\section{Introduction}

The discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC completed the spectrum predicted by the Standard Model (SM). Although the
measured properties of this $125\,\hbox{GeV}$  scalar strongly favour those of the SM Higgs (corresponding to a weak isodoublet
with $Y=1/2$), we are yet to pin them down fully, with the data still allowing $\gtrsim O(10\%)$ $1$$\sigma$ differences
(assuming Gaussian errors) from the SM predictions \cite{Workman:2022ynf}.

A statistically significant deviation of the Higgs couplings form the SM predictions would provide strong evidence of new physics (NP), which is often parameterized by
the signal-strength coefficients $ \kappa_X $, that take the value $\kappa_X = 1$ in the SM. Accordingly, most studies
look for evidence of NP in deviations from this value. However, if NP is present, there is no reason to believe that its only (or main) effect will be to modify the $ \kappa_X $,
in general, the process used to measure the couplings $\kappa_X$ will also be affected by other NP effects.

Therefore a general study of the experimental sensitivity to the $ \kappa_X$ must also include all possible NP effects relevant to the processes under consideration,
which is often more significant than the modification of $\kappa_X$ from its SM prediction. Taking into account these other NP effects can significantly alter the limits on $ \kappa_X$;
ignoring them leads to limits on the $ \kappa_X$ that are relevant only for very limited types of NP.

The purpose of this note is to illustrate these issues and analyze their consequences for the special case of an LHC process that is well-suited to measure the
Higgs-top quark signal strength $ \kappa_{\tt t}$ which is not yet well constrained, $ |\kappa_{\tt t}| < 1.7 $ at 95\% C.L. (assuming no other NP effects),
and even its sign (relative to that of the $WWh$ coupling) is unknown \cite{Workman:2022ynf} . The main channels through which the Higgs-top Yukawa coupling
$\kappa_{\tt t}$ can be accessed are Higgs production via gluon fusion, $ht\bar{t}$ production, and $ h \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ decay. However, apart from
$ h \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ decay, none of them are sensitive to the relative sign between $ht\bar{t}$ and $WWh$ couplings. Moreover, the gluon fusion and
the $ht\bar{t}$ production receive significant higher order QCD corrections \cite{CMS:2020cga}; while the Higgs to photon decay
process is suppressed since it is generated only at one loop.

These problems are not shared by Higgs production in association with single-top, which is sensitive to the magnitude and sign of
$ \kappa_{\tt t}$ \cite{Biswas:2012bd, Farina:2012xp}. In the SM there are two relevant graphs (\cref{fig:SM.thj}), one proportional to $\kappa_{\tt t} $
and the other to the $hWW$ coupling $g_{\tt hww} $, so the cross-section will be particularly sensitive to the relative sign and magnitude of these two couplings.
Moreover, the SM predicts that the two contributing diagrams will interfere destructively, making this process also sensitive to NP effects.
In the following, we will study this process, which we refer to as $thj$ ($j$ denotes the light jet in the final state), as a probe of NP.

\begin{figure}
$$
\includegraphics[height=6.0cm]{SM.png}
$$
\caption{SM contributions to $t$-channel single-top production in association with a Higgs boson at the LHC.}
\label{fig:SM.thj}
\end{figure}

It was shown in \cite{Biswas:2012bd, Farina:2012xp} that, absent any NP effects, the $thj$ cross-section increases significantly when $\kappa_{\tt t}$ takes
large negative values. The present LHC data also confirms the exclusion of $\kappa_{\tt t} < -0.9$ \cite{CMS:2018jeh}.
The theoretical cross-section for $thj$ production in the absence of other NP effects can be parametrized in terms of $\kappa_t$ and $\kappa_{\tt w}$
at NLO using {\sf MADGRAPH5@MC@NLO} \cite{Alwall:2011uj} as follows,
\beq
\sigma_{thj}=(2.63\kappa_{\tt t}^2+3.58\kappa_{\tt w}^2-5.21\kappa_{\tt t}\kappa_{\tt w})\sigma^{\rm SM}_{thj}\,, \qquad \kappa_{\tt w} = \frac{g_{\tt hww}}{g\up{\rm SM}_{\tt hww}}\,.
\eeq

 In this analysis we consider all the effective (EFT) operators upto dimension six  \cite{Grzadkowski:2010es} that contribute to the $thj$ production at LHC. Significant contribution arises
only from those which are potentially tree generated (PTG) \cite{Einhorn:2013kja}, while the operators that are loop generated (LG) suffers additional suppression and are neglected.
Similar studies have been done \cite{Degrande:2018fog}, but neglecting the four fermi operator contribution, which turns out critical in our analysis. A correlation between the
operators that contribute to both $pp \rightarrow tHq$ and $pp \rightarrow tq$ has been performed in \cite{Cao:2021wcc}. The change in the existing bound on $\kappa_{\tt t}$ in presence of these EFT operators,
in particular the four fermi operator in context of the present LHC data and at future sensitivities are highlighted in the present work.

Our analysis involves state-of-the-art simulation techniques using both cut-based as well as machine learning (ML) analyses. We point out the key kinematic variables
that are likely to segregate the signal including EFT operators from that of the SM background contamination. We set limits on the EFT operator coefficients, subject to the
NP scale, which is likely to be excluded in future luminosities.

The paper is organised as follows: we discuss the EFT operators that contributes to $thj$ production at LHC in section \ref{sec:EFT},
bound on the EFT parameters from existing LHC data in section \ref{sec:bounds}, signal significance and limits at future luminosities in section \ref{sec:reach} and
conclude in section \ref{sec:summary}.

\section{EFT operators in context of $thj$ production at the LHC}
\label{sec:EFT}
Assuming (as we will) that the NP is not directly observed, all NP effects are parameterized by a series of effective operators. It is well known \cite{Einhorn:2013kja} that there is no
unique basis of such operators, but that all such bases are related through the equivalence theorem \cite{Arzt:1993gz}; here we choose the so-called Warsaw
basis \cite{Grzadkowski:2010es}. Though we do not specify the details of the physics underlying the SM, we will assume that it is weakly coupled and decoupling.

Under these circumstances, it is relevant to differentiate operators according to whether they are generated at 1 or higher loops by the new physics (loop-generated or LG operators),
or whether they can be generated at tree level (potentially tree-generated or PTG operators) \cite{Einhorn:2013kja}. This separation is useful because the Wilson coefficients of LG
operators are necessarily suppressed by a factor $ \sim 1/(4\pi)^2 \sim 0.006 $, so that their effects will be generally negligible given the existing experimental precision~\footnote{
There are notable exceptions: SM processes that occur only at one loop, such as $ h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$; and reactions strongly suppressed by small CKM and PMNS matrix elements.};
in contrast, PTG operators can have $\mathcal{O}(1) $ Wilson coefficients. It is important to note that LG operators are loop generated by {\em any} kind of NP~\footnote{Assuming
this NP is described by a local gauge theory containing scalar, fermions and vector fields.}, while PTG operators are generated at the tree level by at least one type of NP, though
it may be that the NP realized in nature does not share this property. Nonetheless, PTG operators offer the best opportunities for testing in the presence of a wide class of NP.

The SM quark-level amplitude leading to the $thj$ final state are given in Fig. \ref{fig:SM.thj}. When NP effects are included, the cross-section contains three terms: the pure SM contribution,
an NP-SM interference term, and a pure NP term. Contributions involving NP will be suppressed by powers of the NP scale, which we denote by $ \Lambda $; for the case at hand the
interference term is $ \propto 1/\Lambda^2$ while the pure NP term is $ \propto 1/\Lambda^4 $. We will assume that $ \Lambda > \smvev \sim 250\, \hbox{GeV}$ so that the leading effects
will come from the interference term.

We are then interested in those effective operators that are PTG and can interfere with the SM amplitude in the $thj$ process. It follows from the structure of the SM contribution that of the effective operators containing quarks, only those with left-handed light quarks (including the $b$) need be considered. With this in mind the operators we include are:
\bal
{\cal O}_{\phi\Box} &= |\phi|^2   \Box |\phi|^2\,,\nonumber\\[6pt]
{\cal O}_{t\phi} &= |\phi|^2(\bar q_t t_R \tilde\phi)  + \text{H.c.}\,,\nonumber\\[6pt]
{\cal O}_{qq}\up1 &= (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu q_u)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu q_t)\,, \nonumber\\[6pt]
{\cal O}_{qq;\,1}\up3 &= (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu \tau^I q_t)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu \tau^I q_u)\,, \nonumber\\[6pt]
{\cal O}_{qq;\,2}\up3 &= (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu \tau^I q_u)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu \tau^I q_t)\,, \nonumber\\[6pt]
{\cal O}_{\phi q}\up3 &= (\bar q_t \tau^I \gamma^\mu q_t) (\phi^\dagger i \tau^I D_\mu \phi ) + \text{H.c.}\,.
\label{eq:contributing.ops}
\end{align}
where $ \phi$ denotes the SM scalar doublet; $q_t\,,q_u$ the top-bottom and up-down left-handed quark doublets, respectively; $t_R$ the right-handed top singlet; and $ \tau^I$ the Pauli matrices. We also note that  are two additional 4-fermions operators that contribute to the process of interest and interfere with the SM, but these are Fierz-equivalent to the ones listed (see section \ref{sec:EFT.validity}).

