On the speed of convergence of Newton's method for complex polynomials

Abstract: We investigate Newton's method for complex polynomials of arbitrary degree $d$, normalized so that all their roots are in the unit disk. For each degree $d$, we give an explicit set $\mathcal{S}_d$ of $3.33d\log^2 d(1 + o(1))$ points with the following universal property: for every normalized polynomial of degree $d$ there are $d$ starting points in $\mathcal{S}_d$ whose Newton iterations find all the roots with a low number of iterations: if the roots are uniformly and independently distributed, we show that with probability at least $1-2/d$ the number of iterations for these $d$ starting points to reach all roots with precision $\varepsilon$ is $O(d^2\log^4 d + d\log|\log \varepsilon|)$. This is an improvement of an earlier result in \cite{Schleicher}, where the number of iterations is shown to be $O(d^4\log^2 d + d^3\log^2d|\log \varepsilon|)$ in the worst case (allowing multiple roots) and $O(d^3\log^2 d(\log d + \log \delta) + d\log|\log \varepsilon|)$ for well-separated (so-called $\delta$-separated) roots.Our result is almost optimal for this kind of starting points in the sense that the number of iterations can never be smaller than $O(d^2)$ for fixed $\varepsilon$.

\section{Introduction}

Newton's root finding method is an old and classical method for
finding roots of a differentiable function; it goes back to Newton in
the 18th century, perhaps earlier. It was one of the main reasons why
A.\ Douady, J.\ Hubbard and others in the late 1970s studied
iterations of complex analytic functions. The main question was to
know where to start the Newton iterative method in order to converge
to the roots of the polynomial. Newton's method is known as rapidly
converging near the roots (usually with quadratic convergence), but
had a reputation that its global dynamics was difficult to
understand, so that in practice other methods for root finding were
used. See \cite{JohannesNewtonSurvey} for an overview on recent
results about Newton's method.

Meanwhile, some small sets of good starting points are known: there
are explicit deterministic sets with $O(d\log^2d)$ points that are
guaranteed to find all roots of appropriately normalized polynomials
of degree $d$ \cite{HSS}, and probabilistic sets with as few as
$O(d(\log\log d)^2)$ points \cite{BLS}.

We are interested in the question how many iterations are required
until all roots are found with prescribed precision $\varepsilon$. In
\cite{D}, it is shown that among a set of starting points as
specified above, there are $d$ points that converge to the $d$ roots
and require at most $O(d^4\log^2d+d^3\log^2d|\log\varepsilon|)$ to get
$\varepsilon$-close to the $d$ roots in the worst case; for randomly placed
roots (or for roots at mutual distance at least $\delta$ for some
$\delta>0$), the required number of iterations is no more than
$O(d^3\log^3d+d\log|\log\varepsilon|)$ (with the constant depending on
$\delta$). This is about one power of $d$ away from the best possible
bounds.

In this paper, we show that Newton's method is about as fast as
theoretically possible. We consider the space of polynomials of
degree $d$, normalized so as to have all roots in the complex unit
disk $\mathbb D$. Our main result is the following.

\begin{theorem}[Quadratic Convergence in Expected Case] \label{Thm:Main}
For every degree $d$, there is an explicit universal set $\mathcal{S}_d$
of
points in ${\mathbb C}$, with $|\mathcal{S}_d|=3.33d\log^2d(1+o(1))$, with the
following property:
suppose that $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$ are uniformly and independently
distributed in the unit disk and put $p(z)= \prod_{j=1}^d (z-\alpha_j)$.
Then there are $d$ starting points in $\mathcal{S}_d$ such
that with probability $p_d \rightarrow 1$ as $d \rightarrow \infty$, the number of
iterations needed to approximate all $d$ roots with precision $\varepsilon$
starting at these $d$ points is
\[
O(d^2\log^4 d + d\log|\log \varepsilon|).
\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
As stated, the theorem deals with $d$ distinguishable (i.e., ordered)
roots and their associated probability distribution.
We prove that the same result holds if we identify our polynomials in terms
of their sets of \emph{indistinguishable} roots, as two polynomials
$p(z)= \prod_{j=1}^d (z-\alpha_j)$ and $q(z)= \prod_{j=1}^d (z-\beta_j)$
are the same if their unordered sets of roots $\{\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_d\}$ and
$\{\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_d\}$ are equal.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
This bound on the number of iterations is optimal in the sense that
there is no bound on the number of iterations in the same generality
that for fixed $\varepsilon$ has  asymptotics in $o(d^2)$, so we are away
from the best possible bound only by a factor of about $O(\log ^4d)$.
\end{remark}

\section{Good starting points for Newton's method}
\label{sec:
prelim results}

Studying the geometry of the immediate basins outside the unit disk
$\mathbb{D}$,  in \cite{HSS} we proved the existence of a universal
starting set with $1.11 d\log^2 d$ points depending only on $d$ such
that for every polynomial of degree $d$ with all roots in the unit
disk, and for every root, there is a point in the set which is in the
immediate basin of this root. Enlarging the set by a factor of 3
approximately, in \cite{D} we obtained a set of starting points
$\mathcal{S}_d$ which ensured that for each polynomial $p$ and each
root $\alpha$ there is a point $z$ in $\mathcal{S}_d$ intersecting
the immediate basin $U$ of $\alpha$ in the ``middle third`` of the
``thickest'' \textit{channel}, where a channel is an unbounded
connected component of $U \setminus \overline{\mathbb{D}}$. Being in
this middle third implies an
upper bound on the displacement $d_U(z, N_p(z))$ in terms of the
Poincar\'e metric of the immediate basin. It also turns out that the
orbit of $z$ under iteration of Newton map does not leave $D_R(0)$,
the disk of radius $R$ centered at the origin for some bounded value
of $R$. We will refer to such points as having
\textit{$R$-central orbits}.

More precisely, let $\mathcal{S}_d$ be defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[Efficient Grid of Starting Points]

For each degree $d$, construct a circular grid $\mathcal{S}_d$ as
follows. For $k = 1, \ldots, s = \lceil 0.4\log d\rceil$, set
$$r_k = (1+\sqrt{2})\left(\frac{d-1}{d}\right)^\frac{2k-1}{4s},$$
and for each circle around 0 of radius $r_k$, choose $\lceil
8.33d\log d\rceil$ equidistant points (independently for all the
circles).

\end{definition}

The set $\mathcal{S}_d$ thus constructed has $3.33(1+o(1))d\log^2 d$
points. The following theorem is proven in \cite[Theorem~8]{D}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: set of starting points}
    For each degree $d$, the set $\mathcal{S}_d$ has the following
universal property. If $p$ is any complex polynomial, normalized so
that all its roots are in $\mathbb{D}$, then there are $d$ points
$z^{(1)}, \ldots, z^{(d)}$ in $\mathcal{S}_d$ whose Newton iterations
converge to the $d$ roots of $p$. If $\alpha$ is a root of $p$ and
$U$ is the immediate basin of $\alpha$, then there is an index $i$
such that $z^{(i)}\in U$ with $d_U(z^{(i)}, N_p(z^{(i)}))< 2\log
d$. In addition,  $z^{(1)}, \ldots, z^{(d)}$ have $R$-central orbits
for
     $$R \leq 5\left(\frac{d}{d-1}\right)^{\lceil 5\pi(\log d + 1)\rceil}.$$
\end{theorem}
For $d = 100$, we have $R < 14;$ for $d = 1000, $ we have $R < 7.5;$
and asymptotically the upper bound on $R$ tends to $7$.

    The result provides an upper bound for $R$ that is uniform in $d$.
This set of starting points will be the basis for the discussion
which follows.

     \section{Uniformly distributed roots}\label{sec: result}
In this manuscript we investigate the Newton map for complex
polynomials with randomly distributed roots. In this section, we fix
notation and give the strategy of the
proof of our main result, Theorem~\ref{Thm:Main}.

Let $\alpha$ be a simple root
of the polynomial $p$ of degree $d$ and $U$ be the immediate basin of
attraction of $\alpha$. By the discussion in the
previous section, there exists $z_1\in \mathcal{S}_d$ with
$R$-central orbit in $U$, i.e.\ under iteration of the Newton map
$N_p$ the orbit converges to $\alpha$ and stays within $D_R(0)$. Let
$z_{n+1} := N_p(z_{n})$ for $n\geq 1$. For any two
consecutive points $z_n$ and $z_{n+1}$ along the orbit of $z_1$,  in
\cite[Section~4]{D} we constructed ``thick'' curves that,
roughly speaking, ``use up'' area at least $|z_n -
z_{n+1}|^2/(2\tau)$ with $\tau := d_U(z_1, z_2) < 2\log d$.
In the region of quadratic convergence (near the root $\alpha$),  only
$\log_2|\log_2 \varepsilon - 5|$ iterations are sufficient to get
$\varepsilon$-close to the root. Outside this region, two such curves
with base points $z_n$ and $z_{n'}$ are disjoint if $n' - n \geq
2\tau + 6$ \cite[Lemma~11]{D}. The bound $O(d^3\log^3d +
d\log|\log \varepsilon|)$ follows from lower bounds on the
displacements $|z_n - z_{n+1}|$ along the orbit. The main improvement
in this paper
is on the lower bounds on the displacements when the roots are
randomly distributed.

