17], a subclass
of the class of triangle-free graphs. We note that each component with full support graph is
constructed from squares, but the converse is not true. Indeed, since we do not require our
graphs to be triangle-free, our definition necessarily only counts induced 4–cycles and allows
them to intersect in more ways than in [17]. This distinction is relevant to the application to
Coxeter groups, which we discuss in Section 2.

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

6

Definition 1.5 (Augmented suspension). The graph Γ is an augmented suspension if it contains
an induced subgraph B = {w, w0 } ? Γ0 , where w, w0 are nonadjacent and Γ0 is not a clique,
satisfying the additional property that if v ∈ Γ − B, then LkΓ (v) ∩ Γ0 is not a clique. Let AS
denote the class of augmented suspensions. Figure 1 shows a graph in AS.
Remark 1.6. Neither the CF S nor the AS properties introduced above are monotone with
respect to the addition of edges. This stands in contrast to the most commonly studied global
properties of random graphs.

Figure 1. A graph in AS. A block exhibiting inclusion in AS is shown in bold;
the two (left-centrally located) ends of the bold block are highlighted.
Definition 1.7 (Block, core, ends). A block in Γ is a subgraph of the form B(w, w0 ) = {w, w0 }?Γ0
where {w, w0 } is a pair of non-adjacent vertices and Γ0 ⊂ Γ is a subgraph of Γ induced by a set
of vertices adjacent to both w and w0 . A block is maximal if V (Γ0 ) = LkΓ (w) ∩ LkΓ (w0 ). Given
a block B = B(w, w0 ), we refer to the non-adjacent vertices w, w0 as the ends of B, denoted
end(B), and the vertices of Γ0 as the core of B, denoted core(B).
Note that AS ( CF S, indeed Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 3.5 show that there must exist
graphs in CF S that are not in AS. Here we explain how any graph in AS is in CF S.
Lemma 1.8. Let Γ be a graph in AS. Then Γ ∈ CFS.
Proof. Let B(w, w0 ) = {w, w0 }?Γ0 be a maximal block in Γ witnessing Γ ∈ AS. Write Γ0 = A?D,
where D is the collection of all vertices of Γ0 which are adjacent to every other vertex of Γ0 .
Note that D induces a clique in Γ. By definition of the AS property Γ0 is not a clique, whence
A contains at least one pair of non-adjacent vertices. Furthermore by the definition of D, for
every vertex a ∈ A there exists a0 ∈ A with {a, a0 } non-adjacent. The 4–cycles induced by
{w, w0 a, a0 } for non-adjacent pairs a, a0 from A are connected in (Γ). Denote the component
of (Γ) containing them by C.
Consider now a vertex v ∈ Γ − B(w, w0 ). Since B(w, w0 ) is maximal, we have that at least one
of w, w0 is not adjacent to v — without loss of generality, let us assume that it is w. By the AS

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

7

property, v must be adjacent to a pair a, a0 of non-adjacent vertices from A. Then {w, a, a0 , v}
induces a 4–cycle, which is adjacent to {w, w0 , a, a0 } ∈ (Γ) and hence lies in C.
Finally consider a vertex d ∈ D. If v is adjacent to all vertices of Γ, then Γ is the join of
a graph with a clique containing d, and we can ignore d with respect to establishing the CF S
property. Otherwise d is not adjacent to some v ∈ Γ − B(w, w0 ). By the AS property, v is
connected by edges to a pair of non-adjacent vertices {a, a0 } from A. Thus {d, a, a0 , v} induces
a 4–cycle. Since (as established above) there is some 4–cycle in C containing {a, a0 , v}, we have
that {d, a, a0 , v} ∈ C as well. Thus Γ = Γ00 ? K, where K is a clique and V (Γ00 ) is covered by
the union of the 4–cycles in C, so that Γ ∈ CFS as claimed.

2. Geometry of right-angled Coxeter groups
If Γ is a finite simplicial graph, the right-angled Coxeter group WΓ presented by Γ is the group
defined by the presentation
Vert(Γ) | {w2 , uvu−1 v −1 : u, v, w ∈ Vert(Γ), {u, v} ∈ Edge(Γ) .
A result of Mühlherr [32] shows that the correspondence Γ ↔ WΓ is bijective. We can thus speak
of “the random right-angled Coxeter group” — it is the right-angled Coxeter group presented
by the random graph. (We emphasize that the above presentation provides the definition of
a right-angled Coxeter group: this definition abstracts the notion of a reflection group – a
subgroup of a linear group generated by reflections – but infinite Coxeter groups need not admit
representations as reflection groups.)
Recent papers have discussed the geometry of Coxeter groups, especially relative hyperbolicity
and closely-related quasi-isometry invariants like divergence and thickness, cf. [8, 13, 17]. In
particular, Dani–Thomas introduced a property they call having a component of full support
for triangle-free graphs (which is exactly the triangle-free version of CF S) and they prove that
under the assumption Γ is triangle-free, WΓ is thick of order at most 1 if and only if it has
quadratic divergence if and only if Γ is in CF S, see [17, Theorem 1.1 and Remark 4.8]. Since
the densities where random graphs are triangle-free are also square-free (and thus not CF S
— in fact, they are disconnected!), we need the following slight generalization of the result of
Dani–Thomas:
Proposition 2.1. Let Γ be a finite simplicial graph. If Γ is in CF S and Γ does not decompose
as a nontrivial join, then WΓ is thick of order exactly 1.
Proof. Theorem II of [8] shows immediately that, if Γ ∈ CF S, then WΓ is thick, being formed
by a series of thick unions of 4–cycles; since each 4–cycle is a join, it follows that Γ is thick of
order at most 1. On the other hand, [8, Proposition 2.11] shows that WΓ is thick of order at
least 1 provided Γ is not a join.

Our results about random graphs yield:
q

n
≤
Corollary 2.2. There exists k > 0 so that if p : N → (0, 1) and  > 0 are such that k log
n
(1 − ) log n
for all sufficiently large n, then for Γ ∈ G(n, p) the group WΓ is
p(n) ≤ 1 −
n
asymptotically almost surely thick of order exactly 1 and hence has quadratic divergence.

Proof. Theorem 4.1 shows that any such Γ is asymptotically almost surely in CF S, whence WΓ
is thick of order at most 1. We emphasize that to apply this result for sufficiently large functions
p(n) the proof of Theorem 4.1 requires an application of Theorem 3.4 to establish that Γ is a.a.s.
in AS and hence in CF S by Lemma 1.8.
By Proposition 2.1, to show that the order of thickness is exactly one, it remains to rule out
the possibility that Γ decomposes as a nontrivial join. However, this occurs if and only if the

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

8

complement graph is disconnected, which asymptotically almost surely does not occur whenever
p(n) ≤ 1 − (1−)nlog n , by the sharp threshold for connectivity of G(n, 1 − p) established by Erdős
and Rényi in [21]. Since this holds for p(n) by assumption, we conclude that asymptotically
almost surely, WΓ is thick of order at least 1.
Since WΓ is CAT(0) and thick of order exactly 1, the consequence about divergence now
follows from [5].