The relevant effective Lagrangian is then
\bal
{\cal L}_{\tt eff} &=
\frac{\wc_{\tt h}}{\Lambda^2} {\cal O}_{\phi\Box} +
\frac{\wc_{\tt t}}{\Lambda^2} {\cal O}_{u\phi}  +
\inv{\Lambda^2}  \left[ \wc_{qq}\up1 {\cal O}_{qq}\up1 + \wc_{qq;\,1}\up3 {\cal O}_{qq;\,1}\up3 + \wc_{qq;\,2}\up3 {\cal O}_{qq;\,2}\up3 \right]
+ \frac{\wc_{\tt w}}{\Lambda^2}  {\cal O}_{\phi q}\up3
+ \text{H.c.} \,;
\nonumber\\[6pt]
&=\frac{2\wc_{\tt h} \smvev^2}{\Lambda^2} h  \Box h+
\frac{ \wc_{\tt t} \smvev^2}{\sqrt{2}\, \Lambda^2} h (\bar t t )  + \frac{\wc_{\tt 4f}}{\Lambda^2} \left[ (\bar d_L \gamma_\mu u_L) (\bar t_L \gamma^\mu b_L) + \text{H.c.}  \right] \cr
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad +
\frac{\sqrt{2}\, g \wc_{\tt w}  }{\Lambda^2} (h + \smvev)^2 \left( \bar t_L \slashed{W}^+ b_L + \text{H.c.} \right) \,;
\label{eq:leff}
\end{align}
where we assumed the operator coefficients are real and
\beq
\wc_{\tt 4f} = \inv3 \wc_{qq}\up1  + 2 \wc_{qq;\,1}\up3   -\inv3 \wc_{qq;\,2}\up3 \,.
\eeq

A few comments are in order:
\bit
\item The  term $ \propto \wc_{\tt t}$ modifies the top Yukawa coupling: $ m_{\tt t}/\smvev \rightarrow (m_{\tt t}/\smvev) \kappa_{\tt t} $ with  $ \kappa_{\tt t} =  1  - \wc_{\tt t} \smvev^3/(\sqrt{2}\,\Lambda^2 m_{\tt t}) $; in the current context the top-quark signal strength for the Higgs is then $ \kappa_{\tt t}   \simeq1- \wc_{\tt t} (250 \, \hbox{GeV}/\Lambda)^2 $. Investigations (see {\it e.g.} \cite{CMS:2018jeh}) that place limits on the value of $ \kappa_{\tt t}$  without considering any other possible NP effects are  {\it de facto} ignoring all but $ {\cal O}_{t\phi}$ contributions. It is also worth noting that for natural values, $ \wc_{\tt t} = \mathcal{O}(1) $, and $ \Lambda > 1.5\,\hbox{TeV} $, $ |\kappa_{\tt t}-1| \lesssim 0.03 $, which gives the precision required to probe physics beyond the electroweak scale associated with  $ {\cal O}_{t\phi}$.

\item The  term $ \propto \wc_{\tt w}$  introduces $ Wtb h$ and $ Wtb h^2 $ interactions, and also modifies  the  $Wtb$ coupling, which now becomes $(g/\sqrt{2})(1 + 2 \wc_{\tt w} \smvev^2/\Lambda^2)$; current (3-$\sigma$) limits on the $t$ lifetime then imply $\Lambda/\sqrt{\wc_{\tt w}} > 0.9 $ TeV.

\item We do not include operators that modify the $Wud$ vertex since the current measurements of the hadronic width of the $W$ are precise enough to ensure that such effects, if present, would be unobservable in the $thj$ final state we consider, given the expected precision to which this reaction will be measured. We also ignored all flavor-changing operators and neglected all Yukawa-type interactions but those of the top quark.

\item The  term $ \propto \wc_{\tt h}$ requires a (finite) wave-function renormalization of the Higgs field, $ h \rightarrow (1  + \wc_{\tt h} \smvev^2/\Lambda^2) h $, under which all Higgs couplings are modified by the same factor \cite{Einhorn:2013tja}. This operator is generated at tree level by the exchange of either a heavy scalar neutral isosinglet or a scalar isotriplet. For simplicity, in the following we will ignore this operator; our main goal is to show that the introduction of operators other than  ${\cal O}_{t\phi} $ (as required in an unbiased application of the EFT formalism) can significantly modify the limits on $\kappa_{\tt t}$, and for this it is sufficient to include $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ and $\wc_{\tt w} $ (though, as we will show, the effects of the latter are small). Thus in the discussion below we assume $ \wc_{\tt h} =0$ for simplicity.

\eit

\begin{figure}
$$
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{EFT1.png}
$$
$$
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{EFT2.png}
$$
\vspace{0cm}
\caption{NP-induced vertices (shown by red blob) contributing to single-top production in association with a Higgs at the LHC.}
\label{fig:NP.thj}
\end{figure}

The NP effects we consider modify the $tth$ and $Wtb$ vertices in Fig. \ref{fig:SM.thj} and generate the additional graphs in
Fig. \ref{fig:NP.thj}. We assume $ \mathcal{O}(1) $ values for the Wilson coefficients and absorb $ |\wc_{\tt w}| $ in the definition of
$ \Lambda$ (that is, we define the scale of NP of that the coefficient of $ {\cal O}_{\phi q}\up3 $ is $ \pm 1/\Lambda^2 $ so that our model parameters are
\beq
\text{ NP parameters:}~\{\wc_{\tt 4f} ,\,\wc_{\tt w} = \pm1,  \kappa_{\tt t}, \Lambda\}\,,
\eeq
where we use $ \kappa_{\tt t} $ instead of $ \wc_{\tt t} $ to allow easier comparison with the existing literature.

It is one of the goals of the present investigation to determine the extent to which the presence of non vanishing values of $ \wc_{\tt 4f,\,w}$  affects the determination of $ \kappa_{\tt t} $.

\subsection{Constraints on EFT Operator coefficients}

There are several existing limits on the Wilson coefficients we consider. It is worth noting, however, that these may be conservative as they are often derived by assuming that a
restricted number of effective operators are present.

\bit
\item CMS~\cite{CMS:2016uzc} obtains the following  exclusion limit using data from the $7$ and $8$ TeV LHC:
\beq
\frac{\smvev^2}{\Lambda^2} |\wc_{\tt w}| < 0.03 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad}  \Lambda  > 1.4\,\hbox{TeV}~~ (\wc_{\tt w} = \mathcal{O}(1))\,.
\eeq
that is comparable to the errors in $|V_{\tt tb}|$ from CMS for the $13$ TeV LHC \cite{CMS:2020vac}. This limit is obtained assuming the presence only
of an EFT correction to the $Wtb$ vertex, and will be degraded it the  effects of other operators are included.

\item The low energy constraints from $B$ physics \cite{Kozachuk:2020mwa} give
\beq
-0.10 < \frac{\smvev^2}{\Lambda^2} \wc_{\tt w} < 0.15 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad} \Lambda > 780 - 640 \,\hbox{GeV} ~~ (\wc_{\tt w} = \mathcal{O}(1))\,.
\eeq

