A MODEL FOR RANDOM THREE{MANIFOLDS BRAM PETRI AND JEAN RAIMBAULT Abstract. We study compact three-manifolds with boundary obtained by randomly gluing together truncated tetrahedra along their faces. We prove that, asymptotically almost surely as the number of tetrahedra tends to infinity, these manifolds are connected and have a single boundary component. We prove a law of large numbers for the genus of this boundary component, we show that the Heegaard genus of these manifolds is linear in the number of tetrahedra and we bound their first Betti number. We also show that, asymptotically almost surely as the number of tetrahedra tends to infinity, our manifolds admit a unique hyperbolic metric with totally geodesic boundary. We prove a law of large numbers for the volume of this metric, prove that the associated Laplacian has a uniform spectral gap and show that the diameter of our manifolds is logarithmic as a function of their volume. Finally, we determine the Benjamini{Schramm limit of our sequence of random manifolds. 1. Introduction 1.1. Context. Random constructions of compact manifolds can be seen as an analogue of the well-established theory of random graphs and serve similar purposes. First of all, they make the notion of a \typical" manifold rigorous. Secondly, they can be used as a testing ground for conjectures of which the proof is still out of reach. Finally, there is what is often called the probabilistic method { using probability theory to prove the existence of objects with extremal properties. In this paper we are mostly interested in the first aspect. Let us be more specific about what kind of objects we are intetested in. As is the case for graphs, there are countably many homeomorphism types of compact manifolds. Thus a random manifold consists not in one random variable but rather a family of random variables|say Mn; n ≥ 1| where n is some measure of \complexity", usually in relation with a particular construction that is used to define the random objects. For graphs this will often be the number of vertices. Random models for 3{manifolds that have been well-studied are random Heegaard splittings and random fibered manifolds; here the complexity depends on two integers: the genus g of the handlebody or the fiber, and the number of steps k used to generate a random mapping class [19, Section 2.10]. A basic property should be that the union of the support of the Mn is the whole set of the arXiv:2009.11923v1 [math.GT] 24 Sep 2020 manifolds one is interested in studying. The models above satisfy this requirement if one takes both k; g ! +1 (though only virtually for the second one) but the asymptotic results pertaining to them (in particular hyperbolicity) are mostly studied in terms of the mapping class (that is, when k ! +1). If one is interested in studying typical 3{manifolds this does not seem satisfying. A more direct measure of the complexity of a 3{manifold is the minimal number of tetrahedra needed to triangulate it. A natural way to construct random 3{manifolds is thus to start with a model for a random triangulation on n tetrahedra and condition it to be a manifold. However, studying such a model of a random manifold is hard because if one randomly glues the faces of n tetrahedra together in pairs, the probability that the result is a manifold tends to 0 as n ! 1 (see for instance [19, Proposition 2.8]). So we cannot rely on the study of a generic triangulation to Date: September 28, 2020. 1 2 BRAM PETRI AND JEAN RAIMBAULT establish a.a.s. properties of the manifolds and we have to instead study probabilities conditioned on a set of conditions that is hard to manage. We will not adress this issue in this paper, but note that even counting the number of triangu- lations is a hard problem (the best known bounds we are aware of are due to Chapuy{Perarnau [14]). Instead we will consider compact manifolds with boundary associated with random trian- gulations. The only points in a 3-dimensional triangulation that might not admit neighbourhoods 3 homeomorphic to open sets in R are the vertices. As such, we obtain a random 3{manifold with boundary by randomly gluing together n tetrahedra that are truncated near the vertices (see Figure 1). Moreover all compact 3{manifolds with non-empty boundary can be obtained in this way (see for example [16, Corollary 1.3]). Figure 1. A truncated tetrahedron. Mn is built by randomly gluing n copies of this polyhedron together along their hexagonal faces. We are interested in the asymptotic behaviour as n ! +1 of geometric