As in \cite{D}, we partition $D_{R}(0)$ (the disk of radius $R$
centered at the origin) into domains
\[
S_k := \left\{z\in D_{R}(0): \min_j|z-\alpha_j| \in \left(2^{-(k+1)},
2^{-k}\right]\right\}, \ k \in \mathbb{Z}
\;.
\]
It turns out that if the roots are randomly distributed in the unit
disk, then with high probability the following holds: there exists a
universal constant $C$ such that for every $n$ we have the following
estimates
\[ |z_n - z_{n+1}| \ge \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
           \frac{C}{d\log d} & \mbox{if $z_n\in S_k$ with $k
\leq \log_2 d$};\\
          \frac{C}{2^k k } & \mbox{otherwise}.\end{array} \right.
\]
If $z_n\in S_k$ with $k\le \log_2d$, then we say that we are ``in the
far case'', as $z_n$ is far from all the roots. Since each such
iteration uses an area of at least $|z_n-z_{n+1}|^2/(2\tau)$, and one
in $2\tau+6$ such areas are disjoint, the total number of orbit
points in the far case is bounded by $O(d^2\log^4d)$.

\cite[Lemma~16]{D} says that if the orbit gets very close to
some root in comparison to the other roots, then it has entered the
region of quadratic convergence of that root where only
$\log_2|\log_2 \varepsilon - 5|$ are sufficient to approximate it
within an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood. We call this ``the near case''.

For randomly distributed roots, the mutual distance between roots is
large enough so away from the region of quadratic convergence, we
only need to consider $k \le 3+(2+\eta)\log_2 d$ for a certain
$\eta>0$. We define the ``intermediate case'' as those $z_n\in S_k$
with $\log_2d< k\le 3+(2+\eta)\log_2 d$. Each domain $S_k$ has area
$O(d 4^{-k})$, and each iteration with $z_n\in S_k$ uses area about
$(C/2^kk)^2/2\tau\approx C^2/4^kk^2\tau$, so the number of orbit points
in the intermediate case is at most $O(dk^2\tau)$ for each $k$, times
the usual factor $2\tau+6$ to make the areas disjoint. But
$\log_2d<k\leq 3+(2+\eta)\log_2 d$ and $\tau=O(\log d)$, so the total
number of iterations in the intermediate case is $O(d\log^5d)$.

In the subsequent sections we will make these arguments precise.

\subsection{On the distribution of the roots}\label{sec: root distribution}
In order to get a lower bound on the expected displacement, we will
first investigate the distribution of the roots. We will be
interested in two different kind of probability spaces. The first
space $\mathcal{P}_d =\{(x_1, \ldots, x_d) : x_i\in \mathbb{D}\}$
consists of all polynomials with $d$ \textit{distinguishable} roots
in the unit disk, normalized so as to have leading coefficients $1$,
and the probability measure is induced by the Lebesgue
measure on $\mathbb{D}^d$. The second space $\mathcal P_d/S_d$
consists of all polynomials with \textit{indistinguishable} roots in
the unit disk, i.e.\ the quotient probability space of the standard
action of the symmetric group $S_d$ on $\mathcal{P}_d$ defined by
permuting the roots.

The following lemma is the probabilistic ingredient of the main
theorem. It certainly isn't new, but easier verified than
looked up in the library.

\begin{lemma}[Base-$d$ numbers]\label{lemma: numbers}
    Let $M_d$ be the set of all $d$-digit numbers in base $d$.

(a) The probability that that a randomly chosen number $a\in M_d$
does not have a digit repeating more than $O(\log d)$ times is at
least $1-1/d$.

    (b) Let $\sim$ be an equivalence relation on $M_d$ defined as
follows: $a \sim b \Leftrightarrow \exists \sigma \in S_d$ with $a =
\sigma b$, i.e.\ two elements are equivalent if they have the same
sets of digits counted with multiplicities. Then the probability that
a randomly chosen element $[a]\in M_d/\sim$ does not have a
digit repeating more than $O(\log d)$ is at least $1-1/d$.

\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a)  For fixed $i$, the number of $d$-digit numbers which contain at
least $\alpha$ digits $i$ is at most
$\binom{d}{\alpha}d^{d-\alpha}$. Thus the number of $d$-digit numbers
which contain a symbol repeating at least $\alpha$ times is at most
     $$d \binom{d}{\alpha}d^{d-\alpha} < \frac{d}{\alpha !} d^{d}.$$
     So the probability that a randomly selected number in $M_d$
contains at least $\alpha$ identical digits is at most $\frac{d}{\alpha
!}$ since $|M_d| = d^d$. Therefore, with probability at least
$1-\frac{d}{\alpha!}$, a randomly selected number in $M_d$ does not
have a digit repeating more than $\alpha$ times.

     Note that if $\alpha!\ge d^2$ we have $1-\frac{d}{\alpha!} \geq 1 -
\frac{1}{d}$. Therefore, by taking $\alpha$ such that $(\alpha - 1)!
< d^2 \leq \alpha !$ (which implies that $\alpha \in O(\log d)$), we
prove the first part of the claim.

    (b)  Note that the elements of $ M_d/\sim$ can be bijectively mapped
to the set $\hbox{Mult}_d = \{(x_0, \ldots, x_{d-1}) : x_i \in
\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, x_0 + \ldots + x_{d-1} = d\}$ as follows: for
$[a]\in M_d/\sim$ let $x_i$ be the multiplicity of digit $i$
in every $a\in [a]$. It is well known and easy to see that

\begin{equation}\label{eq: multiset coefficient}
    \left|\left\{\rule{0pt}{10pt}(x_0, \ldots, x_{r-1}) : x_i\in
\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, x_0 + x_1 + \ldots + x_{r-1} = n\right\}\right|
= \binom{n + r - 1}{r - 1}
\;.
\end{equation}
Thus we have $|\hbox{Mult}_d| = \binom{2d - 1}{d-1}$. On the
other hand, the number of elements in $\hbox{Mult}_d$ with first
component at least $\alpha$ is equal to the cardinality of
\[
\left\{(x_2, \ldots, x_d) : x_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, x_2 + \ldots
+ x_d \leq d-\alpha\right\}
\]
which has the same cardinality as
\[
\{(y_1, x_2, \ldots, x_d) : y_1, x_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, y_1 +
x_2 + \ldots + x_d =  d-\alpha\}
\;.
\]
Again by (\ref{eq: multiset coefficient}) this quantity equals to
$\binom{2d - \alpha - 1}{d-1}$. Therefore, the number of elements of
$\hbox{Mult}_d$ with a component at least $\alpha$, i.e. the number
of elements of $M_d/\sim$ with a digit repeating at least $\alpha$
times, is at most
\[
d\binom{2d - \alpha - 1}{d-1}\;.
\]
Hence the probability that a number of $M_d/\sim$ has a digit
repeating at least $\alpha$ times is at most
$$\frac{d\binom{2d - \alpha - 1}{d-1}}{\binom{2d - 1}{d-1}} = \frac{d
(2d - \alpha - 1)! (d-1)! d!}{(2d-1)! (d-1)! (d - \alpha)!} =  $$
$$ = d\frac{(d-\alpha + 1)(d-\alpha + 2)\cdots d}{(2d - \alpha)(2d -
\alpha + 1)\cdots (2d - 1)} \leq d \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\alpha -
1}\frac{d}{2d - 1}.$$ Hence for $\alpha = \lceil 2\log_2 d + 1
\rceil\in O(\log d)$ the second part of the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
    The statement remains true if we replace the probability $1-1/d$ by
$1-1/d^c$ for
any constant $c\geq 1$.
\end{remark}

If the roots are randomly distributed in the unit disk one should
expect that the number of roots in a region is proportional to its
area. The previous claim easily implies the following statement.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:disk}
Let a polynomial with roots $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ be randomly
chosen in $\mathcal{P}_d$ or $\mathcal{P}_d/S_d$. Then there exists a
constant $C_d \in O(\log d)$ such that with probability at least
$1-1/d$ the following holds true: every disk in ${\mathbb C}$ with area $A =
\pi r^2$ contains at most $k(A)$ points among $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ with

$$k(A) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
             C_ddA & \mbox{if $A \geq 1/d$}; \\
           C_d & \mbox{otherwise}.\end{array} \right.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}