\item The $ t\rightarrow bud$ width receives a contribution from ${\cal O}\up3_{qq}$ and $ {\cal O}\up3_{\phi q}$:
\beq
\Gamma(t\rightarrow bud) = \frac{m_{\tt t} g^4 I_1 }{2(8\pi)^3} \left[  V_{\tt tb}^2 + 2 b_{\tt r} + 2 a_{\tt r} \frac{I_2}{I_1} - 2 \gamma  a_{\tt i}  \right] + \mathcal{O}(1/\Lambda^4)\,,
\eeq
where $g$ is the $\su2_L$ gauge coupling, $ \gamma = \Gamma_{\tt w}/m_{\tt w}\simeq0.026,\,r = m_{\tt w}/m_{\tt t} \simeq 0.46$,
\beq
a_{\tt r} + i a_{\tt i} = \frac{2 \smvev^2 }{\Lambda^2} \wc_{\tt 4f}\,; \qquad
b_{\tt r} = \frac{2 \smvev^2}{\Lambda^2} {\bf Re} \wc_{\tt w}\,;
\eeq
and~\footnote{To $O(1/\Lambda^2)$ the width does not depend on ${\bf Im} \wc_{\tt w}$.}
\bal
I_1 &= \inv{\gamma r^2} \left\{ \pi + \arctan \left[\frac\gamma{(1+\gamma^2)r^2 - 1} \right]\right\} \simeq 553.6\,, \nonumber\\[6pt]
I_2 &= \inv{2r^2} \ln \left[ \frac{(1-1/r^2)^2 + \gamma^2}{1+ \gamma^2} \right] \simeq 5.9\,.
\end{align}
The sensitivity to $a_{\tt i} $ is much diminished because it appears multiplied by $ \gamma$, the sensitivity to $ a_{\tt r}$ is also small because $I_1 \gg I_2 $ ($I_1$ gives the leading $ \propto 1/\gamma$ contribution in the limit $ \gamma \rightarrow 0 $). The $3\sigma$ error in the width is about 40\%; applying this to each coefficient separately~\footnote{These limits do not hold if there are cancellations.}
\beq
|a_{\tt i}| < 7\,,\quad |a_{\tt r}|<19\,, \quad |b_{\tt r}|<0.2\,.
\eeq
For $\mathcal{O}(1)$ coefficients this gives $ \Lambda > 130\,\hbox{GeV},\,80\,\hbox{GeV},\,780\,\hbox{GeV}$ respectively.

\item Higgs production cross-section is sensitive to $\wc_{\tt t}$ and $ \wc_{\tt h}$. The contribution from these effective operators gives
\beq
\sigma_{\tt h} = \left( 1 +  \frac{\sqrt{2}\smvev^3}{m_{\tt t}\, \Lambda^2} \wc_{\tt t} +  \frac{2\smvev^2}{\Lambda^2} \wc_{\tt h} \right) \sigma_{\tt h} \up{\tt SM}\,,
\eeq
where we assumed $ \wc_{\tt t} $ real. The $ 3 \sigma $ error on this cross-section is $ \sim 20\% $ that translates into $ \Lambda > 780\,\hbox{GeV} $ for $ \wc_{\tt t,\,h} = \mathcal{O}(1)$ (and no cancellations).

\item The coefficient $ \wc_{\tt h} $ is also constrained by the $ h \rightarrow ZZ^*,\,WW^*$ decay widths \cite{Einhorn:2013tja}:
\beq
\frac{\Gamma(h\rightarrow ZZ^*)}{\Gamma_{\tt SM}(h\rightarrow ZZ^*)} = \frac{\Gamma(h\rightarrow WW^*)}{\Gamma_{\tt SM}(h\rightarrow WW^*)} = 1 + \frac{v^2}{\Lambda^2} \wc_{\tt h}\,.
\eeq
The $ZZ^*$ and $WW^*$ widths have $3\sigma$ uncertainties of $\sim25\%$ and $\sim30\%$, respectively, which give $\Lambda > 500 \,\hbox{GeV},\, 450\, \hbox{GeV} $, when $ |\wc_{\tt h}| \sim 1 $.

\eit

\subsection{Validity of the EFT approximation}
\label{sec:EFT.validity}

Under the current assumptions of a weakly-coupled and decoupling heavy physics, the fundamental limitation in using an EFT approximation is the
condition that the typical energy is smaller than $ \Lambda $, for otherwise, the experiment(s) under consideration would have sufficient energy to
directly create the new heavy particles. However, in order to impose this condition, the definition of `typical' energy requires some clarification.

Consider, for example, the 4-fermion vertex $(\bar d_L \gamma_\mu u_L)(\bar t_L \gamma^\mu b_L)$ derived from the 4-fermion operators in
\cref{eq:contributing.ops}. As noted in that section, there are other operators that generate the same vertex, but these are Fierz-equivalent to
those in \cref{eq:contributing.ops}; explicitly
\bal
{\cal O}_{qq}\up{8;\,1} &= (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu T^A  q_u)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu T^A  q_t) = \frac23 {\cal O}_{qq}\up1 - {\cal O}_{qq;\,1}\up3 - {\cal O}'  \,,\nonumber\\[6pt]
{\cal O}_{qq}\up{8;\,3} &= (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu T^A \tau^I q_u)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu T^A \tau^I q_t) = \frac23  {\cal O}_{qq;\,2}\up3 +  {\cal O}_{qq;\,1}\up3 - {\cal O}' \,,
\label{eq:other.ops}
\end{align}
where $ {\cal O}' = (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu  q_t)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu  q_u) $.

It is worth noting that neither $ {\cal O}' $ nor the two related operators $ (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu T^A \tau^I q_t)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu T^A \tau^I q_u) $ and $ (\bar q_t \gamma_\mu T^A \tau^I q_t)(\bar q_u \gamma^\mu T^A \tau^I q_u) $ produce a vertex $(\bar d_L \gamma_\mu u_L)(\bar t_L \gamma^\mu b_L)$, and do not interfere with the SM contribution; they are not discussed further for this reason.

From these considerations we can immediately determine the type of heavy physics that can generate the vertex $(\bar d_L \gamma_\mu u_L)(\bar t_L \gamma^\mu b_L)$ at tree level:
\beq
\begin{array}{c|c|c|l|l|l}
\text{vector}	& \su2 		& \su3 & \text{couplings} & \text{operator generated} & \text{reference}\cr\hline
X\up{1;1}				& {\bf1}	& {\bf1}	& \bar q_u \gamma^\mu q_t					&{\cal O}_{qq}\up1       &\text{\quad\cref{eq:contributing.ops}} \cr
Y_1\up{3;1}				& {\bf3}	& {\bf1}	& \bar q_a \gamma^\mu \tau^I q_a,~(a=u,t)~~&{\cal O}_{qq;\,1}\up3   &\text{\quad\cref{eq:contributing.ops}} \cr
Y_2\up{3;1}				& {\bf3}	& {\bf1}	& \bar q_u \gamma^\mu \tau^I q_t			&{\cal O}_{qq;\,2}\up3   &\text{\quad\cref{eq:contributing.ops}} \cr
Y_3\up{3;8}			& {\bf3}	& {\bf8}	& \bar q_u \gamma^\mu \tau^I T^A q_t		&{\cal O}_{qq}\up{8;\,3} &\text{\quad\cref{eq:other.ops}}		 \cr
V\up{1;8}				& {\bf1}	& {\bf8}	& \bar q_u \gamma^\mu T^A q_t				&{\cal O}_{qq}\up{8;\,1} &\text{\quad\cref{eq:other.ops}}		 \cr
\end{array}
\label{mediators}
\eeq
(superscripts in the vector fields correspond to their $\su2\times\su3$ transformation properties). Consider now the reactions\footnote{$t \bar b$ can contribute to the final state of interest when $b$ is mistagged as a forward light jet.} $ b q\rightarrow t q'  $ and $ q q'\rightarrow t \bar b $, where $q,\,q'$ are light quarks or antiquarks, then the above heavy vectors contribute in either s or t channels as listed below:
\beq
\begin{array}{c|ccccc}
				& X\up{1;1}	& V\up{1;8}	& Y_1\up{3;1}	& Y_2\up{3;1}	& Y_3\up{3;8}	\cr \hline
b q \rightarrow t q'	& \text{s}	& \text{s}	& \text{t}		& \text{s}		& \text{s}		\cr
qq'\rightarrow t \bar b	& \text{t}	& \text{t}	& \text{s}		& \text{t}		& \text{t}		\cr
\end{array}
\label{s-t}
\eeq

For the process $ q q'\rightarrow t \bar b $ with a quark-level CM energy $ E_{\tt CM}(t\bar b) $ the EFT will be valid provided the mass of the vector boson obeys $ m(Y_1) >  E_{\tt CM}(t\bar b) $;  the corresponding constraints for the other vector boson masses will be much weaker because the typical values of the t-channel momentum transfer are much smaller than $ E_{\tt CM}(t\bar b) $.  In contrast, for the process $ b q\rightarrow t q'  $ we must have $m(X),\,m(V),\, m(Y_2)$ and $ m(Y_3) $ all larger than $ E_{\tt CM}(t q') $ (the CM energy for that reaction) for the EFT approximation to be valid. Therefore the potential NP contribution to $tq'$ production comes from $Y_1\up{3;1}$, which has subdued contribution to $t\bar{b}$ production, and is neglected. Experimental limits (see \cite{Stamm:2018wrx} and references therein) requires $ m(Y_1) $ to be above several TeV~\footnote{We may also note here that in SM $q q'\rightarrow t \bar b$ production is small, for example, $t h\bar{b}$ production cross-section is $2.26$ fb at the LHC with $\sqrt s=14\,\hbox{TeV}$, significantly below than $thj$ production cross-section.}. The corresponding analysis for the reaction at hand is discussed in \cref{sec:simulation} below.