This corollary significantly generalizes Theorem 3.10 of [8], which established that, if Γ ∈
G(n, 21 ), then WΓ is asymptotically almost surely thick. Theorem 3.10 of [8] does not provide
effective bounds on the order of thickness and its proof is significantly more complicated than
the proof of Corollary 2.2 given above — indeed, it required several days of computation (using
2013 hardware) to establish the base case of an inductive argument.
5

Remark 2.3 (Higher-order thickness). A lower bound of p(n) = n− 6 for membership in a larger
class of graphs whose corresponding Coxeter groups are thick can be found in [8, Theorem 3.4].
In fact, this argument can be adapted to give a simple proof that a.a.s. thickness does not occur
3
at densities below n− 4 . The correct threshold for a.a.s. thickness is, however, unknown.
Remark 2.4 (Random graph products versus random presentations). Corollary 2.2 and Remark
2.3 show that the random graph model for producing random right-angled Coxeter groups
generates groups with radically different geometric properties. This is in direct contrast to
other methods of producing random groups, most notably Gromov’s random presentation model
[25, 26] where, depending on the density of relators, groups are either almost surely hyperbolic
or finite (with order at most 2). This contrast speaks to the merits of considering a random
right-angled Coxeter group as a natural place to study random groups. For instance, Calegari–
Wilton recently showed that in the Gromov model a random group contains many subgroups
which are isomorphic to the fundamental group of a compact hyperbolic 3–manifold [12]; does
the random right-angled Coxeter group also contain such subgroups?
Right-angled Coxeter groups, and indeed thick ones, are closely related to Gromov’s random
groups in another way. When the parameter for a Gromov random groups is < 16 such a group is
word-hyperbolic [25] and acts properly and cocompactly on a CAT(0) cube complex [34]. Hence
the Gromov random group virtually embeds in a right-angled Artin group [1]. Moreover, at such
parameters such a random group is one-ended [16], whence the associated right-angled Artin
group is as well. By [4] this right-angled Artin group is thick of order 1. Since any right-angled
Artin group is commensurable with a right-angled Coxeter group [19], one obtains a thick of
order 1 right-angled Coxeter group containing the randomly presented group.
3. Genericity of AS
We will use the following standard Chernoff bounds, see e.g. [2, Theorems A.1.11 and A.1.13]:
Lemma 3.1 (Chernoff bounds). Let X1 , . . . , Xn be independent identically distributed random
variables taking values in {0, 1}, let X be their sum, and let µ = E[X]. Then for any δ ∈ (0, 2/3)
P (|X − µ| ≥ δµ) ≤ 2e−

δ2 µ
3

.

Corollary 3.2. Let ε, δ > 0 be fixed.
1/2

log n
(i) If p(n) ≥ (6+ε)
, then a.a.s. for all pairs of distinct vertices {x, y} in Γ ∈ G(n, p)
2
δ n
we have | LkΓ (x) ∩ LkΓ (y)| − p2 (n − 2) < δp2 (n − 2).

1/3
log n
(ii) If p(n) ≥ (9+ε)
, then a.a.s. for all triples of distinct vertices {x, y, z} in Γ ∈
δ2 n
G(n, p) we have | LkΓ (x) ∩ LkΓ (y) ∩ LkΓ (z)| − p3 (n − 3) < δp3 (n − 3).

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

9

Proof. For (i), let {x, y} be any pair of distinct vertices. For each vertex v ∈ Γ − {x,
P y}, set Xv
to be the indicator function of the event that v ∈ LkΓ (x) ∩ LkΓ (y), and set X = v Xv to be
the size of LkΓ (x) ∩ LkΓ (y). We have EX = p2 (n − 2) and so by the Chernoff bounds above,

δ 2 p2 (n−2)
3
P |X − p2 (n − 2)| ≥ δp2 (n − 2) ≤ 2e−
. Applying Markov’s inequality, the probability
that there exists some “bad pair” {x, y} in Γ for which | LkΓ (x) ∩ LkΓ (y)| deviates from its
expected value by more than δp2 (n − 2) is at most
 
δ 2 p2 (n−2)
n
3
2e−
= o(1),
2
provided δ 2 p2 n ≥ (6 + ε) log n and ε, δ > 0 are fixed. Thus for this range of p = p(n), a.a.s. no
such bad pair exists. The proof of (ii) is nearly identical.

n
Lemma 3.3. (i) Suppose 1 − p ≥ log
2n . Then asymptotically almost surely, the order of a
largest clique in Γ ∈ G(n, p) is o(n).
(ii) Let η be fixed with 0 < η < 1. Suppose 1 − p ≥ η. Then asymptotically almost surely, the
order of a largest clique in Γ ∈ G(n, p) is O(log n).

Proof. For (i), set r = αn, for some α bounded away from 0. Write H(α) = α log α1 + (1 −

n
1
α) log 1−α
. Using the standard entropy bound αn
≤ eH(α)n and our assumption for (1 − p),
we see that the expected number of r-cliques in Γ is

 

 2 2

α2
n (r )
log(1−(1−p)) α 2n +O(n)
≤ exp − n log n + O(n) = o(1).
p 2 ≤ eH(α)n e
r
2
Thus by Markov’s inequality, a.a.s. Γ does not contain a clique of size r, and the order of a
largest clique in Γ is o(n).
The proof of (ii) is similar: suppose 1 − p > η. Then for any r ≤ n,

 
 
1
n (r )
r−1
log
,
p 2 < nr (1 − η)r(r−1)/2 = exp r log n −
2
1−η
r
−

2

2
which for η > 0 fixed and r − 1 > log(1/(1−η))
(1 + log n) is as most n log(1/(1−η)) = o(1). We may
thus conclude as above that a.a.s. a largest clique in Γ has order O(log n).


1
log n 3
Theorem 3.4 (Genericity of AS). Suppose p(n) ≥ (1 + )
for some  > 0 and
n
(1 − p)n2 → ∞. Then, a.a.s. Γ ∈ G(n, p) is in AS.