Without loss of generality we can assume that $d = (2k+1)^2$ for an
integer $k$ (the general case follows by enlarging $C_{(2k+1)^2}$ by
a bounded factor).
Then the unit disk can be subdivided into $d$ pieces
as follows (compare Fig.~\ref{fig: circle partitioned}): the first
piece is a disk with center $0$ and radius $r_0 = 1/\sqrt{d};$ next,
consider the annuli $A_s$ bounded between circles around $0$ of radii
$(2s-1)r_0$ and $(2s+1)r_0$ for $s = 1, \ldots k$, and subdivide each
annulus $A_s$ into exactly $8s$ pieces of equal area by drawing $8s$
radial segments. Thus we construct exactly $d$ pieces with equal area
and diameters comparable with $r_0$. By Lemma \ref{lemma: numbers} it
follows that each of the pieces contains at most $O(\log d)$ of the
points $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ with probability at least $1-1/d$ (in both
cases of distinguishable and indistinguishable roots): in the case of
distinguishable roots, the $i$-th digit of a $d$-digit number
specifies the number of the piece containing the $i$-th root; in the
other case, the same symmetries apply on both sides of the equality.

\begin{figure}
     \begin{center}
     \framebox{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DiskPartition1a.pdf}}
     \caption{Partition of the unit disk into smaller pieces of similar
sizes.\label{fig: circle partitioned}}
     \end{center}
\end{figure}

Hence, the claim is true for that particular partition of the unit
disk. This implies the general claim as follows. It is easy
to see that each square of side length at most $r_0$ in the complex
plane can intersect at most a constant number $C'$ of these pieces,
where $C'$ does not depend on $d$. Consider
a square $S$ for which the unit circle is inscribed, for example the
one with sides parallel to the real and imaginary axes. Subdivide it
into $d$ equal squares of
side length $r_0 $ (using the fact that $d$ is a square and
$r_0=1/\sqrt d$). Then each of these smaller
squares will intersect at most $C'$ pieces from the partition of the
unit disk (some squares will not intersect any). Therefore each of
the small squares contains at most $C''\log d$ points for some
constant $C''$ which does not depend on $d$. Since each square of
side length $r_0$ (possibly rotated) intersects at most $9$ of these
squares dividing $S$, we conclude that each square of side length
$r_0$ contains, with probability at least $1-1/d$,
at most $C\log d$ of the points $x_1,\ldots, x_d$ for $C = 9 C''$. If
we group every 4 neighboring small squares (of side length $r_0$) and
repeat the argument, we get that each square of side length $2r_0$
contains at most $4 C\log d$ points, and so on for squares of side
length $4r_0, 8r_0,\ldots $. Thus an arbitrary square of side length
$x\in[2^kr_0,2^{k+1}r_0]$ contains at most $2^{2k + 2} C\log d\le
4C(x^2/r_0^2)\log d \approx 4Cx^2d\log d$ points since it is contained some
square of side length $2^{k+1}r_0$, and thus enlarging the
constant by a factor of 4 the lemma will hold true for squares. Since
each disk of radius $r$ is contained in a square of side length $2r$,
the bound on the number of points in an arbitrary disk follows.
\end{proof}

Now we prove the following claim about the mutual distance for
randomly distributed points in the unit disk.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: mutual distance}
     Let the polynomial $p(z)$ be randomly chosen in $\mathcal{P}_d$ or
$\mathcal{P}_d/S_d$. Then the mutual distance between any pair of its
roots is at least ${1}/{d^{1+\eta}}$, for any fixed $\eta>0$, with
probability at least $1-1/d^{2\eta}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
     First, note that the claim for a randomly chosen polynomial in
$\mathcal{P}_d/S_d$ follows from the claim for a randomly chosen
polynomial in $\mathcal{P}_d$. Choosing randomly a
polynomial in $\mathcal{P}_d$ is equivalent to choosing randomly and
independently its roots. For a positive number $r$, the
probability $p_{d,r}$ that $d$ uniformly and independently
distributed points in the unit disk have mutual distance at least $r$
is at least
\[
p_{d,r}\geq (1 - r^2)(1-2r^2)\ldots (1-(d-1)r^2)
\]
(the unit disk has area $\pi$, and after $k$ roots are selected, the
$k+1$-st root must avoid an area of at most $k\pi r^2$; this has
probability $(\pi-\pi kr^2)/\pi=1-kr^2)$.

Since $\log(1+x) \ge x/(1+x)$ for $x>-1$, we get
\[
\log p_{d,r}\ge \sum_{k=1}^{d-1} \log(1-k r^2) \ge \sum_{k = 1}^{d-1}
\frac{-k r^2}{1-k r^2}
\ge -r^2 \frac{\sum_{k = 1}^{d-1} k}{1-d r^2} \ge -r^2
\frac{d^2/2}{1-d r^2} \ge
-d^2 r^2
\;,
\]
where the last inequality holds if $d r^2 < 1/2.$ Hence
\[
p_{d, r}\ge
\exp(-d^2 r^2)\ge 1 - d^2 r^2
\;.
\]
If $r = 1/d^{1+\eta}$ (which satisfies $d r^2 < 1/2$),
then $p_{d,r}\ge
1-1/d^{2\eta}$ and thus the claim follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The precise value of $\eta$ in this lemma is not very important to
us, as eventually it will only affect constants in the bounds we
obtain.
\end{remark}

An immediate corollary of the lemma is an upper bound on the distance
of $z_n$ to the closest root which guarantees quadratic convergence.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor: bound on K}
    If the $d$ roots are randomly chosen and
$z_n \in S_k$ with $2^{-k} < {1}/{8d^{2+\eta}}$ and $\eta>0$, then
with probability at least $1-1/d^{2\eta}$ the orbit of $z_n$
converges to the closest root $\alpha$, and $\log_2|\log_2\varepsilon
- 5|$ iterations of $z_n$ are sufficient to get $\varepsilon$-close
to $\alpha$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, if $z_n\in S_k$ and $\alpha$ is the closest root to $z_n$,
then $|z_n - \alpha| < {1}/{8d^{2+\eta}}$ and for every root
$\alpha_j\neq\alpha$ we have
\[
|z_n-\alpha_j| \geq |\alpha - \alpha_j| - |\alpha - z_n| >
1/ d^{1+\eta}-1/8d^{2+\eta} \ge
(8d+1)/8d^{2+\eta} > (4d + 3)|z_n - \alpha|
\]
(under the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lemma: mutual distance}).
Therefore by \cite[Lemma~16]{D}, we need no more than
$\log_2|\log_2\varepsilon - 5|$ iterations to get $\varepsilon$-close
to $\alpha$.
\end{proof}

We combine the previous two lemmas in the following claim.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: probabilistic conditions}
    Let a polynomial with roots $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ be randomly chosen in
$\mathcal{P}_d$ or $\mathcal{P}_d/S_d$. Then with probability $p_d\ge
1-O(d^{-2\eta})$ (for fixed $\eta\in(0,1/2)$),
the following two statements simultaneously hold true:
\begin{description}
    \item[Area Condition (AC)]  There exists $C_d\in O(\log d)$ such
that every disk in ${\mathbb C}$ with area $A = \pi r^2$ contains at most
$k(A)$ roots among $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ with

         $$k(A) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
             C_ddA & \mbox{if $A \geq 1/d$};\\
           C_d & \mbox{otherwise}.\end{array} \right.$$
    \item[Distance Condition (DC)] The mutual distance between any pair
of roots is at least ${1}/{d^{1+\eta}}$.
    \end{description}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
    We are interested in $P(AC = \texttt{true} \mbox{ and } DC =
\texttt{true})$, which equals
\[
1 - P(AC = \texttt{false} \ \ \hbox{or}\ \    DC = \texttt{false})
\geq  1- P(AC = \texttt{false}) - P(DC = \texttt{false}).
\]
By Lemma \ref{lemma:disk} we have $P(AC = \texttt{false}) \leq 1/d$,
and by Lemma \ref{lemma: mutual distance} $P(DC = \texttt{false})\le
1/d^{2\eta}$. Hence the claim follows.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of the main theorem}\label{sec: proof}

In this section we will use the two conditions \textbf{AC} and
\textbf{DC} to prove Theorem \ref{Thm:Main}. While \textbf{DC}
guarantees that proximity to a root implies fast convergence
(Corollary \ref{cor: bound on K}), \textbf{AC} gives a lower bound on
the displacements along an orbit far away from the roots. More
precisely, the following statement holds true.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: main}
    Suppose that the Area Condition in Lemma \ref{lemma: probabilistic
conditions} holds true. If $z_n\in S_K \cap \mathbb{D}_2(0)$, then
\[
|z_n - z_{n+1}|\geq \frac{1}{(1 + 2C_d)2^{K+1} + 16\pi C_dd }
\;,
\]
where
$C_d\in O(\log d)$.
If $z_n \not \in \mathbb{D}_2(0)$, then $|z_n - z_{n+1}| > 1/d$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
    The fact that $z_n\in S_K$ means that the closest root, say
$\alpha$, is at distance ${c}/{2^K}$ for some $c\in (0.5, 1]$, and all the
other roots satisfy $
    |z_n-\alpha_j|\geq {c}/{2^K}$.