and topological prop- erties of Mn. We are particularly interested in finding properties whose probability of occurence is asymptotically 1 (for regular graphs this can for instance be connectivity or expansion, depending on the model). For 3{manifolds the most obvious candidate for such a property is hyperbolicity. We will prove that a.a.s. our manifolds are hyperbolic (with totally geodesic boundary) with volume proportional to the number of tetrahedra, their Heegaard genus goes to infinity, and get estimates on their Betti numbers. We also prove some finer results about their geometry: they are expanders and we show the converge to an explicit limit in a probabilistic version of the Gromov–Hausdorff topology. 1.2. Results. We will impose one further condition: we condition on two tetrahedra sharing at most one face and every face being incident to two distinct tetrahedra. This is strictly weaker 1 than asking that the complex be simplicial . The resulting random manifold will be called Mn. A detailed description of the model can be found in Section 2.1. The first question now is what the topology of the resulting manifold is. We prove: Theorem 1.1 (Topology). (a) We have lim [Mn is connected and has a single boundary component] = 1 n!1 P (b) The genus g(@Mn) of the boundary of Mn satisfies g(@Mn) ∼ n as n ! 1 1Even if it can be argued that this is not a very unnatural constraint, our main reason for setting this constraint is a technical one: we need it in the proof of Lemma 3.6 A MODEL FOR RANDOM THREE{MANIFOLDS 3 in probability. (c) Let DMn denotes the double of Mn along its boundary and g(DMn) its Heegard genus. Then lim [n − θ(n) ≤ g(DMn) ≤ n + θ(n)] = 1; n!+1 P 2 for any function θ : N ! R that grows super-logarithmically . (d) There exists C such that the Betti numbers b1(Mn) and b1(Mn; @Mn) satisfy lim [b1(Mn; @Mn) ≤ θ(n)] = 1; lim [ jb1(Mn) − nj ≤ θ(n)] = 1 n!+1 P n!+1 P for any function θ : N ! R that grows super-logarithmically. This is a combination of Corollary 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6. Moreover, in Theorem 2.4 below we prove various combinatorial properties of the interior edges in our random complex. In item (c) we look at the Heegaard genus of the double rather than the usual notion of Heegard genus of the manifold itself (defined in terms of decompositions with compression bodies, cf. [40, 2.2]) because the latter is bounded below by the genus of the boundary, so (c) says something that is not covered by (b). In low dimensions it turns out that typical objects are often hyperbolic and in that sense, our model is no different. Note that it follows from Mostow rigidity that if Mn caries a hyperbolic metric with totally geodedic boundary, then this metric is unique up to isometry. As such, one can also ask for the geometric properties of this metric. We prove: Theorem 1.2 (Geometry). We have lim [Mn carries a hyperbolic metric with totally geodesic boundary] = 1: n!+1 P This metric has the following properties: (a) The hyperbolic volume vol(Mn) of Mn satisfies: vol(Mn) ∼ n · vO as n ! 1 in probability. Here vO denotes the volume of the regular right angled ideal hyperbolic octahedron. (b) There exists a constant cλ > 0 so that the first discrete Laplacian eigenvalue λ1(Mn) of Mn satisfies lim [λ1(Mn) > cλ] = 1: n!+1 P (c) There exists a constant cd > 0 such that the diameter diam(Mn) of Mn satisfies: lim [diam(Mn) < cd log(vol(Mn))] = 1 n!+1 P 3 (d) There exists a constant cs > 0 such that the systole sys(Mn) of Mn satisfies: lim [sys(Mn) > cs] = 1 n!+1 P (e) For every " > 0, 1 lim P sys(DMn) < = 1: n!+1 n1=4−" The same holds for the minimal length among arcs in Mn that are homotopically non- trivial relative to @Mn. Some remarks about these results : 2 θ(n) By this we mean that limn!1 log(n) = +1. 3The systole of a compact manifold is the smallest length of a closed geodesic; we do not take it to include lengths of arcs with endpoints on the boundary ; see next item for this. 4 BRAM PETRI AND JEAN RAIMBAULT • Our proof of hyperbolisation for Mn does not rely on Perelman's proof of the Geometri- sation conjecture. Instead, we use Andreev's theorem [39] and recent work by Futer{ Purcell{Schleimer [22] on Dehn fillings. Note that there is also a “Ricci-flow-free" proof of hyperbolisation of random Heegaard splittings [20]. • (b) admits a more geometric reformulation, as it follows from it together with classical work by Buser [13] that the Cheeger constant of Mn is also (asymptotically almost surely) uniformly bounded from below.