Proof. Let δ > 0 be a small constant to be specified later (the choice of δ will depend on ). By
Corollary 3.2 (i) for p(n) in the range we are considering, a.a.s. all joint links have size at least
(1 − δ)p2 (n − 2). Denote this event by E1 . We henceforth condition on E1 occurring (not this
only affects the values of probabilities by an additive factor of P(E1c ) = O(n−ε ) = o(1)). With
n
probability 1 − p( 2 ) = 1 − o(1), Γ is not a clique, whence there there exist non-adjacent vertices
in Γ. We henceforth assume Γ 6= Kn , and choose v1 , v2 ∈ Γ which are not adjacent. Let B be
the maximal block associated with the pair (v1 , v2 ). We separate the range of p into three.
Case 1: p is “far” from both the threshold and 1. Let α > 0 be fixed, and suppose
n
αn−1/4 ≤ p ≤ 1 − log
2n . Let E2 be the event that for every vertex v ∈ Γ − B the set LkΓ (v) ∩ B
has size at least 21 p3 (n − 3). By Corollary 3.2, a.a.s. event E2 occurs, i.e., all vertices in Γ − B
have this property.
We claim that a.a.s. there is no clique of order at least 21 p3 (n − 3) in Γ. Indeed, if p < 1 − η for
some fixed η > 0, then by Lemma 3.3 part (ii), a largest clique in Γ has order O(log n) = o(p3 n).
n
On the other hand, if 1 − η < p ≤ 1 − log
2n , then by Lemma 3.3 part (i), a largest clique in Γ

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

10

has order o(n) = o(p3 n). Thus in either case a.a.s. for every v ∈ Γ − B, LkΓ (v) ∩ B is not a
clique and hence v ∈ B, so that a.a.s. B = Γ, and Γ ∈ AS as required.

1
log n 3
Case 2: p is “close” to the threshold. Suppose that (1 + )
≤ p(n) and np4 → 0.
n
Let |B| = m + 2. By our conditioning, we have (1 − δ)(n − 2)p2 ≤ m ≤ (1 + δ)(n − 2)p2 . The
probability that a given vertex v ∈ Γ is not in B is given by:
m  
X
r
m r
m
m+1
(1)
P(v 6∈ B|{|B| = m}) = (1 − p) + mp(1 − p)
+
p (1 − p)m−r p(2) .
r
r=2

In this equation, the first two terms come from the case where v is connected to 0 and 1 vertex
in B \ {v1 , v2 } respectively, while the third term comes from the case where the link of v in
B \ {v1 , v2 } is a clique on r ≥ 2 vertices. As we shall see, in the case np4 → 0 which we are
considering, the contribution from the first two terms dominates. Let us estimate their order:




mp
mp
m
m−1
m
(1 − p) ≤ 1 +
e−mp
(1 − p) + mp(1 − p)
= 1+
1−p
1−p


(1 − δ)(1 + )3 log n
3
≤ 1+
n−(1−δ)(1+) .
1−p
1
−1 ).
Taking δ < 1 − (1+)
3 this expression is o(n
We now treat the sum making up the remaining terms in Equation 1. To do so, we will
analyze the quotient of successive terms in the sum. Fixing 2 ≤ r ≤ m − 1 we see:
 r+1
r+1
m
(1 − p)m−r−1 p( 2 )
m − r − 1 pr+1
r+1 p
=
·
≤ mpr+1 ≤ mp3 .

r
m r
r+1
1−p
p (1 − p)m−r p(2)
r

Since np4 → 0 (by assumption), this also tends to zero as n → ∞. The quotients of successive
terms in the sum thus tend to zero uniformly as n → ∞, and we may bound the sum by a
geometric series:

 

m  
m−2
X
X
m r
m 3
1
m−r (r2)
m−2
3 i
+ o(1) m2 p3 (1 − p)m−2 .
p (1 − p)
p ≤
p (1 − p)
(mp ) ≤
2
r
2
r=2

i=0

mp2

Now, m2 p3 (1 − p)m−2 = 1−p · mp(1 − p)m−1 . The second factor in this expression was already
shown to be o(n−1 ), while mp2 ≤ (1 + δ)np4 → 0 by assumption, so the total contribution of
the sum is o(n−1 ). Thus for any value of m between (1 − δ)p2 (n − 2) and (1 + δ)p2 (n − 2), the
right hand side of Equation 1 is o(n−1 ), and we conclude:
P(v ∈
/ B|E1 ) ≤ o(n−1 ).
Thus, by Markov’s inequality,
!
P(B = Γ) ≥ P(E1 ) 1 −

X

P(v ∈
/ B|E1 )

= 1 − o(1),

v

establishing that a.a.s. Γ ∈ AS, as claimed.
n
Case 3: p is “close” to 1. Suppose n−2  (1 − p) ≤ log
2n . Consider the complement of Γ,
Γc ∈ G(n, 1 − p). In the range of the parameter Γc a.a.s. has at least two connected components
that contain at least two vertices. In particular, taking complements, we see that Γ is a.a.s. a
join of two subgraphs, neither of which is a clique. It is a simple exercise to see that such as
graph is in AS, thus a.a.s. Γ ∈ AS.


GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

11

As we now show, the bound obtained in the above theorem is actually a sharp threshold.
Analogous to the classical proof of the connectivity threshold [21], we consider vertices which
are “isolated” from a block to prove that graphs below the threshold strongly fail to be in AS.

1
log n 3
Theorem 3.5. If p ≤ (1 − )
for some  > 0, then Γ ∈ G(n, p) is asymptotically
n
almost surely not in AS.
Proof. We will show that, for p as hypothesized, every block has a vertex “isolated” from it.
Explicitly, let Γ ∈ G(n, p) and consider B = Bv,w = Lk(v) ∩ Lk(w) ∪ {v, w}. Let X(v, w) be
the event that every vertex of Γ − B is connected by an edge to some vertex of B. Clearly
Γ ∈ AS
S only if the event X(v, w) occurs for some pair of non-adjacent vertices {v, w}. Set
X = {v,w} X(v, w). Note that X is a monotone event, closed under the addition of edges, so
that the probability it occurs in Γ ∈ G(n, p) is a non-decreasing function of p. We now show
1
that when p = (1 − ) (log n/n) 3 , a.a.s. X does not occur, completing the proof.
Consider a pair of vertices {v, w}, and set k = |Bv,w |. Conditional on Bv,w having this size
and using the standard inequality (1 − x) ≤ e−x , we have that
k

P(X(v, w)) = (1 − (1 − p)k )n−k ≤ e−(n−k)(1−p) .
Now, the value of k is concentrated around its mean: by Corollary 3.2, for any fixed δ > 0 and
all {v, w}, the order of Bv,w is a.a.s. at most (1 + δ)np2 . Conditioning on this event E, we have
that for any pair of vertices v, w,
P(X(v, w)|E) ≤
2

max

k≤(1+δ)np2

k

2 )(1−p)(1+δ)np2

e−(n−k)(1−p) = e−(n−(1+δ)np

.