  First suppose that $z_n\in S_K \cap
\mathbb{D}_2(0)$. This implies that $K\geq -2$. Let $T_k := \{z\in
\mathbb{C}:
2^{-k-1} < |z-z_n| \leq 2^{-k}\}$ for $k = -2, \ldots, K$. Then all the
roots are contained in $\bigcup_{k = -2}^{K}T_k$. The Area
Condition implies that there exists a constant $C_d\in O(\log d)$
such that
the number of roots in $T_k$ is bounded by $\pi C_d d4^{-k}$ for
$\pi 4^{-k}\geq 1/d$, and by $C_d$ otherwise. Thus we have
\begin{align}
\left|\sum\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right|
&\leq \left|\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha}\right| + \sum_{\alpha_j \not=
\alpha}\left|\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right| = \frac{2^K}{c} + \sum_{k
= -2}^{K}\sum_{\alpha_j \not= \alpha \atop  \alpha_j \in
T_k}\left|\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right| \nonumber
\\
     &\leq  \frac{2^K}{c} + \sum_{k = -2}^{\lfloor 0.5\log_2
\pi d\rfloor}\sum_{\alpha_j \not= \alpha \atop  \alpha_j \in
T_k}\left|\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right| +
       \sum_{k = 1+\lfloor 0.5\log_2\pi d\rfloor}^{K}\sum_{\alpha_j \not=
\alpha \atop  \alpha_j \in T_k}\left|\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right|
\nonumber
\\
     &\leq  \frac{2^K}{c} + \sum_{k = -2}^{\lfloor 0.5\log_2 \pi d\rfloor}
\frac{2\pi C_d d4^{-k}}{2^{-k}} + \sum_{k = 1+\lfloor 0.5\log_2\pi
d\rfloor}^{K} C_d 2^{k+1} \nonumber
\\
     &\leq  2^{K+1} + 16\pi C_dd + C_d 2^{K+2}\;. \nonumber
\end{align}

Therefore
\[
|z_n - z_{n+1}| = \frac{1}{\left|\sum\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right|}\geq
\frac{1}{(1 + 2C_d)2^{K+1} + 16\pi C_dd } \;.
\]

For the case $z_n \not \in \mathbb{D}_2(0)$ we have
\[
|z_n - z_{n+1}|^{-1} = \left|\sum\frac{1}{z_n-\alpha_j}\right| <
\sum_{\alpha_j}1 = d \;,\]
and so $|z_n - z_{n+1}| > 1/d$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor: displacement}
Suppose that the Area Condition in Lemma \ref{lemma: probabilistic
conditions} holds true.
Then there is a universal constant $C$ such that the following
statements hold for any $z_n \in S_k$.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item If $2^{-k} \geq 1/d$, then $|z_n - z_{n+1}| \geq
\frac{C}{d\log d}$.
    \item If $1/8d^{2+\eta}\leq 2^{-k} < 1/d$, then $|z_n - z_{n+1}|
\geq\frac{C}{k2^k }$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
  For $z_n\in \mathbb{D}_2(0)$, Lemma \ref{lemma: main} gives
\[
  |z_n - z_{n+1}| \geq \frac{1}{(1 + 2C_d)2^{k+1} + 16\pi C_dd } \;.
\]
  If $2^{-k} \geq 1/d$, i.e.,\ $2^{k+1} \leq 2d$, the
denominator is at most $O(C_d d)$, so the displacement
is at least $C'/(d\log d)$ for some universal constant $C'$ (since
$C_d\in O(\log d)$). On the other hand, if $1/8d^{2+\eta}\leq 2^{-k} <
1/d$ and thus $d < 2^{k}$, the denominator is at most
$O(C_d2^k)$. In this case, $C_d\in O(\log d) = O(k)$, so the
displacement is at least $C''/(k2^k)$. Therefore the claim follows if
we take $C = \min \{C', C''\}$.

Finally, $z_n\not \in \mathbb{D}_2(0)$ implies $k < -1$. Again
Lemma \ref{lemma: main} gives $|z_n - z_{n+1}| > 1/d$, and thus we
finish the proof by possibly decreasing the constant $C$.
\end{proof}

The final step towards proving our main result is in the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:one root}
     Let the polynomial $p(z)$ be randomly chosen in $\mathcal{P}_d$ or
$\mathcal{P}_d/S_d$ and let $(z_n)$ be an $R$-central orbit converging
to a root $\alpha$ with $d_U(z_0, z_1)\leq \tau$ for $\tau < 2\log
d$. Then with probability $p_d\ge
1-O(d^{-2\eta})$ (for fixed $\eta\in(0,1/2)$), the required number of
iterations for $z_0$ to get
$\varepsilon$-close to $\alpha$ is
\[
O\left(d^2\log^4 d R^2 + \log|\log\varepsilon - 5\right|) \;.
\]
\end{theorem}

Before proceeding to the proof of this statement, we will outline the
main idea. As in \cite{D}, we construct ``thick'' curves
connecting orbit points $z_n$ and $z_{n+1}$ that use up certain area
contained in a bounded domain. Far from the root, two curves
corresponding to $z_n$ and $z_{m}$ are disjoint provided that
$|n-m| > 2\tau + 6.$ A lower bound on the area of the ``thick''
curves gives an upper bound on the number of iterations. Also, near
the root the orbit enters the domain of quadratic convergence where
only a few iterations are sufficient to approximate the root.

More precisely, let $\varphi\colon U\to \mathbb{D}$ be the Riemann
map with $\varphi(\alpha) = 0$ considered in
\cite[Section~5]{D}. If $|\varphi(z_n)| < 1/2$ (``region of
fast convergence''), then according to \cite[Lemma~11]{D} we
need only $\log_2|\log_2 \varepsilon - 5|$ iterations to get
$\varepsilon$-close to the root $\alpha$. For orbit points with
$\varphi$-images having absolute values greater than $e ^{1/2} - 1$,
we can prove the following.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: area bound}
For every $n$ with $|\varphi(z_n)| > e^{1/2} - 1$, there are open
connected subsets $V_n\subset
D_{2R+2}(0)$ with $z_n,z_{n+1}\in\partial V_n$ and $|V_n|\ge
|z_n-z_{n+1}|^2/2\tau,$ having the following property: whenever $n$
and $m$ are such that $\min \{|\varphi(z_n)|, |\varphi(z_m)|\} >
e^{1/2} - 1$ and $|n-m|\ge \lceil 2\tau+6\rceil$, we have  $V_n\cap
V_m=\emptyset$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\gamma\colon[0,s]\to U$ be the hyperbolic geodesic within $U$
connecting $z_n$ to $z_{n+1}$. For each $z=\gamma(t)$, let $\eta(t)$
be the Euclidean distance from $\gamma(t)$ to $\partial U$, and let
$X_t$ be the straight line segment (without endpoints) perpendicular
to $\gamma(t)$ of Euclidean length $\eta(t)$, centered at
$\gamma(t)$. Let $V_n:=\bigcup_{t\in(0,s)}X_t$. Then all $V_n$ are
open and connected and $z_n,z_{n+1}\in\partial V_n$, and the area of
$V_n$ is at least $|z_n-z_{n+1}|^2/2\tau$: this follows as in
\cite[Lemma~9]{D} (in this reference, the areas restricted to
certain domains $S_k$ are calculated; omitting this restriction, we
obtain the result we need, and the computations only get simpler). Moreover,
the orbit $(z_n)$ is $R$-central and the unit disk contains other
roots than $\alpha$, and
hence the length of $\gamma(t)$ for $t\in[0,s]$ is bounded by $R+1.$
This implies that all
pieces $V_n$ are contained in $D_{2R+2}(0)$ by construction.

The fact that $V_n\cap V_m$ are disjoint when $|n-m|>2\tau+6$ is
proved in \cite[Lemma~12]{D} (again for restricted domains, but
this is immaterial for the proof).
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:one root}]
We only need to consider iteration points whose images under
$\varphi$ have absolute values at least $e^{1/2} - 1$. Also, by Lemma~
\ref{lemma: probabilistic conditions}, the conditions \textbf{AC} and
\textbf{DC} hold true with probability $p_d\ge 1-O(d^{-2\eta})$.

Choose $M$ so that $ 2^M - 1>2R+2$. We distinguish the following three cases.
\begin{description}
\item[The Far Case] we have $z_n\in S_k$ with $2^{-k}\ge 1/d$. By
Corollary \ref{cor: displacement} (1)
we have  $|z_n - z_{n+1}|
\geq\frac{C}{d\log d }$.  Lemma \ref{lemma: area bound} says
   that any Newton iteration $z_n\mapsto
z_{n+1}$ with $z_n\in S_k$ needs area at least
\[
\frac{|z_n-z_{n+1}|^2}{2\tau}
\ge
    \frac{C^2}{2\tau d^2\log^2 d} \;.
\]
Moreover, the pieces of area for the
iterations $z_n\mapsto z_{n+1}$ and $z_{n'}\mapsto z_{n'+1}$ are
disjoint provided that $n-n' \geq 2\tau + 6$, and all these pieces of
area are contained in the disk $D_{2R+2}(0)$ with $R$ universally
bounded.