\section{Limits using current LHC data}
\label{sec:bounds}

The essence of studying EFT operator contributions to the SM processes at collider is dominantly two fold: $(i)$ estimating the limit on NP parameters
for current CM energy and luminosity, and $(ii)$ evaluating the contribution of EFT operators to future sensitivities to find out the discovery limit
after a careful background estimation/reduction. The methodology for both are similar; however in the first case, one needs to adhere to the
event selection strategy used in the existing experimental analysis as closely as possible.
We elaborate upon the first part in this section, while the discovery
 potential in future luminosities is discussed in the next section.

\subsection{Model implementation and production cross-section}

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm]{1TeV_C3qq.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm]{1TeV_C3phiq.pdf}
$$
\caption{Dependence of $thj$ production cross-section on $ \kappa_{\tt t} $ in presence of EFT operators when $ \Lambda =1 \, \hbox{TeV} $. Left: $\wc_{\tt w} = 1 $
and several values of $ \wc_{\tt 4f}$ in the range $\{-1.2,+1.2\}$; Right: $\wc_{\tt4f}=1$ and $\wc_{\tt w}$ varied within the range $\{-1,1\}$. All cross-sections
are evaluated at the LHC with $\sqrt s=13$ TeV.}
\label{fig:EFT-cs}
\end {figure}

We first estimate the contribution of EFT operators to $thj$ production following the operators listed in Eq.~\eqref{eq:leff}
and Feynman graphs as in \cref{fig:NP.thj}. The methodology is simple. We insert the effective Lagrangian Eq.~\eqref{eq:leff} in the
 {\tt FeynRules} \cite{Alloul:2013bka} code and create files compatible for event simulation in {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO} \cite{Alwall:2011uj}. We generate events including SM and EFT
contributions together, and plot the cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{\tt t}$ (which is equivalent to $ \wc_{\tt t}$) at $\sqrt s=$13 TeV (we use this
notation to simplify the comparison of the outcome with CMS results in \cite{CMS:2018jeh}).
In \cref{fig:EFT-cs}, we show the variation of $thj$ cross-section in presence of EFT operators
assuming the NP scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV. In the left plot we have kept fixed $\wc_{\tt w}=1$ and varied $\wc_{\tt4f}$ within $\{-1.2,\,+1.2\}$ ({\it cf.} the figure inset).
On the right panel, a similar calculation is done fixing $\wc_{\tt4f}=1$ and varying $\wc_{\tt w}$ within $\{-1,\,1\}$. In both the cases, we see that
with larger $|\kappa_{\tt t}|$, the cross-section grows, as expected. Importantly, it is worth noting that for $\wc_{\tt4f}>0$, the $thj$ cross-section is
smaller than SM only contribution for $\kappa_{\tt t}<0$. Similarly, for $\wc_{\tt4f}<0$, the cross-section is larger than the SM only contribution
for both positive and negative $\kappa_{\tt t}$. We also can see that the contribution of $\wc_{\tt w}$ is much milder than that of $\wc_{\tt4f}$.
It is worth reminding here that in the recent analysis for single top production at LHC \cite{Degrande:2018fog}, the contribution from $\wc_{\tt4f}$ has
completely been ignored, which clearly plays a more dominating role than other operators.

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{1TeV_CMS_graph.pdf}
$$
\caption{$thj$ cross-section times branching ratio of Higgs to all final states excepting to gluon pair for several benchmark points of the model (see figure legend), including
that of SM, confronted with CMS observed data (dotted solid line) \cite{CMS:2018jeh}. Note that the data (dotted solid line) meets the SM cross-section (black solid line)
at $\kappa_{\tt t}= -0.9$.}
\label{fig:EFT-bound}
\end {figure}

The comparison to the recent most LHC data \cite{CMS:2018jeh} is shown in \cref{fig:EFT-bound}. In this figure, along the y-axis here, we plot $thj$ production cross-section times the branching ratio
of Higgs to all final states except for the gluon pair, in accordance to the CMS analysis \cite{CMS:2018jeh}. The dot-thick line in blue indicates the bound obtained from the LHC data with
$\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb$^{-1}$ as a function of $\kappa_{\tt t}$. For model example, we chose combinations of Wilson coefficients that provide
good illustrations of the important operators other than $ {\cal O}_{t\phi}$ can have (see figure inset legends); for example choosing $\wc_{\tt w}=1,~\wc_{\tt 4f}=1.2$ minimizes the cross-section
when $ \kappa_{\tt t}=-1$, while $\wc_{\tt w}=-1.0,~\wc_{\tt 4f}=0.8$ corresponds to maximum cross-section when $\kappa_{\tt t}=+1$, when the Wilson coefficients are
varied within $\{-1.2,\,+1.2\}$. The plot shows that the presence of ${\cal O}\up3_{qq,\,\phi q}$ can alter the limits  $\kappa_{\tt t}< -0.9$
obtained  \cite{CMS:2018jeh} in absence of these operators.

There are a few more comments in order. First, although we clearly see that $ \wc_{\tt h,\,4f,\,w} \not=0$ changes the experimental limit as
in \cref{fig:EFT-bound}, one needs to set a criteria for obtaining the bound on the EFT parameters from the existing data.
This is elaborated on in the next subsection. Second, the presence of these EFT operators provides a significant departure from the signal
events compared to the SM, so judicious cuts on kinematic variables or BDT analysis paves the way for discovery potential.
Lastly, we note that these operators contribute to other processes like top decay, etc.; while choosing
the values of the Wilson coefficients and NP scale, we abide by such limits.

 Before proceeding further we note here that EFT approximation at collider is valid when the NP scale is larger than the CM energy of the reaction,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm {Validity ~ of~EFT~at~LHC}:~ \Lambda > \sqrt{\hat{s}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=6.0cm]{XINVM_TJ.pdf}
$$
\caption{Invariant mass ($M_{tj}$) distribution for the $thj$ signal production with EFT contributions assuming
$\Lambda=1$ TeV and all the parameters $\{\wc_{\tt 4f} ,\,\wc_{\tt w},  \kappa_{\tt t}\}$ set to one, at LHC with $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV.
We also depict the distribution with SM contribution only. The production cross-section is normalized to one.}
\label{fig:minv}
\end {figure}

However, ensuring this limit is difficult at LHC, due to the unknown and variable subprocess CM energy $\hat{s}$.
One can however have an estimate of the partonic CM energy by constructing the invariant mass of the final state particles,
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{inv}^2=\left(\sum_i p_i \right)^2\,;
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_i$ represents four-momenta and $i$ runs over all or a subset of the visible set of detectable final state particles.
The appropriate choice of invariant mass depends on whether it is a $s/u/t$ channel reaction,
thus segregating different types of NP contributions, see for example, \cite{Bhattacharya:2015vja}. Now, if the $M_{inv}$ distribution
peaks at a smaller value than the chosen NP scale ($\Lambda$), then the bulk of the events are produced with CM energy smaller than $\Lambda$,
validating the EFT nature of the interaction. In \cref{fig:minv}, we plot invariant mass distribution $M_{t j}$
for SM plus EFT contribution assuming $\Lambda=1$ TeV, with $\{\wc_{\tt 4f} ,\,\wc_{\tt w},  \kappa_{\tt t}\}=1$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV,
to show that the peak arises $\sim 500$ GeV $<\Lambda$, thus validating of the EFT nature of the interaction.

\subsection{Event Analysis and simulation techniques}
\label{sec:simulation}

We generate all the event samples using { \tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO } \cite{Alwall:2011uj} at parton-level in leading order (LO) and a dedicated universal
FeynRules output (UFO) model for the EFT framework was produced using {\tt FeynRules}. We have used the 5-flavor scheme \cite{Maltoni:2012pa} of
parton distribution function with the NNPDF30LO PDF set \cite{NNPDF:2014otw}. The default  {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO} LO dynamical scale was used,
which is the transverse mass calculated by a $k_{T}$-clustering of the final-state partons. Then we interface the events with the Pythia 8 \cite{Mrenna:2016sih}
parton shower. Events of different jet-multiplicities were matched using the MLM scheme \cite{Mangano:2006rw} with the default {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO}
parameters and all samples were processed through {\tt Delphes 3} \cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}, which simulates the detector effects, applies simplified
reconstruction algorithms and was used for the reconstruction of electrons, muons, and hadronic jets.