2

Now (1 − p)(1+δ)np = e(1+δ)np log(1−p) and by Taylor’s theorem log(1 − p) = −p + O(p2 ), so
that:
2
−(1+δ)np3 (1+O(p))
1−(1+δ)(1−)3 +o(1)
P(X(v, w)|E) ≤ e−n(1+O(p ))e
= e−n
.
1
− 1, the expression above is o(n−2 ). Thus
Choosing δ <
(1 − )3
X
P(X) ≤ P(E c ) +
P(X(v, w)|E)
{v,w}

 
n
= o(1) +
o(n−2 ) = o(1).
2
1

Thus a.a.s. the monotone event X does not occur in Γ ∈ G(n, p) for p = (1 − ) (log n/n) 3 , and
1
hence a.a.s. the property AS does not hold for Γ ∈ G(n, p) and p(n) ≤ (1 − ) (log n/n) 3 . 
4. Genericity of CF S
The two main results in this section are upper and lower bounds for inclusion in CF S. These
results are established in Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.7.
q
Theorem 4.1. If p : N → (0, 1) satisfies (1 − p)n2 → ∞ and p(n) ≥ 5 logn n for all sufficiently
large n, then a.a.s. Γ ∈ G(n, p) lies in CF S.
The proof of Theorem 4.1 divides naturally into two ranges. First of all for large p, namely for
1
p(n) ≥ 2 (log n/n) 3 , we appeal to Theorem 3.4 to show that a.a.s. a random graph Γ ∈ G(n, p)
is in AS and hence, by Lemma 1.8, in CF S. In light of our proof of Theorem 3.4, we may think
of this as the case when we can “beam up” every vertex of the graph Γ to a single block Bx,y

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

12

in an appropriate way, and thus obtain a connected component of (Γ) whose support is all of
V (Γ)
Secondly we have the case of “small p” where
r
1

log n
log n 3
5
≤ p(n) ≤ 2
,
n
n
which is the focus of the remainder of the proof. Here we construct a path of length of order
n/ log n in (Γ) onto which every vertex v ∈ V (Γ) can be “beamed up” by adding a 4–cycle
whose support contains v.
This is done in the following manner: we start with an arbitrary pair of non-adjacent vertices
contained in a block B0 . We then pick an arbitrary pair of non-adjacent vertices in the block
B0 and let B1 denote the intersection of the block they define with V (Γ) \ B0 . We repeat this
procedure, to obtain a chain of blocks B0 , B1 , B2 , . . . , Bt , with t = O(n/ log n), whose union
contains a positive proportion of V (Γ), and which all belong to the same connected component
C of (Γ). This common component C is then large enough that every remaining vertex of
V (Γ) can be attached to it. The main challenge is showing that our process of recording which
vertices are included in the support of a component of the square graph does not die out or
slow down too much, i.e., that the block sizes |Bi | remains relatively large at every stage of the
process and that none of the Bi form a clique.
Having described our strategy, we now fill in the details, beginning with the following upper
bound on the probability of Γ ∈ G(n, p) containing a copy of K10 , the complete graph on 10
vertices. The following lemma is a variant of [21, Corollary 4]:
1

Lemma 4.2. Let Γ ∈ G(n, p). If p = o(n− 4 ), then the probability that Γ ∈ G(n, p) contains a
5
clique with at least 10 vertices is at most o(n− 4 ).
Proof. The expected number of copies of K10 in Γ is
 
n (10)
p 2 ≤ n10 p45 = o(n−5/4 ).
10
The statement of the lemma then follows from Markov’s inequality.



Proof of Theorem 4.1. As remarked above, Theorem 3.4 proves Theorem 4.1 for “large” p, so we
only need to deal with the case where
r

1
log n
log n 3
≤ p(n) ≤ 2
.
5
n
n
We iteratively build a chain of blocks, as follows. Let {x0 , y0 } be a pair of non-adjacent vertices
in Γ, if such a pair exists, and an arbitrary pair of vertices if not. Let B0 be the block with ends
{x0 , y0 }.
S
Now assume we have already constructed the blocks B0 , . . . , Bi , for i ≥ 0. Let Ci = i Bi
(for convenience we let C−1 = ∅). We will terminate the process and set t = i if any of the three
following conditions occur: |core(Bi )| ≤ 6 log n or i ≥ n/6 log n or |V (Γ) \ Ci | ≤ n/2. Otherwise,
we let {xi+1 , yi+1 } be a pair of non-adjacent vertices in core(Bi ), if such a pair exists, and an
arbitrary pair of vertices from core(Bi ) otherwise. Let Bi+1 denote the intersection of the block
whose ends are {xi+1 , yi+1 } and the set (V (Γ) \ (Ci )) ∪ {xi+1 , yi+1 }. Repeat.
Eventually this process must terminate, resulting in a chain of blocks B0 , B1 , . . . , Bt . We
claim that a.a.s. both of the following hold for every i satisfying 0 ≤ i ≤ t:
(i) |core(Bi )| > 6 log n; and
(ii) {xi , yi } is a non-edge in Γ.

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

13

Part (i) follows from the Chernoff bound given in Lemma 3.1: for each i ≥ −1 the set V (Γ) \ Ci
contains at least n/2 vertices by construction. For each vertex v ∈ V (Γ) \ Ci , let Xv be the
indicator function of the event that v is adjacent to both of {xi+1 , yi+1 }. The random variables
(Xv ) are independent
identically distributed Bernoulli random variables with mean p. Their
P
sum X = v Xv is exactly the size of the core of Bi+1 , and its expectation is at least p2 n/2.
Applying Lemma 3.1, we get that
1
P(X < 6 log n) ≤ P(X ≤ EX)
2
2
log n
25
−( 12 ) 25 6n
= 2e− 24 log n .
≤ 2e
Thus the probability that |core(Bi )| < 6 log n for some i with 0 ≤ i ≤ t is at most:
25