The total number of such iterations $D_{2R+2}(0)$ can accommodate is
thus at most
\[
C'd^2(\log d)^2 \tau \lceil 2\tau + 6\rceil R^2
\]
for a universal constant $C'$.

    \item[The Intermediate Case]  we have $z_n\in S_k$ with
$1/8d^{2+\eta}\leq 2^{-k} < 1/d$. Then $\log_2 d < k \leq 3 +
(2+\eta) \log_2 d$. By Corollary \ref{cor: displacement} (2) we have
$|z_n - z_{n+1}| \geq{C}/{k2^k }$.
Thus by \cite[ Proposition 13]{D}, the set $S_k$ contains at most
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
     &\pi d\left(2^{-k+1} + \frac{C}{k2^k}\right)^2 \left(2\tau +
2^{k-1}\frac{C}{k2^k}\right)\lceil 2\tau + 6\rceil
\frac{k^22^{2k}}{C^2} \nonumber \\
     &= \pi d 2^{-2k}k^{-2}(2k + C)^2 \left(2\tau +
\frac{C}{2k}\right)\lceil 2\tau + 6\rceil \frac{k^22^{2k}}{C^2}
\nonumber \\
     &= \pi d C^{-2}(2k + C)^2 \left(2\tau + \frac{C}{2k}\right)\lceil
2\tau + 6\rceil                    \nonumber \\
     &\leq \pi d C^{-2}(6  + (4+2\eta)\log_2 d + C)^2 \left(2\tau +
\frac{C}{2\log_2 d}\right)\lceil 2\tau + 6\rceil           \nonumber
\\
     &\leq C''d \log^2 d (2\tau + 1)\lceil 2\tau + 6\rceil
\nonumber
\end{align}
}%
orbit points for some universal constant $C''$. There are
$3+(1+\eta)\log d$ possible values of $k$ in the Intermediate Case,
so $\bigcup_{k} S_k$ (for all $k$ in the Intermediate Case) can
accommodate at most
\[
(1+\eta)C''d \log^3 d (2\tau + 1)\lceil 2\tau + 6\rceil
\]
orbit points for some universal constant $C''$.
\item[The Near Case]
we have $z_n \in S_k$ with $2^{-k} < {1}/{8d^{2+\eta}}$. By Corollary
\ref{cor: bound on K}, $\alpha$ is the closest root to $z_n$ and we
need $\log_2|\log_2\varepsilon - 5|$ iterations to get
$\varepsilon$-close to it.
\hide{Thus it only remains to consider the orbit points $z_n\in S_k$
for $k \leq 3 + (2+\eta)\log_2 d$; these are not necessarily in the
region of ``fast`` convergence (their image under the Riemann map
$\varphi$ as constructed in \cite[Section 3.3]{D} has absolute
value at least $e^{1/2} - 1$). Since the orbit $(z_n)$ is contained
in ${D}_{2^M - 1}(0)$ by hypothesis, we have $z_n\in S_k$ with $k
\geq -M$ for all $n\geq 0$.
}
\end{description}
Since $\tau\in O(\log d)$ and the Far Case dominates the Intermediate
Case, the claim follows.
\end{proof}

We now conclude the main statement.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm:Main}]
    By Theorem \ref{thm: set of starting points}, for each root there is
a starting point satisfying the conditions of the theorem. In
particular, these orbits are $R$-central for a universally bounded
value of $R$. Note that the $d$ roots have to compete for the
available area in $D_{2R+2}(0)$. Since the estimates in the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:one root} are based on the area (except for the
Near Case where the orbit gets to the region of quadratic
convergence), we get the same estimate for the combined number of
iterations (except that the estimate $\log |\log \varepsilon|$
applies for each root separately, thus it is multiplied by $d$).
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
This result is close to optimal in the sense that the power of $d$
cannot be reduced for our universal set of starting points that is
bounded away from the unit disk. The reason is that outside the unit
disk $N_p$ is conjugate to the linear map $w \mapsto \frac{d-1}{d} w$
by  \cite[Lemma~4]{HSS}, so at least $O(d)$ iterations are required for
each ``good`` starting point to get close to the unit disk where the
roots are located, and at least $O(d^2)$ for all the $d$ starting
points combined.
\end{remark}


Guessing cards with complete feedback

Abstract: We consider the following game that has been used as a way of testing claims of extrasensory perception (ESP). One is given a deck of $mn$ cards comprised of $n$ distinct types each of which appears exactly $m$ times: this deck is shuffled and then cards are discarded from the deck one at a time from top to bottom. At each step, a player (whose psychic powers are being tested) tries to guess the type of the card currently on top, which is then revealed to the player before being discarded. We study the expected number $S_{n,m}$ of correct predictions a player can make: one could always guess the exact same type of card which shows that one can achieve $S_{n,m}>m$. We prove that the optimal (non-psychic) strategy is just slightly better than that and find the first order correction when $n, m$ grows at suitable rates. This is very different from the case where $m$ is fixed and $n$ is large (He & Ottolini) and similar to the case of fixed $n$ and $m$ is large (Graham & Diaconis). The case $m=n$ answers a question of Diaconis.

\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Zener cards} Sometimes people present claims of having powers of extrasensory perceptions: a natural framework (proposed by the psychologist K. Zener and the botanist J. Rhine) in which to test such a hypothesis is that of card guessing (so-called Zener cards).
Consider a well-mixed deck of $mn$ cards comprised of $n$ distinct types of cards each of which appears exactly $m$ times. The deck is well shuffled and then placed in front of the player (who has full knowledge of the composition of the deck). The player then has to guess the type of the card on top; after the guess is made, the card is shown to the player and then discarded from the deck. The game continues until the deck runs over. Assuming the player does \textit{not} have psychic abilities, how many correct guesses can one expect?

\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{zener.png}
    \caption{Zener cards: the figure shows the $n=5$ different types each of which appears $m=5$ times for a total of 25 cards.}
    \label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
\end{center}

\vspace{-15pt}

A simple strategy would be to always guess the same type (say, the circle card). One is guaranteed to make exactly $m$ correct guesses. The optimal strategy is to memorize all cards that have been discarded up to now and guess the type of card that has, so far, appeared the fewest amounts of times (the optimality of this strategy was proven by Diaconis \& Graham \cite{DG81}). The natural question is now, assuming no powers of extrasensory perception,  how many correct guesses can be expected under this optimal strategy?
This game has also been analyzed in connection with clinical trials \cite{Blackwell1957, EFRON1971} and is generally well studied: for other results and variations, we refer to
\cite{C98,Diaconis1978,DG81,diaconis2020card,diaconis2020guessing,KP01,KT21,KPP09,L21,P09,P91,S21}.

\subsection{Results.} For any given $m,n$, we consider the quantity $S_{n,m}$ describing the expected number of correctly guessed cards under the optimal strategy.
Two types of regimes are well understood. The first regime deals with the case where $n$, the number of distinct types, is fixed and the multiplicity $m$ with which each type appears becomes larges.
\begin{thm}[Diaconis \& Graham \cite{DG81}]
 For the number of different types $n$ fixed and the multiplicity $m$ going to infinity,
\begin{equation}\label{largemsmalln}
S_{n,m}=m+\frac{\pi}{2}M_n\sqrt{m}+o_n(\sqrt m),
\end{equation}
where $M_n$ denotes the expected value of the maximum of $n$ normal random variables.
\end{thm}

One way of interpreting the result is perhaps as follows: the frequency with which each card appears should behave roughly like a normal distribution. Exploiting the fluctuations of $n$ Gaussians and taking the one that deviates the most from its expectation suggests an asymptotic along the lines given by Diaconis \& Graham. Note that this is merely a heuristic: these card counts are not actually independent.
In the opposite regime, fixing the multiplicity $m$ and assuming the number of different types $n$ becomes large, we obtain a very different result.

\begin{thm}[He \& Ottolini \cite{he2021card}]
 For the multiplicity $m$ fixed and the number of different types $n$ going to infinity,
\begin{equation}\label{largemsmalln}
S_{n,m}=H_mH_n+\sum_{j=1}^{m-1}\frac{1}{j}\ln{m\choose j}+O_m(n^{-1/m}),
\end{equation}
where $H_n = 1 + \dots + 1/n$ denotes the $n$-th harmonic number.
\end{thm}
The leading order term is $H_m H_n \sim \ln{n} \ln{m}$ which, for $m$ fixed, is logarithmic growth in $n$. The second term in the expansion only depends on $m$ and is thus a constant. Empirically, the result is accurate even for small values of $m,n$ (see \cite{he2021card}).\\