For the leptons $\ell$ (electrons and muons) the reconstruction was based on transverse momentum ($p_{T}$)-and pseudo-rapidity ($\eta$)-dependent efficiency
parametrization. Isolation of a lepton from other energy-flow objects was applied in a cone of $\Delta R =\sqrt {\Delta \eta^2+\Delta \phi^2}$ = 0.4 with a minimum
$(p_T)_\ell >$ 25 GeV. We reconstruct the jets using the anti-$K_T$ clustering algorithm \cite{Cacciari:2008gp} with a radius parameter of $\Delta R = 0.4$
implemented in {\tt FastJet} \cite{Cacciari:2011ma,Cacciari:2005hq}. The identification of $b$-tagged jets was done
by applying a $p_{T}$-dependent weight based on the jet’s associated flavor, and the {\tt MV2c20} tagging algorithm \cite{ATLAS:2015dex} in the 70\% working point.

$thj$ production within SM and beyond (including EFT operators) leads to different possible final states following subsequent
decay modes of the top quark and the Higgs boson. Each different final state faces different non-interfering SM background contributions,
thereby altering the signal extraction strategy and event simulation. We focus here on the same sign dilepton (SSD) signal with both leptons
having positive or negative charges that may arise with different flavours ($\ell=e,\mu$) associated with one forward jet and two
other jets ($j$), resulting from the following decay chain:
\beq
\nonumber {\rm Signal~({\bf SSD})}: pp \rightarrow thj, ~t\rightarrow bW^+\rightarrow b\ell^+\nu, ~h\rightarrow W^-W^{+*} \rightarrow (jj)(\ell^+\nu).
\eeq

The dominant SM background arises from $t\bar{t}W$, which also contributes to the same final state. Other channels that
contribute as non-interfering background are $t\bar{t}Z$ and $WZ$.
Adhering to the CMS analysis \cite{CMS:2018jeh}, we adopt the basic cuts as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Demanding exactly two same sign dilepton ($\ell$) with the combination $\mu^\pm\mu^\pm$ or $e^\pm\mu^\pm$, following the reconstruction
methodology as described above.
\item $(p_T)_\ell>25/15$ GeV and no loose lepton with invariant mass $m_{\ell\ell}<12$ GeV.
\item Event should comprise of one or more $b-$tagged jet with $p_T>$ 25 GeV within $|\eta|<2.4$.
\item One or more untagged jets with $p_T>$ 25 GeV within $|\eta|<2.4$, and $p_T>$ 40 GeV for $|\eta|>2.4$ following the jet reconstruction technique.
\end{itemize}

We further define,
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{cut}=\frac{\sigma^{\rm SSD}}{\sigma^{\rm prod}} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma^{\rm SSD}$ indicate final state SSD signal cross-section surviving after taking into account
appropriate branching ratios and basic cuts and  $\sigma^{\rm prod}$ represents $thj$ production cross-section.

As the observed number of events at the LHC after the final BDT analysis is not available, it is important to ask how
to set a limit on our EFT parameter space $\{\wc_{\tt 4f} ,\,\wc_{\tt w},  \kappa_{\tt t}, \Lambda\}$ from the observed data.
Following the CMS observation  \cite{CMS:2018jeh}, we simulate $thj$ production for SM processes {\it without} EFT contribution for
$\kappa_{\tt t} = -0.9$ to produce same sign dilepton (SSD) events using the basic cuts at $\wc_{\tt 4f}$
$\sqrt s=13$ TeV and integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb$^{-1}$. Thus obtained number of events ($N_0$) is used
to set the limit on the EFT parameters,

\begin{eqnarray}
N_0= (\sigma^{thj})_{SM}\big{\vert}_{\kappa_{\tt t}=-0.9}\times \epsilon_{cut} \times \mathcal{L} ~(35.9 ~\rm{fb}^{-1})= 37 \,.
\label{bound}
\end{eqnarray}

We note here that $N_0$ is specific to the SSD channel produced from $thj$,
which uses the CMS exclusion limit of $\kappa_{\tt t}$ inferred from all possible Higgs decay modes.

\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
Benchmarks & \{$\kappa_{\tt t}, \wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}$\} & $\sigma_{\rm prod}$ (fb) & $N_{bc}$ & $\epsilon_{cut}$ \cr
\hline
\hline
SM $thj$ & \{1.0, 0, 0\} & 71.0 & 3.9 & 0.0015 \cr
\hline
BP0 &  \{-1.0, 0, 0\} & 750.10 & 47.61 & 0.0017\cr
\hline
BP1 & \{-1.0,1.2,1.0\} & 632.97 & 39.0 & 0.00172 \cr
\hline
BP2 & \{-0.5, 1.2,-1.0\}  &  440.03 & 26.46 & 0.001675 \cr
\hline
BP3 & \{0.5, 0.4, 1.0\} & 80.25 & 4.38 & 0.00152 \cr
\hline
BP4 & \{1.0, 0.8, -1.0\}  & 117.59 & 6.01 & 0.0014 \cr
\hline
\hline
$t\bar{t}W$ & \{1.0, 0, 0\} & 120.49 & 164.14 & 0.013 \cr
\hline
$t\bar{t}Z$ & \{1.0, 0, 0\} & 57.55 & 78.39 & 0.013  \cr
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$thj$ production cross-section, number of SSD signal events after basic cuts in SM, together with EFT contributions for benchmark points BP0-BP4
at LHC with $\sqrt s=13$ TeV and integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb$^{-1}$. SM background ($t\bar{t}W$ and $t\bar{t}Z$) contributions are also noted. }
\label{tab:basic cuts}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We next choose a few representative benchmark points with EFT contributions (BP0-BP4) and note the production cross-section ($\sigma_p$),
number of events after the basic cuts ($N_{bc}$) at LHC with $\sqrt s=13$ TeV and $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb$^{-1}$ in Table \ref{tab:basic cuts}.
Apart, SM $thj$ production along with NLO contributions from dominant SM backgrounds $t\bar{t}W$ and $t\bar{t}Z$ are also pointed out.
The $K$- factors used for $t\bar{t}W (t\bar{t}Z)$ is 1.78 (1.51) \cite{CMS:2017ugv}, SM $thj$ is 1.18 \cite{CMS:2018jeh}.

The benchmark points are chosen with different values of $\kappa_t$ with a combination of
\{$\wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}$\} so that they capture some interesting physics, where the Wilson coefficients vary maximally within $\{-1.2,1.2\}$.
For example, BP1: $\{\kappa_{t}, \wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}\}=\{-1.0, 1.2,1.0\}$ {\it minimizes} the $thj$ cross-section at $\kappa_{t}=-1$
and BP4: $\{1.0, 0.8,-1.0\}$ {\it maximizes} the cross-section at $\kappa_{t}=+1$. BP2: $\{-0.5, 1.2,-1.0\}$ and BP3: $\{0.5, 0.4,1.0\}$
are chosen with intermediate $\kappa_t$ \footnote{For negative (positive) $\kappa_t$, similar choice of \{$\wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}$\} minimizes/maximizes the cross-section.}.
BP0 refers to a point with $\kappa_t=-1$ with other NP couplings set to zero; when compared to BP1, this shows how the choices of
$\{\wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}\}$ can alter the cross-section for a given $\kappa_{\tt t}$. Note here that BP1 produces events very close to the exclusion
limit and kept as a reference due to uncertainties in pdfs, choice of renormalization, and factorization scales at the hadron collider.

Further, we note the presence of almost uniform $\epsilon_{cut}$ for all the benchmark points.
A constant or slowly varying $\epsilon_{cut}$ basically indicates that the branching ratios and cut sensitivity are almost uniform for different choices of
EFT benchmark points. Therefore, $\epsilon_{cut}$ can be used effectively to multiply with the {\tt MadGraph} level production cross-section to
match signal-level SSD events. This methodology is used to put a bound on the cross-section times branching ratio in the EFT
$\kappa_t-\wc_{\tt 4f}$ parameter space as shown in \cref{fig:significance1}. Following the fact that $ \wc_{\tt w}$ affects the cross-section mildly,
we have kept $\wc_{\tt w}=$ 1 (left), -1 (right); the events are simulated at 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity at $\sqrt s=$ 13 TeV.
In this figure the cross-section times branching ratio to obtain SSD signal is shown by the colour gradient, where the
darker shades indicate smaller number of signal events and lighter shades indicate a larger signal cross-section.
It is easy to appreciate that larger $\kappa_{\tt t},\wc_{\tt 4f}$ provide larger signal cross-section.
The bound obtained from CMS as described in Eq.~\eqref{bound} is shown by the white lines.
The CMS bound excludes $thj$ cross-section times branching ratio $\gtrsim$ 0.3 pb. This is equivalent to large values of $|\kappa_{\tt t}|$,
which is mildly dependent on $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ for $\kappa_{\tt t}<0$. The limit $\kappa_{\tt t}<-0.9$
is obtained for $\wc_{\tt 4f}=0$, in agreement with the CMS limit. The limit on $\kappa_{\tt t}$ gets tighter for $\wc_{\tt 4f}<0$ and
relaxed for $\wc_{\tt 4f}>0$, allowing upto $\kappa_{\tt t} \sim -1.0$ (within $-2<\wc_{\tt 4f}<2$). Lastly we note that for $\kappa_{\tt t}>0$,
the cross-section as well as the CMS limit depends on $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ very crucially. For $\wc_{\tt 4f}=0$, there is no upper bound on $\kappa_{\tt t}$
(within the range it has been varied) also in agreement with the CMS analysis. We also see that there is an asymmetry in the dependence on $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ for large
values of $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ with $\kappa_{\tt t}>0$, which indicates to a non-negligible contribution proportional to $\sim \wc_{\tt 4f}^2$ beyond the interference term
$\sim \wc_{\tt 4f}\kappa_{\tt t}$.