t2e− 24 log n ≤

25
4n
2e− 24 log n = o(1).
5 log n

Part (ii) is a trivial consequence of part (i) and Lemma 4.2: a.a.s. core(Bi ) has size at least
6 log n for every i with 0 ≤ i ≤ t, and a.a.s. Γ contains no clique on 10 < log n vertices, so that
a.a.s. at each stage of the process we could choose an non-adjacent pair {xi , yi }.
From now on we assume that both (i) and (ii) occur, and that Γ contains no clique of size
2
1
10. In addition, we assume that |core(B0 )| < 8n 3 (log n) 3 , which occurs a.a.s. by the Chernoff
bound. Since core(Bi ) ≥ 6 log n for every i, we must have that by time 0 < t ≤ n/6 log n the
S
process will have terminated with Ct = ti=0 Bi supported on at least half of the vertices of
V (Γ).
Lemma 4.3. Either one of the assumptions above fails or there exists a connected component
F of (Γ) such that:
(i) for every i with 0 ≤ i ≤ t and every pair of non-adjacent vertices {v, v 0 } ∈ Bi , there is a
vertex in F whose support in Γ contains the pair {v, v 0 }; and
(ii) the support in Γ of the 4–cycles corresponding to vertices of F contains all of Ct with the
exception of at most 9 vertices of core(B0 ); moreover, these exceptional vertices are each
adjacent to all the vertices of core(B0 ).
Proof. By assumption the ends {x0 , y0 } of B0 are non-adjacent. Thus, every pair of non-adjacent
vertices {v, v 0 } in core(B0 ) induces a 4–cycle in Γ when taken together with {x0 , y0 }, and all
of these squares clearly lie in the same component F of (Γ). Repeating the argument with
the non-adjacent pair {x1 , y1 } ∈ core(B0 ) and the block B1 , and then the non-adjacent pair
{x2 , y2 } ∈ core(B1 ) and the block B2 , and so on, we see that there is a connected component F
in (Γ) such that for every 0 ≤ i ≤ t, every pair of non adjacent vertices {v, v 0 } ∈ Bi lies in a
4–cycle corresponding to a vertex of F . This establishes (i).
We now show that the support of F contains all of Ct except possibly some vertices in B0 .
We already established that every pair {xi , yi } is in the support of some vertex of F . Suppose
v ∈ core(Bi ) for some i > 0. By construction, v is not adjacent to at least one of {xi−1 , yi−1 },
say xi−1 . Thus, {xi−1 , xi , yi , v} induces a 4–cycle which contains v and is associated to a vertex
of F . Finally, suppose v ∈ core(B0 ). By (i), v fails to be in the support of F only if v is adjacent
to all other vertices of core(B0 ). Since, by assumption, Γ does not contain any clique of size 10,
there are at most 9 vertices not in the support of F , proving (ii).

Lemma 4.3, shows that a.a.s. we have a “large” component F in (Γ) whose support contains
“many” pairs of non-adjacent vertices. In the last part of the proof, we use these pairs to prove
that the remaining vertices of V (Γ) are also supported on our connected component.
For each i satisfying 0 ≤ i ≤ t, consider a a maximal
collection, Mi , of pairwise-disjoint pairs
S
of vertices in core(Bi ) \ {xi+1 , yi+1 }. Set M = i Mi , and let M 0 be the subset of M consisting

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

14

of pairs, {v, v 0 }, for which v and v 0 are not adjacent in Γ. We have


t 
X
1
|Ct |
n
|M | =
|core(Bi )| − 1 ≥
− 2t ≥ (1 − o(1)).
2
2
4
i=1

The expected size of M 0 is thus (1 − p)n( 14 − o(1)) = n4 (1 − o(1)), and by the Chernoff bound
from Lemma 3.1 we have
2 (1−p)n
1
1
n
P(|M 0 | ≤ ) ≤ 2e−( 5 +o(1)) 12 ≤ e−( 300 +o(1))n ,
5
which is o(1). Thus a.a.s. M 0 contains at least n/5 pairs, and by Lemma 4.3 each of these lies in
some 4–cycle of F . We now show that we can “beam up” every vertex not yet supported on F
by a 4–cycle using a pair from M 0 . By construction we have at most n/2 unsupported vertices
from V (Γ) \ Ct and at most 9 unsupported vertices from core(B0 ).
Assume that |M 0 | ≥ n/5. Fix a vertex w ∈ V (Γ) \ Ct . For each pair {v, v 0 } ∈ M 0 , let Xv,v0
be the event that w is adjacent to both v and v 0 . We now observe that if Xv,v0 occurs for some
pair {v, v 0 } ∈ M 0 ∩ core(Bi ), then w is supported on F . By construction, w is not adjacent to at
least one of {xi , yi }, let us say without loss of generality xi . Hence, {xi , v, v 0 , w} is an induced
4–cycle in Γ which contains w and which corresponds to a vertex of F .
The probability that Xv,v0 fails to happen for every pair {v, v 0 } ∈ M 0 is exactly
0

(1 − p2 )|M | ≤ (1 − p2 )n/5 ≤ e−

p2 n
5

= e−5 log n .

Thus the expected number of vertices w ∈ V (Γ) \ Ct which fail to be in the support of F is at
most n2 e−5 log n = o(1), whence by Markov’s inequality a.a.s. no such bad vertex w exists.
Finally, we deal with the possible 9 left-over vertices b1 , b2 , . . . b9 from core(B0 ) we have not
1
2
yet supported. We observe that since core(B0 ) contains at most 8n 3 (log n) 3 vertices (as we are
assuming and as occurs a.a.s. , see the discussion before Lemma 4.3 ), we do not stop the process
with B0 , core(B1 ) is non-empty and contains at least 6 log n vertices. As stated in Lemma 4.3,
each unsupported vertex bi is adjacent to all other vertices in core(B0 ), and in particular to both
of {x1 , y1 }. If bi fails to be adjacent to some vertex v ∈ core(B1 ), then the set {bi , x1 , y1 , v}
induces a 4–cycle corresponding to a vertex of F and whose support contains bi . The probability
that there is some bi not supported in this way is at most
9P(bi adjacent to all of core(B1 )) = 9p6 log n = o(1).
Thus a.a.s. we can “beam up” each of the vertices b1 , . . . b9 to F using a vertex v ∈ core(B1 ),
and the support of the component F in the square graph (Γ) contains all vertices of Γ. This
shows that a.a.s. Γ ∈ CFS, and concludes the proof of the theorem.

Remark 4.4. The constant 5 in Theorem 4.1 is not optimal, and indeed it is not hard to
improve on it slightly, albeit at the expense of some tedious calculations. We do not try to
obtain a better constant, as we believe that the order of the upper bound we have obtained is
not sharp. We conjecture that the actual threshold for CF S occurs when p(n) is of order n−1/2
(see the discussion below Theorem 4.7), but a proof of this is likely to require significantly more
involved and sophisticated arguments than the present paper.
A simple lower bound for the emergence of the CF S property can be obtained from the fact
3
that if Γ ∈ CFS, then Γ must contain at least n − 3 squares; if p(n)  n− 4 , then by Markov’s
inequality a.a.s. a graph in G(n, p) contains fewer than o(n) squares and thus cannot be in CFS.
Below, in Theorem 4.7, we prove a better lower bound, showing that the order of the upper
bound we proved in Theorem 4.1 is not off by a factor of more than (log n)3/2 .