A natural remaining question is what happens when both $m,n \rightarrow \infty$ with the original Zener setup $m=n$ being perhaps particularly interesting. Our main result covers a wide range of these parameters and is applicable as long as the number of different cards  $n$ is slightly smaller than exponential in the number of different types $m$. Such a restriction is necessary: when $n$ becomes disproportionately large compared to $m$, the result of He \& Ottolini \cite{he2021card} shows the behavior to be different.

\begin{thm}[Main Result] \label{mainthm} Let $c, \varepsilon > 0$. If $m,n \rightarrow \infty$ while $(\ln{n})^{3+\varepsilon} \leq c \cdot m$, then
\begin{equation}\label{mnwhatever}
S_{n,m}=m+\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{m\ln n}+o_{c,\varepsilon}(\sqrt{m\ln n}).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

The result covers a wide range of parameters. It also suggests that there is a phase transition in the regime where there are a great many different types of cards each of which only appearing a relatively small number of times. In that regime, we expect a switch from \ref{mnwhatever} to \ref{largemsmalln}. The nature of this transition is currently not understood and appears to be an interesting problem: the proof of our main results suggests that this phasse transition may perhaps occur around $\ln{n} \sim m$. Of course, many other problems (variance or the existence of a central limit theorem) remain.
There is a heuristic that motivates our main result. We use $X_i(t)\in \{0,1,\ldots , m\}$ to denote the numbers of cards of type $1\leq i\leq n$ that are left in the deck when there are $1\leq t\leq nm$ cards left in total. Linearity of expectation and the description of the optimal strategy imply that
\begin{equation}\label{linearita}
S_{n,m}=\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]}{t}.
\end{equation}
We rescale $p = t/nm$ (thus $0 \leq p \leq 1$).
The $X_i(t)$ should approximately obey a normal distribution and we could moreover assume that they are independent. This is certainly false because $X_1(t) + \dots +X_n(t) = t$ but it would simplify the problem. Pretending that the $X_i(t)$'s are independent normal random variables with the correct mean $mp$ and variance $mp(1-p)$, one would obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]\approx m p+\sqrt{2mp(1-p)\ln n}.
\end{align*}
Plugging in, we obtain (after substituting $p = t/nm$)
\begin{align*}
   S_{n,m}=\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]}{t} &\approx m + \sum_{t=1}^{mn} \frac{\sqrt{2mp(1-p)\ln n}}{t} \\
   &= m + \sqrt{2 m \ln{n}}\sum_{t=1}^{mn} \frac{\sqrt{p(1-p)}}{t} \\
   &\approx  m + \sqrt{2 m \ln{n}}\int_0^1\sqrt{\frac{1-p}{p}}dp
\end{align*}
and the integral evaluates to $\pi/2$.
\section{Proof}
\subsection{Outline} Our proof will be motivated by the heuristic sketched above. To justify the heuristic, we will exploit a well-known conditional representation of the $X_i(t)$'s in terms of conditionally independent binomial random variables $Y_i(t)$ given their sum. The intuition is that the maximum should only be mildly affected by the conditioning on the sum, which is indeed the case. One has to be careful in the case of of small and large $t$ (having selected almost none or almost all of the cards) where approximations degenerate. We will split the argument into two parts. In Section \ref{sec2}, we show how to reduce the problem to the case where the $X_i$s are independent binomials by means of a conditional representation. In Section \ref{sec3}, we prove the result in the case of independent binomials by exploiting sharp bounds on binomials tails. These two ingredients then establish the result. Section \ref{prooof} contains the proof of the main result.

\subsection{Reduction to independence}\label{sec2} We start by explaining how to reduce the problem to that of independent random variables by means of a useful conditional representation. The use of conditional limit theory to deal with order statistics of discrete processes dates back to \cite{Levin1981}, where the author exploits a conditional representation of the multinomial distribution in terms of independent Poisson conditioned on their sum.\\

Recall that, for each $1 \leq i \leq n$ and each $1\leq t\leq mn$, the random variable $X_i(t)$ counts the number of cards of type $i$ that are in the remaining $t$ cards.
Fixing a value of $t$ their joint distribution is given by a multivariate hypergeometric distribution
\begin{equation}
\mathbb P(X_1(t)=j_1,\ldots, X_n(t)=j_n)=\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n {m \choose j_i}}{{nm \choose t}}, \quad j_1+\ldots+j_n=t, \quad 0\leq j_i\leq m
\end{equation}
Note that, if it were not for the constraint of having a total of $t$ cards remaining
$$ \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_i(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} j_i=t,$$
the $X_i$ would be independent.
To overcome this issue, we consider $n$ independent and identically distributed random variables $Y_1(t), \ldots, Y_n(t)$ each of which follow an independent binomial distribution
$$Y_i\sim \mbox{Bin}(m,p) \quad \mbox{with}~ p=\frac{t}{mn}.$$
We also introduce their sum
$$\tilde Y(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{n} Y_i(t)$$
 and note that $\tilde Y(t)\sim \mbox{Bin}(mn,p)$.
 We will use the fact that for having $t$ fixed, the distribution of cards can be realized via independent and identical random variables following a binomial distribution and conditioned on having the correct sum (in particular, the binomial random variables are also not yet independent). This well-known characterization of the hypergeometric distribution (see, e.g., \cite{Skibinsky1970}) has a simple proof that we report here for the sake of completeness.\\
\begin{lemma}\label{conditionalrep}
For any $n,m$ and $1\leq t\leq mn$ fixed, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal L(X_1(t),\ldots, X_n(t))=\mathcal L(Y_1(t)\ldots, Y_n(t)|\tilde Y(t)=t),
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{L}$ denotes the law of the random variable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider any $n$-tuple $0\leq j_i\leq m$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n j_i=t$, and let $p=t/mn$. By definition of conditional expectation
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(Y_1(t)=j_1,\ldots, Y_n(t)=j_n|\tilde Y(t)=t)&=\frac{\mathbb P(Y_1(t)=j_1,\ldots, Y_n(t)=j_n)}{\mathbb P(\tilde Y(t)=t)},
\end{align*}
where the condition $\tilde Y(t) = t$ can be omitted because $\sum_{i=1}^n j_i=t$ by design. We can now use the independence of the $Y_i$ to compute
\begin{align*}
   \mathbb P(Y_1(t)=j_1,\ldots, Y_n(t)=j_n) &= \prod_{i=1}^{n} {m \choose j_i}p^{j_i}(1-p)^{m-j_i} \\
   &= p^{\sum_{i=1}^{n} j_i} (1-p)^{mn - \sum_{i=1}^{n} j_i }\prod_{i=1}^{n} {m \choose j_i} \\
   &= p^t (1-p)^{mn - t} \prod_{i=1}^{n} {m \choose j_i}.
\end{align*}
Simultaneously, since $\tilde Y(t)\sim \mbox{Bin}(mn,p)$, we have
$$ \mathbb P(\tilde Y(t)=t) = \binom{mn}{t} p^t (1-p)^{mn-t}$$
from which we deduce the desired statement.
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(Y_1(t)=j_1,\ldots, Y_n(t)=j_n|\tilde Y(t)=t)=\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n {m \choose j_i}}{{nm \choose t}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
We define $\tilde S_{n,m}$ to be the analogue of \eqref{linearita} where we replace the hypergeometric random variables with \textit{independent} binomial random variables, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:better}
\tilde S_{n,m}=\sum_{t=1}^{mn}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i Y_i(t)]}{t}.
\end{equation}
Note that, according to Lemma 1, if we condition the binomial random variables on having the correct sum $t$, we recover the hypergeometric distribution exactly: the purpose of the next Lemma is to show that omitting this conditioning leads to a small error. This will the conclude the first part of the proof, the remainder of which is then dedicated to the study \ref{eq:better}.
\begin{lemma}\label{randomizing}
We have, for some universal $C>0$,
\begin{align*}
|S_{n,m}-\tilde S_{n,m}| \leq C(\sqrt m+\ln n).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Owing to Lemma \eqref{conditionalrep}, we can replace the independent binomial random variables $Y_i$ by hypergeometric random variables $X_i$ provided that we condition on their sum $t$: this allows us to write
\begin{align*}
S_{n,m}-\tilde S_{n,m}&=\sum_{t=1}^m \frac{\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]-\mathbb E[\max_i Y_i(t)]}{t}\\&=\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=1}^{nm}\left(\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]-\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(s)]\right)\mathbb P(\tilde Y(t)=s).
\end{align*}
One would of course now expect that $P(\tilde Y(t)=s)$ is tightly concentrated around its expectation: it thus suffices to understand how quickly the maximum can change for $|t-s|$ relatively small (without loss of generality, we assume from now on $s<t$).
We therefore have to understand the likelihood $\mathbb P\left(\max_i X_i(t+1)>\max_i X_i(t)\right)$. The maximum can only increase if a card is picked that is already maximal before. This suggests on conditioning on the number of types that have appeared a maximal number of times and we note that
\begin{equation}\label{excursion}
\mathbb P\left(\max_i X_i(t+1)>\max_i X_i(t)\Big||\ell: X_{\ell}(t)=\max_j X_j(t)=k|=j\right)=\frac{(m-k)j}{nm-t}\leq \frac{j}{n},
\end{equation}
where we used that
$$ t = \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_i(t) \leq n \max_{1 \leq i \leq n} X_i(t)$$
implying
$$ k = \max_{1\leq i \leq n} X_i(t) \geq\frac{t}{n}.$$
The only case in which \eqref{excursion} is saturated is the configuration in which $j$ cards appear with multiplicity $k$, and all other cards appear with multiplicity $k-1$.  In this case the maximum increases with probability precisely $j/n$.
One way of seeing this is as follows: if the other cards had only appeared rarely up to that point,  we would be more likely to pick one of these cards since there are still more of them in the pile. The most likely transition to a new maximum happens if the chance of picking a card that is already chosen a maximal number of times is greatest. \\