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{bound-cw1.png}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{bound-cw-1.png}
$$
\caption{Scan for $thj$ production cross-section times branching ratio (in pb) to get SSD signal at LHC in $\wc_{\tt 4f}-\kappa_t$ plane for $\wc_{\tt w}=$ 1 (left), -1 (right) at 35.9 fb$^{-1}$
luminosity for $\sqrt s=$ 13 TeV. Signal cross-section is shown by colour gradient, where lighter shades
represent larger cross-section. The bound from observed data in CMS (see Eq.~\ref{bound}) is shown by white lines and the region outside the boundary is excluded by the bound.}
\label{fig:significance1}
\end {figure}

\section{Future sensitivities at LHC}
\label{sec:reach}

\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
 Signal : $pp \rightarrow thj$ & SM background: $pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}W$ \cr
\hline
\hline
 $t\rightarrow bW^+\rightarrow b\ell^+\nu, ~h\rightarrow W^-W^{+*} \rightarrow (jj)(\ell^+\nu)$ & $t\bar{t}W\rightarrow (bW^-)(bW^+)W \rightarrow (b\ell^-\nu)(bjj)(\ell^-\nu)$\cr
\hline
One forward jet & No forward jet \cr
\hline
$b$-jet multiplicity peaks near 1 & $b$-jet multiplicity peaks near 2 \cr
\hline
No reconstructed top in $bjj$ mode & One reconstructed top in $bjj$ mode \cr
\hline
$|\Delta \eta|_{bj_F}$ peaks at large values  & $|\Delta \eta|_{bj_F}$ peaks at smaller values \cr
\hline
$|\Delta \eta|_{\ell j_F}$ peaks at large values  & $|\Delta \eta|_{\ell j_F}$ peaks at smaller values \cr
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Key distinctive features in SSD events coming from $thj$ signal and $t\bar{t}W$ SM background contributions. The distinctive features
remain same for $t\bar{t}Z$ also.}
\label{table:sig-back}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The discovery potential of the signal events depends on the efficiency of reducing the SM background contribution, retaining the signal
to the extent possible. We observe some key distinctive features between the signal events ($thj$) and the SM background contributions ($t\bar{t}W$)
as summarized in Table \ref{table:sig-back}. They include: (i) absence of a forward jet in SM ($t\bar{t}W$) background,
(ii) $b$-jet multiplicity peaks at 1 for $thj$ signal, whereas for background ($t\bar{t}W$) it peaks at 2 having
two top quarks at the production level, (iii) pseudorapidity difference $\Delta \eta$ between the forward jet and $b$-jet
($|\Delta \eta|_{bj_F}$) is also expected to be different for signal and background, (iv) $|\Delta \eta|$ between $b$-jet and
closest lepton ($|\Delta \eta|_{\ell j_F}$) can also provide a distinction between the signal and background.

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_2.pdf}\ \ \ \
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_5.pdf}
$$
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_6.pdf} \ \ \ \
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_7.pdf}
$$
\caption{Distribution of SSD events coming from SM $thj$ (with $\kappa_{\tt t}=1.0$ in blue shaded region) and SM background ($t\bar{t}W$) in red hatched region
(all normalized to one) for $|\eta|$ of the forward jet (top left), $(\Delta \eta)_{j_F b}$ with leading $b$ jet (top right), $(\Delta \eta)_{j_F b}$ with sub leading $b$ jet
(bottom left) and $(\Delta \eta)_{\ell j_F}$ (bottom right) between forward jet and closest lepton at LHC with $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV.}
\label{fig:evt-dist}
\end {figure}

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_2c.pdf} \ \ \
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_5c.pdf}
$$
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_6c.pdf} \ \ \
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Variable_7c.pdf}
$$
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:evt-dist} for different benchmark points BP1-BP4 without the SM background.}
\label{fig:evt-dist2}
\end {figure}

We show the distributions of SSD events coming from SM $thj$ production with $\kappa_t=1.0$ (in blue shaded region)
and SM background events coming from $t\bar{t}W$ in red hatched regions (all normalized to one) in \cref{fig:evt-dist} for the key variables
which have been identified to distinguish these two cases; namely, $|\eta|$ of the forward jet (top left),
$(\Delta \eta)_{j_F b}$ with leading $b$ jet (top right), $(\Delta \eta)_{j_F b}$ with sub leading $b$ jet
(bottom left) and $\Delta \eta_{\ell j_F}$ between forward jet and closest lepton (bottom right) at LHC with $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV.
From these distributions, we clearly see that all of these variables can be used judiciously to tame the SM background contribution
and elucidate the signal events, be it in a cut-based analysis or using machine learning techniques. In \cref{fig:evt-dist2}, we show the
same distributions for different benchmark points (BP1-BP4) without the SM background. We find that the signal
distributions are not characteristically different for different choices of $\kappa_{\tt t}$ or $\wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}$. Therefore, uniform signal selection
criteria can be used for all the allowed regions in the $\kappa_{\tt t}-\wc_{\tt 4f}$ parameter space. Note here that the distributions
are made with the number of events generated at $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb$^{-1}$, but normalized to one.

\subsection{Cut-based analysis}

We chose judicious cuts that distinguish the signal and background events effectively as mentioned
in Table \ref{tab:hard-cuts}, which can also be appreciated from the distributions shown in \cref{fig:evt-dist}.
The efficiency of these cuts to retain signal and eliminate SM background is shown in Table~\ref{tab:cut-flow} via cut flow for all the
benchmark points BP0-BP4. We also calculate the signal significance $z(z_1)$ defined by:
\begin{eqnarray}
z_1=\frac{S_1}{\sqrt{S+B}},~z=\frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}},~S_1=S-S^{'}\,;
\label{eq:significance}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S$ refers to the signal events including EFT, $S^{'}$ refers to signal contribution just with SM and $B$
refers to SM background contribution to SSD events. Note here that $z_1$ specifically highlights the effect of EFT
contribution to the signal, when defined by the difference between signal events produced by EFT
operators and that from SM as $S_1=S-S^{'}$. A priori, such definition may look unphysical,
but eventually, all signal events are computed/simulated by some hypothesis and so is this.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.5cm}|p{4.5cm}|}
\hline
\hline
Hard Cuts &  $\bullet$ $|\eta_{j_F}|>2.1$ \\
 & $\bullet$ $|\Delta |_{j_F b}>2.0$ \\
 & $\bullet$ $|\Delta |_{j_F \ell}>1.75$.\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Hard cuts used to segregate $thj$ signal and SM background $t \bar{t}W$ for the SSD events.}
\label{tab:hard-cuts}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Cuts & $t\bar{t}W$ & $thj$-SM & BP0 & BP1 & BP2 & BP3 & BP4 \cr
\hline
\hline
Basic cuts & 199 & 3.9 & 44.6 & 37.7 & 26.2 & 4.7 & 4.0 \cr
\hline
$|\eta_{j_F}|>2.1$ & 63 & 2.8 & 32.9 &27.4 & 19.4 & 3.5 &  3.4 \cr
\hline
$|\Delta \eta|_{j_F b}>2.0$ & 28 & 2.1 & 25.4 & 20.7 & 14.7 &  3.0 & 2.4 \cr
\hline
$|\Delta \eta|_{j_F\ell}>1.75$ & 18 & 1.3 & 20.8 & 16.9 & 12.0 & 2.1 & 2.3 \cr
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of SSD events at LHC resulting from $thj$ production in SM ($\kappa_t=1$), as well as at
benchmark points BP0-BP4, along with $t\bar{t}W$ background with hard
cuts applied successively at CM energy $\sqrt s=13$ TeV and $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb$^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:cut-flow}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We present next in \cref{fig:significance2} the scan for signal significance $z_1$ as colour gradient in $\wc_{\tt 4f}-\kappa_{\tt t}$ plane, for
$\wc_{\tt w}=$ 1 (left) and $\wc_{\tt w}=$ -1 (right) at $\mathcal{L}=$35.9 (137) fb$^{-1}$ on the top (bottom) panel. The pattern
remains the same as that of \cref{fig:significance1}, understandably because the signal behaviour remains the same as function of $\wc_{\tt 4f},\kappa_t$, while
the background remain unaffected. The white region falls below 2$z_1$. With larger luminosity, the white region shrinks
and partially comes under discovery/exclusion limit. For example, the point with $\kappa_{\tt t}=1$ can get excluded in presence of non-zero $|\wc_{\tt 4f}|\sim 1.5$
with $\mathcal{L}=$137 fb$^{-1}$. A large portion of $\kappa_{\tt t}<0$ can be excluded or discovered in near future.