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

15

Lemma 4.5. Let Γ be a graph and let C be the subgraph of Γ supported on a given connected
component of (Γ). Then there exists an ordering v1 < v2 < · · · < v|C| of the vertices of C such
that for all i ≥ 3, vi is adjacent in Γ to at least two vertices preceding it in the order.
Proof. As C is a component of (Γ), it contains at least one induced 4–cycle. Let v1 , v2 be a
pair of non-adjacent vertices from such an induced 4–cycle. Then the two other vertices {v3 , v4 }
of the 4–cycle are both adjacent in Γ to both of v1 and v2 . If this is all of C, then we are
done. Otherwise, we know that each 4–cycle in C is “connected” to the cycle F = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 }
via a sequence of induced 4–cycles pairwise intersecting in pairwise non-adjacent vertices. In
particular, there is some such 4–cycle whose intersection with F is either a pair of non-adjacent
vertices in F or three vertices of F ; either way, we may add the new vertex next in the order.
Continuing in this way and using the fact that the number of vertices not yet reached is a
monotonically decreasing set of positive integers, the lemma follows.

Proposition 4.6. Let δ > 0. Suppose p ≤ √n 1log n . Then a.a.s. for Γ ∈ G(n, p), no component
of (Γ) has support containing more than 4 log n vertices of Γ.
l

 m
√
Proof. Let δ > 0. Let m = min 4 log n, 4 log p1
, with p ≤ 1/ ( n log n). We shall show
that a.a.s. there is no ordered m–tuple of vertices v1 < v2 < · · · < vm from Γ such that for every
i ≥ 2 each vertex vi is adjacent to at least two vertices from {vj : 1 ≤ j < i}. By Lemma 4.5,
this is enough to establish our claim.
Let v1 < v2 < · · · < vm be an arbitrary ordered m–tuple of vertices from V (Γ). For i ≥ 2, let
Ai be the event that vi is adjacent to at least two vertices in the set {vj : 1 ≤ j < i}. We have:

i−1 
X
i−1 j
(2)
P(Ai ) =
p (1 − p)i−j−1 .
j
j=2

As in the proof of Theorem 3.5 we consider the quotients of successive terms in the sum to show
that its order is given by the term j = 2. To see this, observe:

i−1 j+1
(1 − p)i−j−2
i−j−1
p
j+1 p
≤
·
< mp

i−1 j
i−j−1
j+1
1−p
j p (1 − p)
where the final inequality holds for n sufficiently large and p = p(n) satisfying our assumption.
Since m = O (log n) and p = o(n−1/2 ) we have, again for n large enough, that mp = o(1), and
we may bound the sum in equation (2) by a geometric series to obtain the bound:


i−1 2
P(Ai ) =
p (1 − p)i−3 (1 + O(mp))
2
(i − 1)2 2
≤
p (1 + O(mp)).
2
T
Now let A = m
i=1 Ai . Note that the events Ai are mutually independent, since they are
determined by disjoint edge-sets. Thus we have:

m
m 
Y
Y
(i − 1)2 2
P(A) =
P(Ai ) ≤
p (1 + O(mp))
2
i=3

i=3

=

((m − 1)!)2 p2m−4
(1 + O(m2 p)),
2m−2

where in the last line we used the equality (1 + O(mp))m−2 = 1 + O(m2 p) to bound the error
term. Thus we have that the expected number X of ordered m–tuples of vertices from Γ for

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

16

which A holds is at most:
m2 p2− m
e2 2

!m

nm2 p2−4/m
2e2

!m

n!
E(X) =
P(A) ≤ nm 4e2
(n − m)!
= 4e2

4

(1 + O(m2 p))
(1 + O(m2 p)),

where in the first line we used the inequality (m − 1)! ≤ e(m/e)m . We now consider the quantity
f (n, m, p) =

nm2 p2−4/m
2e2

which is raised to the mth power in the inequality above. We claim that f (n, m, p) ≤ e−1+log 2+o(1) .
We have two cases to consider:
Case 1: m = d4 log ne. Since 4 log n ≤ 4 log(1/p), we deduce that p ≤ n−1 . Then
n(4 log n)2 p2−o(1)
≤ n−1+o(1) ≤ e−1+log 2+o(1) .
2e2


4 log(1/p)
Case 2: m = d4 log(1/p)e. First, note that p−4/m = exp d4
log 1/pe ≤ e. Also, for p in the
f (n, m, p) =

range [0, n−1/2 (log n)−1 ] and n large enough, p2 (log(1/p))2 is an increasing function of p and is
thus at most:

2 


1
1
log log n
1
log n
1+O
= n−1 (1 + o(1)).
n(log n)2 2
log n
4
Plugging this into the expression for f (n, m, p), we obtain:
16n(log(1/p))2 p2−4/m
2e2
2
≤ (1 + o(1)) = e−1+log 2+o(1) .
e

f (n, m, p) = (1 + o(1))

Thus, in both cases (1) and (2) we have f (n, m, p) ≤ e−1+log 2+o(1) , as claimed, whence
E(X) ≤ 4e2 (f (n, m, p))m (1 + O(m2 p)) ≤ 4e2 e−(1−log 2)m+o(m) (1 + O(m2 p)) = o(1).
It follows from Markov’s inequality that the non-negative, integer-valued random variable X is
a.a.s. equal to 0. In other words, a.a.s. there is no ordered m–tuple of vertices in Γ for which the
event A holds and, hence by Lemma 4.5, no component in (Γ) covering more than m ≤ 4 log n
vertices of Γ.

Theorem 4.7. Suppose p ≤

√ 1
.
n log n

Then a.a.s. Γ ∈ G(n, p) is not in CF S.

Proof. To show that Γ 6∈ CFS, we first show that, for p ≤ √n 1log n , a.a.s. there is no non-empty
clique K such that Γ = Γ0 ? K. Indeed the standard
Chernoff bound guarantees that we have
√
a.a.s. no vertex in Γ with degree greater than n. Thus to prove the theorem, it is enough
to show that a.a.s. there is no connected component C in (Γ) containing all the vertices in
Γ. Theorem 4.6 does this by establishing the stronger bound that a.a.s. there is no connected
component C covering more than 4 log n vertices.

While Theorem 4.7 improves on the trivial lower bound of n−3/4 , it is still off from the upper
bound for the emergence of the CF S property established in Theorem 4.1. It is a natural
question to ask where the correct threshold is located.