We will now present an argument which, implicitly, works under the assumption that we are constantly in the worst case setting described above (in a suitable sense). We  introduce a Markov chain whose role is to keep track of the number of different types of cards whose current occurence is given by maximal multiplicity $\max_{i} X_i(t)$. Note that, in particular, if the maximum increases then there exists exactly one card which arises with maximal multiplicity and the counter drops back to 1. The Markov chain will be
operating on the state space $\{1,\ldots, n\}$: it is possible to move from each point $j$ to either $j+1$ or back to $1$. The corresponding transition probabilities $q_{i,j}$ are given by
\begin{align*}
q_{j, j+1}=\frac{n-j}{n} \quad \mbox{and} \quad  q_{j,1}=\frac{j}{n}  \quad \mbox{for} \qquad 1\leq j\leq n.
\end{align*}
The further the Markov chain is from 1, the more likely it is to return to 1 (corresponding to uncovering a new maximum). We also observe that the Markov chain is more likely to return to 1 than we are to uncover a new maximum (because the card deck will not always be in the worst case scenario assumed above): more formally, for all $1\leq k\leq m$, $1\leq t\leq mn$ and $1\leq j\leq j'\leq n$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb P\left(\max_i X_i(t+1)>\max_i X_i(t)\Big||\ell: X_{\ell}(t)=\max_j X_j(t)=k|=j\right)\leq q_{j,1}\leq q_{j',1}, \quad
\end{align*}
The number of times at which $\max X_i(t)$ changes are bounded above by the number $N_{t-s}$ of excursions away from $1$ of the Markov chain.
 In particular,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]-\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(s)]\leq \mathbb E[N_{t-s}].
\end{align*}
It thus remains to understand how often the Markov chain is going to hit the state 1.
Let now $T$ be the time to return back to the origin for the Markov chain $Z$. Renewal theory suggest that the latter should be approximately $(t-s)\mathbb E[T]$ for $t-s$ large. This is made precise in \cite{renewal}, whose result gives the estimate
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[N_{t-s}]\leq \frac{t-s}{\mathbb E[T]}+O\left(\frac{\mathbb E[T^2]}{(\mathbb E[T])^2}\right).
\end{align*}
Note that $T$ is nothing but the expected time to observe a birthday coincidence in the classical birthday problem. In particular,
$$\mathbb P(T\geq s)=\left(1-\frac{s}{n}\right)\ldots \left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)$$
and using the estimate
\begin{align*}
\exp\left(-\frac{s^2}{2n}+O\left(\frac{s^3}{n^2}\right)\right)\leq \left(1-\frac{s}{n}\right)\ldots \left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)\leq \exp\left(-\frac{s^2}{2n}\right),
\end{align*}
we obtain the well-known results
$\mathbb E[T]=\Omega(\sqrt n)$ and $\mathbb E[T^2]=O(n)$
and thus
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(t)]-\mathbb E[\max_i X_i(s)]=O\left(\frac{t-s}{\sqrt n}+1\right).
\end{align*}
This implies
\begin{align*}
|S_{n,m}-\tilde S_{n,m}|&=O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=1}^{mn}\mathbb |t-s|P(\tilde Y(t)=s)+\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{1}{t}\right).
\end{align*}
The second sum can be bounded by $\ln{(mn)}$. As for the first sum, we first note that by Cauchy-Schwarz for any random variable
$$ \mathbb{E} \left| X - \mathbb{E}X \right| \leq \sqrt{\mathbb{V} X}.$$
We also observe that $\tilde Y(t)\sim \mbox{Bin}(nm,p)$ with $p=t/nm$ has standard deviation $\sqrt{mnp(1-p)}$
and thus
$$ \sum_{s=1}^{mn}\mathbb |t-s|P(\tilde Y(t)=s) \leq \sqrt{m n p (1-p)}.$$
This simplifies the first sum and leads to the desired bound since
\begin{align*}
    \frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=1}^{mn}\mathbb |t-s|P(\tilde Y(t)=s) &\leq     \frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{1}{t} \sqrt{mn p (1-p)} \\
    &=\sqrt m\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{1}{t} \sqrt{\frac{t}{mn} \left(1 - \frac{t}{mn}\right)} \\
    &\leq c\sqrt{m} \int_0^1 \frac{1}{x}\sqrt{x(1-x)} dx \leq C \sqrt{m}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\subsection{The independent case}\label{sec3} It now suffices to analyze
$$\tilde S_{n,m}=\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i Y_i(t)]}{t}$$
where the $Y_i$ are \textit{independent} binomial random variables and
$$Y_i\sim \mbox{Bin}(m,p) \quad \mbox{with}~ p=\frac{t}{mn}.$$
We start by rescaling these random variables by shifting them to have mean 0: we let $\overline Y_i(t)=Y_i(t)-t/n$ which reduces our problem to the study of
\begin{equation}\label{tails}
\tilde S_{n,m}=m+\sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t}.
\end{equation}
These binomial random variables are well approximated by a normal distributions in regions where their variance is not too small: this naturally suggests splitting the problem into different regions. We write, for some $ 0 < s=s_{n,m} \ll 1$ to be determined later (which will ultimately tend to 0 at a suitable rate),
\begin{align*}
\tilde S_{n,m} =m &+ \sum_{t=snm}^{(1-s)nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t} \\
&+\sum_{t=1}^{s nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t} +
\sum_{t= (1-s) nm}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t}.
\end{align*}
We  treat the first sum by comparing with a normal distribution. The two remaining sums are tail events that will be treated separately. We start with the tail events.\\