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{2sigma+1-36.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{2sigma-1-36.pdf}
$$
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{2sigma+1-137.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{2sigma-1-137.pdf}
$$
\caption{2$z_1$ exclusion plot in $\wc_{\tt 4f}-\kappa_t$ plane with $z_1$ in colour gradient for constant $\wc_{\tt w}=+1$ (left) and $\wc_{\tt w}=-1$ (right)
for $\mathcal{L}=$ 35.9 (137) fb$^{-1}$ on top (bottom) panel at $\sqrt s=$ 13 TeV LHC. The color gradient marks regions $\ge 2z_1$.}
\label{fig:significance2}
\end {figure}

\subsection{Machine learning techniques}
\label{sec:ML}

After estimating a maximally achievable signal significance with a simple cut-based analysis, we further explore the possibility of improving the significance by a
Machine Learning (ML) technique namely Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (gradient BDT) \cite{chen2016XGBoost} by employing various
kinematical variables. We use the package \texttt{XGBoost} \cite{chen2016XGBoost} as a toolkit for gradient boosting. We use the same ten observables in the CMS analysis
\cite{CMS} as input features for the gradient boosting:

\begin{itemize}
\item Number of jets with $p_{T} >  25$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.4$,
\item Maximum $|\eta|$ of the forward jet,
\item Sum of lepton charges,
\item Number of untagged jets with $|\eta| > 1$,
\item $\Delta \eta$ between forward light jet and leading b-tagged jet,
\item $\Delta \eta$ between forward light jet and subleading b-tagged jet,
\item $\Delta \eta$ between forward light jet and closest lepton,
\item $\Delta \Phi$ of highest-$p_{T}$ same-sign lepton pair,
\item Minimum $\Delta$R between the two leptons,
\item $p_{T}$ of sub-leading lepton.
\end{itemize}
We take an equal number of signal and background events to classify them using the \textit{train} module of \texttt{XGBoost}. For the background, $t\bar{t}W$ and $t\bar{t}Z$
events are mixed according to their respective cross-sections. Given the signal distributions are not characteristically different for different choices of $\kappa_t$ or $\wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}$
(see Fig. 8), signal events from BP1 are used for training while other benchmark points are used for testing purposes. For training the \texttt{XGBoost} Classifier, we use 10000
samples each for the signal and background events for BP1 whereas 1000 sample events are used for testing the classifier for all the benchmark points. At first, we use the
module \texttt{BayesSearchCV} in scikit-optimize \cite{bayessearchcv} library for hyperparameter tuning \cite{claesen2015hyperparameter} to obtain a combination of the
\texttt{XGBoost} parameters that achieves maximum accuracy to classify the signal and the background events. The module utilises Bayesian Optimization \cite{garnett_bayesoptbook_2022}
where a predictive model referred to as “surrogate” is used to model the search space and utilized to arrive at good parameter values combination as quickly as possible. The optimized
parameter values and the corresponding signal efficiencies are listed in tables \ref{table:opt-values} and \ref{tab:bdt-sig} respectively. Signal efficiency (background rejection) for all
the test benchmark points shows uniformity and averages 75.26 \% (75.48 \%).

In \cref{fig:EFT-cs2}, on the left, we plot the total errors during the training as well as the testing phase as a function of the number of epochs i.e number of runs through the entire dataset whereas on the right we plot the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve \cite{10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010}. The ROC curve is drawn by plotting the true positive rate (TPR) (signal efficiency) against the false positive rate (FPR) (background rejection) at various threshold settings. The true-positive rate is also known as sensitivity, recall, or probability of detection. The false-positive rate is also known as the probability of false alarm and can be calculated as (1 - specificity). The best possible prediction method would yield a point in the upper left corner or coordinate (0,1) of the ROC space, representing 100\% sensitivity (no false negatives) and 100\% specificity (no false positives). The diagonal line from the bottom left to the top right corners represents random guessing. For the XGBoost classifier, all the test points have similar areas under the ROC curves. Also, the difference in the areas between the training and the test curves is not significant suggesting no overfitting of the model.

We calculate the expected Z-value, which is defined as the number of standard deviations from the background-only hypothesis given a signal yield and background uncertainty, using the {\tt BinomialExpZ} function by {\tt RooFit} \cite{Verkerke:2003ir}.  We use several values for the relative overall background uncertainty, $\sigma_{B}$ = 10\%, 20\%, and 30\% with the currently available integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb $^{-1}$. Clearly, the sensitivity to the NP depends on the relative uncertainty. Keeping that in mind, we analyze all signal channels, assuming that the signal uncertainty is included within $\sigma_{B}$.

\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
 \texttt{XGBoost} Classifier parameters (variable names) & Optimized values \cr
\hline
\hline
No. of estimators or trees (n$\_$estimators) & 83 \cr
\hline
Learning rate ($\eta$)  & 0.0521 \cr
\hline
 Maximum depth of a tree: (max$\_$depth) & 4.0 \cr
\hline
Subsample ratio of the training instances (subsample) &  0.7565 \cr
\hline
Subsample ratio of columns when constructing each tree (colsample$\_$bytree) & 0.7633 \cr
\hline
subsample ratio of columns for each level (colsample$\_$bylevel) &  0.4436 \cr
\hline
 L2 regularization term on weights ($\lambda$) &  37.0 \cr
\hline
 L1 regularization term on weights ($\alpha$) &  3.0 \cr
\hline
Minimum loss reduction required to make a further partition on a leaf node ($\gamma$)& 3.607 \cr
\hline
Minimum sum of instance weight (hessian) needed in a child (min$\_$child$\_$weight) & 71.0 \cr
\hline
Maximum delta step allowed for each leaf output to be. (max$\_$delta$\_$step) & 4.0\cr
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Optimized parameter values for the \texttt{XGBoost} Classifier tuned using Bayesian Hyperparameter Optimization. The rest of the parameters are set to default options.}
\label{table:opt-values}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & $thj$-SM & BP0 & BP1 & BP2 & BP3 & BP4 \cr
\hline
N$_{bc}$ & 3.9 & 47.6 & 39.0 & 26.46 & 4.38 & 6.01 \cr
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{ |c| }{\texttt{XGBoost}} \\
\hline
Signal Efficiency & 69.8\% & 81.0\% & 89.5\% & 76.8\%& 74.9\% & 73.8\% \cr

\hline
Background Rejection & 75.4\% & 75.4\% & 80.8\% & 74.5\% & 73.8\% & 78.3\% \cr
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of signal efficiency and background rejection for all the benchmark points and SM-$thj$. The results are obtained using a test dataset of 1000 signal and background events after training the \texttt{XGBoost} classifier on 10000 events from BP1.}
\label{tab:bdt-sig}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm]{error.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm]{roc.pdf}
$$
\caption{Change in loss function with the number of epochs for all the benchmark points (left) and corresponding performance in terms of ROC
(receiver operating characteristic) for the \texttt{XGBoost}Classifier (right). One epoch is a single run through the entire dataset.}
\label{fig:EFT-cs2}
\end {figure}

\begin{figure}[htb!]
$$
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{contour10_36.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{contour10_36_neg.pdf}
$$
$$
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{contour30_36.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm]{contour30_36_neg.pdf}
$$
\caption{Plots with SSD signal significance ($z$) in colour gradient in $\wc_{\tt 4f}-\kappa_t$ plane for constant $\wc_{\tt w}=+1$ (left) and $\wc_{\tt w}=-1$ (right)
constant luminosity 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt s=$ 13 TeV LHC. Constant significance lines are also shown by black thick lines.
SM Error has been varied by 10\% in the top panel and 30 \% in the bottom panel.}
\label{fig:significance3}
\end {figure}