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

17

Remark 4.8. We strongly believe that there is a sharp threshold for the CF S property analogous to the one we established for the AS property. What is more, we believe this threshold
should essentially coincide with the threshold for the emergence of a giant component in the
auxiliary square graph (Γ). Indeed, our arguments in Proposition 4.6 and Theorems 4.1 both
focus on bounding the growth of a component in (Γ). Heuristically, we would expect a giant
component to emerge in (Γ) to emerge for p(n) = cn−1/2 , for some constant c > 0, when the
expected number of common neighbors of a pair of non-adjacent vertices in Γ is c2 , and thus
the expected number of distinct vertices in 4–cycles which meet a fixed 4–cycle in a non-edge is
2c2 . What
precise value of c should be is not entirely clear (a branching process heuristics
r the
√
17 − 3
suggests
as a possible value, see Remark 5.2), however, and the dependencies in the
2
square graph make its determination a delicate matter.
5. Experiments
1

Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.5 show that (log n/n) 3 is a sharp threshold for the family AS
1
and Theorem 4.1 shows that n− 2 is the right order of magnitude of the threshold for CFS.
Below we provide some empirical results on the behaviour of random graphs near the threshold
for AS and the conjectured threshold for CF S. We also compare our experimental data with
analogous data at the connectivity threshold. Our experiments are based on various algorithms
that we implemented in C++; the source code is available from the authors1.
We begin with the observation that computer simulations of AS and CF S are tractable.
Indeed, it is easily seen that there are polynomial-time algorithms for deciding whether a given
graph is in AS and/or CF S. Testing for AS by examining each block and determining whether
it witnesses AS takes O(n5 ) steps, where n is the number of vertices. The CF S property is
harder to detect, but essentially reduces to determining the component structure of the square
graph. The square graph can be produced in polynomial time and, in polynomial time, one can
find its connected components and check the support of these components in the original graph.
Using our software, we tested random graphs in G(n, p) for membership in AS for n ∈
1
{300 + 100k | 0 ≤ k ≤ 12} and {p(n) = α (log n/n) 3 | α = 0.80 + 0.1k, 0 ≤ k ≤ 9}. For each
pair (n, p) of this type, we generated 400 random graphs and tested each for membership in
AS. (This number of tests ensures that, with probability approximately 95%, the measured
proportion of AS graphs is within at most 0.05 of the actual proportion.) The results are
summarized in Figure 2. The data suggests that, fixing n, the probability that a random graph
is in AS increases monotonically in the range of p we are considering, rising sharply from almost
zero to almost one.
In Figure 3, we display the results of testing random graphs for membership in CF S for
1
n ∈ {100 + 100k | 0 ≤ k ≤ 15} and {p(n) = αn− 2 | α = 0.700 + 0.025k, 0 ≤ k ≤ 8}. For each
pair (n, p) of this type, we generated 400 random graphs and tested each for membership in
CFS. (This number of tests ensures that, with probability approximately 95%, the measured
proportion of AS graphs is within at most 0.05 of the actual proportion.) The data suggests that,
fixing n, the probability that a random graph is in CF S increases monotonically in considered
range of p: rising sharply from almost zero to almost one inside a narrow window.
Remark 5.1 (Block and core sizes). For each graph Γ tested, the AS software also keeps track
of how many nonadjacent pairs {x, y} — i.e., how many blocks — were tested before finding
one sufficient to verify membership in AS; if no such block is found, then all non-adjacent pairs
have been tested and the graph is not in AS.2 At densities near the threshold, this number of
1All source code and data at www.wescac.net/research.html or math.columbia.edu/~jason .
2A set of such data comes with the source code, and more is available upon request.

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

1.0

18

Number Of Vertices

0.8
0.6

P(AS)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89

300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500

α
Figure 2. Experimental prevalence of AS at density α

1.0

log n
n

1

3

.

Number Of Vertices
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500

0.8

0.6

P(CF S)
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.70



0.75

0.80

α

0.85

0.90

1

Figure 3. Experimental prevalence of CF S membership at density αn− 2 .
blocks is generally very large compared to the number of blocks tested at densities above the
threshold. For example, in one instance with (n, α) = (1000, 0.89), verifying that the graph was
in AS was accomplished after testing just 86 blocks, while at (1000, 0.80), a typical test checked
all 422961 blocks (expected number: 423397) before concluding that the graph is not AS. At
the same (n, α), another test found that the graph was in AS, but only after 281332 tests. This
data is consonant with the spirit of our proofs of Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.4: in the former
case, we showed that no “good” block exists, while in the latter we show that every block is
good. We believe that right at the threshold we should have some intermediate behavior,
with

the expected number of “good” blocks increasing continuously from 0 to (1 − p) n2 (1 − o(1)).
What is more, we expect that the more precise threshold for the AS property, coinciding with
the appearance of a single “good” block, should be located “closer” to our lower bound than to

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

19

our upper one, i.e., at p(n) = ((1 − ) log n/n)1/3 , where (n) is a sequence of strictly positive
real numbers tending to 0 as n → ∞ (most likely decaying at a rate just faster than (log n)−2 ,
see below). Our experimental data, which exhibit a steep rise in P(AS) strictly before the value
α hits one, gives some support to this guess.
Finally, our observations on the number of blocks suggests a natural way to understand the
influence of higher-order terms on the emergence of the AS property: at exactly the threshold
for AS, the event E(v, w) that a pair of non-adjacent vertices {v, w} gives rise to a “good” block
is rare and, despite some mild dependencies, the number N of pairs {v, w} for which E(v, w)
occurs is very likely to be distributed approximatively like a Poisson random variable. The
probability P(N ≥ 1) would then be a very good approximation for P(AS). “Good” blocks
would thus play a role for the emergence of the AS property in random graphs analogous to
that of isolated vertices for connectivity in random graphs.
1

When p = ((1 − ) log n/n) 3 , the expectation of N is roughly ne−n (1−) log n . This expectation is o(1) when 0 < (n) = Ω(1/n) and is 1/2 when (n) = (1 + o(1)) log 2/(log n)2 . This
suggest that the emergence of AS should occur when (n) decays just a little faster than (log n)2 .
Remark 5.2. Our data suggests that the prevalence of CF S is closely related to the emergence
of a giant component in the square graph. Indeed, below the experimentally observed threshold
for CFS, not only is the support of the largest component in the square graph not all of
Γ ∈ G(n, p), but in fact the size of the support of the largest component is an extemely small
proportion of the vertices (see Figure 4).

Fraction of
vertices in
largest CF S
component

α
1

Figure 4. Fraction of vertices supporting the largest CF S–subgraph at density αn− 2 .
In the Erdős–Rényi random graph, a giant component emerges when p is around 1/n, i.e.,
when vertices begin to expect at least one neighbor; this corresponds to a paradigmatic condition
of expecting at least one child for survival of a Galton–Watson process (see [9] for a modern
treatment of the topic). The heuristic observation that when p = cn−1/2 the vertices of a
diagonal e in a fixed 4-cycle F expect to be adjacent to cn2 vertices outside the 4-cycle, giving

2
rise to an expected cn 2+2 − 1 new 4-cycles connected to F through e in (Γ) suggests that
r√
17 − 3
c=
≈ 0.7494 could be a reasonable guess for the location of the threshold for the
2
CFS property. Our data, although not definitive, appears somewhat supportive of this guess:
see Figure 4 which is based on the same underlying data set as Figure 3.