\textbf{The tail sums.}
In order to deal with the tails, we just need an upper bound of the right order, but we can afford to lose a factor of $\sqrt{1-p}$. This follows from a Chernoff type argument: for all $\theta>0$, by linearity of expectation,
\begin{align*}
 \exp{\{\theta \mathbb ~\mathbb{E}[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]\}} &\leq  \sum_{i=1}^{n} \exp{\{\theta~ \mathbb E[ \overline Y_i(t)]\}} \\
&=
n\exp{\{\theta~ \mathbb{E}[\overline Y_1(t)]\}}\leq n(1-p+pe^{\theta})^me^{-\theta m},
\end{align*}
so that taking logarithm of both sides and using $\ln(1+x)\leq x$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]\leq \frac{\ln n}{\theta}+\frac{mp}{\theta}(e^{\theta}-1)-m.
\end{align*}
We start with the case where $p$ is close to 0, which is the hardest to deal with since it is the time where the feedback is the most relevant. This allows for many extra correct guesses owing to the detailed knowledge of the composition of the deck -- captured by the logarithmic singularity close to $t=0$ in \eqref{tails}. However, we deal with that considering the choice
\begin{align*}
\theta=\sqrt{\frac{2\ln n}{m}}\left(\ln\frac{1}{p}\right)^{1+\varepsilon}
\end{align*}
Since $p = t/(mn) \geq 1/(mn)$ we deduce
$$\ln \frac{1}{p}\leq \ln n+\ln m$$ and thus
\begin{align*}
\theta=O\left(\sqrt{\frac{(\ln n+\ln m)^{3+2\varepsilon}}{m}}\right)=o(1)
\end{align*}
using the main assumption on $m$ and $n$ from the Main Theorem. Since $\theta$ is tending to 0, we can replace the exponential function $e^{\theta}$ by a second order Taylor expansion and
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]&\leq \frac{\ln n}{\theta}+\frac{mp\theta}{2}+o(\theta)\\&=O\left(\sqrt{m\ln n}\left[\left(\ln\frac{1}{p}\right)^{-1-\varepsilon}+p\left(\ln\frac{1}{p}\right)^{1+\varepsilon}\right]\right)\\
&= O\left( \sqrt{m\ln n}\left(\ln\frac{1}{p}\right)^{-1-\varepsilon} \right).
\end{align*}
Therefore, we conclude
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^{s nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t} &\lesssim \sqrt{m \ln{n}} \sum_{t=1}^{s m n} \frac{1}{t} \left(\ln \frac{mn}{t} \right)^{-1 - \varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
Comparing to the integral, we have
$$\sum_{t=1}^{s m n} \frac{1}{t} \left(\ln \frac{mn}{t} \right)^{-1 - \varepsilon} \lesssim \int_0^{s} \frac{1}{x} \left(\ln \frac{1}{x} \right)^{-1 - \varepsilon} dx.$$
The integrand has an antiderivative in closed form
$$ \int \frac{1}{x} \left(\ln \frac{1}{x} \right)^{-1 - \varepsilon} dx = \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \left( \ln\frac{1}{x} \right)^{-\varepsilon}$$
allowing us to deduce that
$$ \int_0^{s} \frac{1}{x} \left(\ln \frac{1}{x} \right)^{-1 - \varepsilon} dx =\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \left( \ln \frac{1}{s} \right)^{-\varepsilon}$$
which, for fixed $\varepsilon$ tends to 0 provided that $s$ tends to 0. In the second regime, $p$ close to 1, we choose
\begin{align*}
\theta=\sqrt{\frac{2\ln n}{m}}
\end{align*}
which is guaranteed to converge to 0 as $m,n \rightarrow \infty$. A Taylor expansion and the observation $p\leq 1$ shows
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]\leq \frac{\ln n}{\theta}+\frac{mp\theta}{2}+o(\theta)=O(\sqrt{m\ln n}).
\end{align*}
From here, we conclude since
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=(1-s)mn}^{ nm -1}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t} &\lesssim \sqrt{m \ln{n}} \sum_{t=(1-s)mn}^{m n -1}\frac{1}{t} \lesssim s \sqrt{m\ln n}
\end{align*}
which again tends to 0 as $s \rightarrow 0$.
\subsection{The main term}
As for the main term, we need sharp asymptotics for the maximum of independent binomials. This amounts to controlling their tail probabilities. The following is a corollary of a more general result by Feller \cite{feller}.
\begin{lemma}[Feller \cite{feller}]\label{fellermagic}
Let $Y_{i}(t) \sim \emph{Bin}(m,p)$ be i.i.d. and $p = t/(nm)$. Let
\begin{align*}
Z_i(t)=\frac{Y_i(t)-mp}{\sqrt{mp(1-p)}}
\end{align*}
and assume that $p, 1-p\geq s_{n,m}$, where $s=s_{n,m}$ is chosen so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\ln^3n}{ms(1-s)}=o(1), \quad \frac{m^{6/7}}{ms(1-s)}=o(1).
\end{align*}
Then, one has
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max Z_i(t)]= \sqrt{2\ln n} + \mathcal{O}(1)
\end{align*}
with a uniform error bound on all such $p$s.
\end{lemma}
The assumption in the Main Theorem guarantees that we can find a sequence
$s_{n,m}=m^{-\varepsilon'}$ for some $\varepsilon'=\varepsilon'(\varepsilon)$ sufficiently small. Therefore, we will use the notation $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ to indicate that the error will be a function of $\varepsilon$.
\begin{proof}
We follow the notation of Theorem $1$ by Feller \cite{feller} applied to binomial random variables, which gives an uniform estimate
\begin{align*}
\mathbb P(Z_i(t)\geq x)=(1-\Phi(x))\left(1+O\left(\frac{x^3}{\sqrt{mp(1-p)}}\right)\right)
\end{align*}
where $\Phi$ denotes the cumulative distribution of a standard normal random variable.
In particular, for $x=\sqrt{2\ln n}$ the error is small by our assumption and we can write the error term as $o_{\varepsilon}(1)$. Using, for $x=\sqrt{2\ln n}$, the elementary estimate
\begin{align*}
n(1-\Phi(x))=n\frac{e^{-x^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}x}\left(1+O\left(1/x^2\right)\right)\geq \frac{c}{\sqrt{\ln n}},
\end{align*}
for some absolute constant $c$ and all $n\geq 2$, we derive the bound
\begin{align*}
\mathbb P(\max Z_i(t)\leq x)&=\left(\mathbb P(Z_i(t)\leq x)\right)^n\\&=\left(1-\frac{n\mathbb P(Z_i(t)\geq x)}{n}\right)^n\\&=1-O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln n}}(1+o_{\varepsilon}(1))\right)
\end{align*}
From this, we get a lower bound on expectation
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max Z_i(t)]&\geq x \cdot \mathbb P(\max \mathbb Z_i\leq x)=\sqrt{2\ln n}+O_{\varepsilon}(1).
\end{align*}
As for the upper bound, we slightly extend the range and consider values of $x$ up to $x\leq \sqrt{2(\ln n+m^{1/7})}$. This range is still admissible since
$$\frac{x^3}{\sqrt{mp(1-p)}}\rightarrow 0$$
owing to our assumptions. Using the standard bound
$$ 1 - \Phi(x) \leq \frac{e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi} x}$$
for cumulative distribution function of the Gaussian, we infer that if $x=\sqrt{2(\ln n+c)}$ for some $0\leq c\leq m^{1/7}$, then
\begin{align*}
n(1-\Phi(x))\leq \frac{ne^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}x}=O\left(\frac{e^{-c}}{\sqrt{2\ln n}}\right)
\end{align*}
from which we obtain
\begin{align*}
n \cdot\mathbb P(Z_i(t)\geq x)= n(1-\Phi(x))(1+o_{\varepsilon}(1))=O_{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{e^{-c}}{\sqrt{\ln n}}\right).
\end{align*}
In order to bound the expectation, let $$M=\sqrt{m\max\left(\frac{1-p}{p},\frac{p}{1-p}\right)}$$
be the maximum value of $|Z_i|$ Notice that, for instance, $M\leq m$ owing to our assumption on $p$ and $1-p$. Then we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max Z_i(t)]&\leq \int_0^{M}\mathbb P(\max Z_i(t)\geq x)dx\\&\leq \sqrt{2\ln n}+\int_{{\sqrt{2\ln n}}}^{\sqrt{2\ln n+m^{1/7}}}n\mathbb P(Z_i(t)\geq x)dx+Me^{-m^{1/7}}
\end{align*}
The last term is certainly $o(1)$, while a change of variable shows that the second term is
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\sqrt{2\ln n}}}^{\sqrt{2\ln n+m^{1/7}}}n\mathbb P(Z_i(t)\geq x)dx=O_{\varepsilon}\left( \int_0^{\infty}\frac{e^{-c}}{\sqrt{2\ln n+c}}dc\right)=O_{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln n}}\right).
\end{align*}
Collecting all the pieces, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[\max_i Z_i(t)]=\sqrt{2\ln n}+O_{\varepsilon}(1).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of the Main Result} \label{prooof}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{fellermagic}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\left[\max_i Y_i(t)-\frac{t}{n}\right] = \sqrt{m p(1-p)} \sqrt{2 \ln n } + \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m p(1-p)})
\end{align*}
with error term uniform for all $p, 1-p\geq s\rightarrow 0$. Combining Lemma \ref{randomizing} with the control on the tail, we have
\begin{align*}
    S_{n,m}-m  &=   \tilde S_{n,m}-m  + \mathcal{O}(\sqrt m+\ln n)\\
    &= \sum_{t=1}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i Y_i(t)]}{t} - m + \mathcal{O}(\sqrt m+\ln n)\\
    &= \sum_{t= 1}^{nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t}+ \mathcal{O}(\sqrt m+\ln n).
\end{align*}
At this point, we split the sum into the three regions
$$ \sum_{t=1}^{mn} = \sum_{t=1}^{smn} + \sum_{t=smn}^{(1-s)mn} + \sum_{t=(1-s)mn}^{mn}.$$
As was shown in Section \S 2.3, as long as $s \rightarrow 0$, the first and the third sum
are $o(\sqrt{m \ln{n}})$. The sum in the middle, provided $s$ does not tend to 0 too quickly,
will then contribute
$$ \sum_{t= smn}^{(1-s)nm}\frac{\mathbb E[\max_i \overline Y_i(t)]}{t} = \left(1+\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln{n}}}\right)\right)\sum_{t= smn}^{(1-s)nm}\frac{ \sqrt{m p(1-p)} \sqrt{2 \ln n } }{t}.$$
The sum can now be simplified to
$$ \sum_{t= smn}^{(1-s)nm}\frac{ \sqrt{m p(1-p)} \sqrt{2 \ln n } }{t} = \sqrt{2 m \ln{n}} \sum_{t= smn}^{(1-s)nm}\frac{ \sqrt{ p(1-p)}  }{t} $$
which, recalling $p = t/mn$ leads, as $s \rightarrow 0$, to the Riemann sum
$$\int_0^1\sqrt{\frac{1-p}{p}}dp = \frac{\pi}{2}.$$
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We warmly thank Persi Diaconis for suggesting the problem and for some useful references.
 \bibliographystyle{abbrv}

Probability (math.PR); Combinatorics (math.CO)

Guessing cards with complete feedback