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

20

We note that unlike an Erdős–Rényi random graph, the square graph (Γ) exhibits some
strong local dependencies, which may make the determination of the exact location of its phase
transition a much more delicate affair.
Remark 5.3. For comparison with the threshold data for AS and CF S, we include below a
n
similar figure of experimental data for connectivity for α from 0.8 to 1.4, where p = α log
n .
Given what we know about the thresholds for connectivity and the AS property, this last set
of data together with Figure 2 should serve as a warning not to draw overly strong conclusions:
the graphs we tested are sufficiently large for the broader picture to emerge, but probably not
large enough to allow us to pinpoint the exact location of the threshold for CF S.

1.0

Number Of Vertices

0.8
0.6

P(connected)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500

α
Figure 5. Experimental prevalence of connectedness at density α logn n .
References
[1] Agol, I., Groves, D., and Manning, J. The virtual Haken conjecture. Documenta Mathematica 18
(2013), 1045–1087.
[2] Alon, N., and Spencer, J. H. The probabilistic method, third ed. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete
Mathematics and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
[3] Babson, E., Hoffman, C., and Kahle, M. The fundamental group of random 2-complexes. J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 24, 1 (2011), 1–28.
[4] Behrstock, J., and Charney, R. Divergence and quasimorphisms of right-angled Artin groups. Math.
Ann. 352 (2012), 339–356.
[5] Behrstock, J., and Druţu, C. Divergence, thick groups, and short conjugators. Illinois J. Math. 58, 4
(2014), 939–980.
[6] Behrstock, J., Druţu, C., and Mosher, L. Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasiisometric rigidity. Mathematische Annalen 344, 3 (2009), 543–595.
[7] Behrstock, J., and Hagen, M. Cubulated groups: thickness, relative hyperbolicity, and simplicial boundaries. Geometry, Groups, and Dynamics 10, 2 (2016), 649–707.
[8] Behrstock, J., Hagen, M. F., and Sisto, A. Thickness, relative hyperbolicity, and randomness in
Coxeter groups. Algebr. Geom. Topol.. To appear. With an appendix written jointly with Pierre-Emmanuel
Caprace.
[9] Bollobás, B., and Riordan, O. A simple branching process approach to the phase transition in Gn,p .
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 19, 4 (2012), P21.
[10] Bowditch, B. H. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 22, 3 (2012), 1250016, 66.
[11] Brock, J., and Masur, H. Coarse and synthetic Weil–Petersson geometry: quasi-flats, geodesics, and
relative hyperbolicity. Geometry & Topology 12 (2008), 2453–2495.

GLOBAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF RANDOM GRAPHS

21

[12] Calegari, D., and Wilton, H. 3–manifolds everywhere. ArXiv:math.GR/1404.7043 .
[13] Caprace, P.-E. Buildings with isolated subspaces and relatively hyperbolic Coxeter groups. Innov. Incidence. Geom., 10 (2009), 15–31. In proceedings of Buildings & Groups, Ghent.
[14] Charney, R., and Farber, M. Random groups arising as graph products. Alg. Geom. Topol., 12 (2012),
979–996.
[15] Coxeter, H. S. Discrete groups generated by reflections. Annals of Mathematics (1934), 588–621.
[16] Dahmani, F., Guirardel, V., and Przytycki, P. Random groups do not split. Mathematische Annalen
349, 3 (2011), 657–673.
[17] Dani, P., and Thomas, A. Divergence in right-angled Coxeter groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 367, 5
(2015), 3549–3577.
[18] Davis, M. W. The geometry and topology of Coxeter groups, vol. 32 of London Mathematical Society
Monographs Series. Princeton University Press, 2008.
[19] Davis, M. W., and Januszkiewicz, T. Right-angled Artin groups are commensurable with right-angled
Coxeter groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 153, 3 (2000), 229–235.
[20] Davis, M. W., and Kahle, M. Random graph products of finite groups are rational duality groups. J.
Topol. 7, 2 (2014), 589–606.
[21] Erdős, P., and Rényi, A. On the evolution of random graphs. II. Bull. Inst. Int. Stat., 38 (1961), 343–347.
[22] Farb, B. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. 8, 5 (1998), 810–840.
[23] Gilbert, E. Random graphs. Ann. Math. Stat., 4 (1959), 1141–1144.
[24] Gromov, M. Hyperbolic groups. In Essays in group theory, S. Gersten, Ed., vol. 8 of MSRI Publications.
Springer, 1987.
[25] Gromov, M. Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups, Geometric Group Theory, vol. 2 (ga noble, ma roller,
eds.). London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser 182 (1993).
[26] Gromov, M. Random walk in random groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. 13, 1 (2003), 73–146.
[27] Haglund, F., and Wise, D. T. Coxeter groups are virtually special. Advances in Mathematics 224, 5
(2010), 1890–1903.
[28] Kahle, M. Sharp vanishing thresholds for cohomology of random flag complexes. Ann. of Math. (2) 179,
3 (2014), 1085–1107.
[29] Linial, N., and Meshulam, R. Homological connectivity of random 2-complexes. Combinatorica 26, 4
(2006), 475–487.
[30] Lyman, R. Algorithmic Computation of Thickness in Right-Angled Coxeter Groups. Undergraduate honors
thesis, Columbia University, May 2015.
[31] Moussong, G. Hyperbolic Coxeter groups. PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 1988. Available at
https://people.math.osu.edu/davis.12/papers/Moussongthesis.pdf.
[32] Mühlherr, B. Automorphisms of graph-universal coxeter groups. Journal of Algebra 200, 2 (1998), 629–
649.
[33] Niblo, G. A., and Reeves, L. D. Coxeter groups act on CAT (0) cube complexes. Journal of Group
Theory 6, 3 (2003), 399.
[34] Ollivier, Y., and Wise, D. Cubulating random groups at density less than 1/6. Transactions of the
American Mathematical Society 363, 9 (2011), 4701–4733.
[35] Osin, D. V. Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 179, 843 (2006), vi+100.
[36] Ruane, K., and Witzel, S. CAT(0) cubical complexes for graph products of finitely generated abelian
groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.8646 (2013).
[37] Sultan, H. The asymptotic cones of Teichmüller space: Thickness and divergence. Algebr. Geom. Topol.
(2015). To appear.
Lehman College and The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, New York, USA
Current address: Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
E-mail address: jason@math.columbia.edu
Umeå Universitet, Umeå, Sweden
E-mail address: victor.falgas-ravry@umu.se
U. Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
E-mail address: markfhagen@gmail.com
U. Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
E-mail address: tsusse2@unl.edu