Parameter space scan in $\wc_{\tt 4f}-\kappa_{\tt t}$ plane for SSD signal significance ($z$) using ML technique with constant $\wc_{\tt w}=+1$ (left) and $\wc_{\tt w}=-1$ (right)
with $\mathcal{L}=35.9$ fb $^{-1}$ is shown in \cref{fig:significance3}. Darker shades indicate lower signal significance.
The pattern is no different than that of \cref{fig:significance1} or \cref{fig:significance2} as the signal dependence on the EFT parameters remains the same.
We also show constant signal significance ($z$) contours of one sigma, two sigma etc. by black thick lines, which
show larger and larger concentric curves. In the top panel, the SM background error is varied by 10\% whereas
in the bottom panel the error is varied in a larger range 30\%. Obviously, this results in smaller significance in lower panel figures, i.e. one sigma
significance is achieved for larger values of $\wc_{\tt 4f},\kappa_{\tt t}$.

\begin{table}[htb!]
\scriptsize
\hskip-1.0cm\begin{tabular}{|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|}
\hline
$\mathcal{L}$ &  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{35.9 fb$^{-1}$}  &  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{140 fb$^{-1}$} \\
\hline
$z$ &  2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\
\hline
$\kappa_{t}$ = -1.0 & [0.2, 2.004] & [-1.45, 3.51]  & [-2.44, -] & [-3.25, -] & * & * &  [0.86, 1.38] & [-0.50, 2.62] \\
\hline
$\kappa_{t}$ = 1.0 & [-2.87, 2.96] & [-3.57, 3.64] &  -  &  - & [-1.24, 1.35] &  [-1.70, 1.80]  & [-2.07, 2.16] & [-2.39, 2.46]\\
\hline
$\kappa_{t}$ = 1.5 & [-1.76, 2.17] & [-2.27, 2.62] &  [-2.69, 3.0]  &  [-3.07, 3.33] & [-0.55,1.06] &  [-0.93, 1.40]  &  [-1.22, 1.66] & [-1.47, 1.87]\\
\hline
$\kappa_{t}$ = 2.2 & [-0.88, 1.57] & [-1.30, 1.93] & [-1.65, 2.22] &  [-1.96, 2.46]  & * &  [0.0, 0.80]  &  [-0.37, 1.44] & [-0.63, 1.37]\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Exclusion limits on $\wc_{\tt 4f}$  for different values of $\kappa_t$ using $\wc_{\tt w}=+1$ using ML techniques at
$\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV LHC for $\mathcal{L}=35.9,140$ fb$^{-1}$. The $-$ sign indicates the breakdown of the EFT limit whereas $*$ shows no feasible region in the $\kappa_{\tt t}$ - $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ plane.}
\label{exclusion-1}
\end{table}

We then quote the exclusion limits on $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ for constant $\kappa_{\tt t}$ with a constant $\wc_{\tt w}=+1$,
for different luminosities in Table \ref{exclusion-1} that result from ML-based analysis.
For example, with $\kappa_{t}$ = -1.0, we see that the $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ can acquire values 0.2 and 2.004 when the signal receives
2$z$ significance. This is again attributed to both the interference as well as the quadratic contribution of the Wilson coefficient.
Usually, the points within the quoted maximum limits of $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ provides a lower signal significance with constant $\kappa_{\tt t}$.
The dashed line in the table indicates the absence of a limit with that significance.

\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec:summary}

In this work, we analyze the single top associated with Higgs production to estimate the limit on top Higgs Yukawa coupling ($\kappa_{\tt t}$) at the LHC in the current and
future sensitivities including SM effective operator contributions upto dimension six. All the operators that can contribute to such signal have been considered, taking into account
limits on such operators from other observables. We see that the most significant contribution comes from the four fermi operators
${\cal O}_{qq}\up1, {\cal O}_{qq;\,1}\up3,  {\cal O}_{qq;\,2}\up3$, the effect of which has not been given due attention in earlier works.
Apart, the operator ${\cal O}_{\phi q}\up3$ also contributes, but the effect is much milder. We neglect other
LG operators as their contributions are suppressed. Together, the Wilson coefficient of four fermi
operator and the variable Yukawa coupling $\{\wc_{\tt 4f},\kappa_{\tt t}\}$ serve as the major NP parameters of the framework
where we kept the NP scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV constant. The effective field theory (EFT) description is validated with $M_{tj}$ invariant
mass distribution peaking at a much lower value than the chosen NP scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV.

The possible types of heavy physics that generates four fermi operator of the kind $(\bar d_L \gamma_\mu u_L)(\bar t_L \gamma^\mu b_L)$ that contributes to $thj$
production have also been chalked out. Importantly we point out that the heavy physics that contributes potentially to $qb \rightarrow q^{'}t$, has a negligible contribution to
$qq^{'} \rightarrow t \bar{b}$. Thus the omission of $qq^{'} \rightarrow t \bar{b}$ to our signal, in presence of untagged $b$ jet is justified.

The key variables that distinguish the signal events from the $t\bar{t}W/t\bar{t}Z$ background include $|\eta|$ of the forward jet,
pseudorapidity difference $(\Delta \eta)_{j_F b}$ between forward jet with both leading and sub-leading $b$ jets, and pseudorapidity
difference $\Delta \eta_{\ell j_F}$ between lepton and forward jet. The kinematic distributions in presence of the EFT contribution do not significantly differ from
the corresponding SM ones. An optimised choice of hard cuts on these variables retain signal and provide 5$z$
discovery reach for the future luminosities. The same analysis is done with ML technique, which is
consistent with the cut-based analysis.

We see that in presence of $\{\wc_{\tt 4f}, \wc_{\tt w}\}$, the
limit on $\kappa_{\tt t}$ gets stronger for $\wc_{\tt 4f}<0$ and relaxed for $\wc_{\tt 4f}>0$. We also observe an asymmetry in the dependence on $\wc_{\tt 4f}$ for $\kappa_t>0$,
which indicates to a potential contribution proportional to $\wc_{\tt 4f}^2$ beyond the interference term with SM. For SM like case with $\kappa_{\tt t}=1$, 3$z$
significance can be achieved for both values of $[\wc_{\tt 4f}]=[-2.69, 2.75]$ when $\wc_{\tt w}=+1$, while for $\kappa_{\tt t}=-1$, the same is achieved for much lower
values of $[\wc_{\tt 4f}]=[0.82, 1.42]$ at integrated luminosity 140 fb$^{-1}$. Thus the limits obtained on $\kappa_{\tt t}$ in absence of EFT operator coefficients like $\wc_{\tt 4f}$
are significantly different, making it a necessity to consider them for future analysis of $thj$ process at the LHC.\\

{\bf Acknowledgments}: Subhaditya acknowledges to the Core Research Grant CRG/2019/004078 from DST-SERB, Govt. of India.
Sanjoy would like to thank Shivam Verma for various technical helps. We would also like to thank Prof. Kajari Mazumdar and
Pallabi Das for important clarifications on experimental analysis.

\bibliographystyle{JHEP.bst}


\section{Introduction}

In this article, a graph $ G $ stands for a \textbf{connected multigraph} $ G = (V_{G}, E_{G}, r_{G}) $, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $ V_{G} $ is a finite set of vertices,
\item $ E_{G} $ is a finite set of edges,
\item $ r_{G} $ is a map from $ E_{G} $ to $ \binom{V_{G}}{2} $, the collection of subsets of $ V_{G} $ consisting of $ 2 $ elements.
\end{itemize}
Note that $ r_{G}(e) $ represents the endvertices of the edge $ e $.
Also note that every edge is identified and loops are not allowed.

Let $ n $ be a positive integer and suppose that $ V_{G} = [n] \coloneqq \{1, 2, \dots, n\} $.
When an edge $ e \in E_{G} $ satisfies $ r_{G}(e) = \{u,v\} $, we associate the transposition $ \tau_{e} \coloneqq (u \ v) \in S_{n} $ with the edge $ e $, where $ S_{n} $ denotes the symmetric group of degree $ n $.

An \textbf{edge ordering} of a graph $ G $ is a linear order $ \leq_{\omega} $ on $ E_{G} $, denoted as a sequence $ \omega = (e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $ in which $ e_{i} \leq_{\omega} e_{j} $ if and only if $ i \leq j $.
Given an edge ordering $ \omega = (e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $, we associate the product $ \pi_{\omega} \coloneqq \tau_{e_{m}} \cdots \tau_{e_{1}} \in S_{n} $.

\begin{definition}
A permutation $ \sigma \in S_{n} $ is called a \textbf{full cyclic permutation} if $ \sigma $ is a cyclic permutation of length $ n $.
An edge ordering $ \omega = (e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $ of a graph $ G $ is a \textbf{full cyclic permutation ordering} if the corresponding permutation $ \pi_{\omega} = \tau_{e_{m}} \cdots \tau_{e_{1}} $ is a full cyclic permutation.
\end{definition}

D{\'e}nes proved the following theorem to state a connection between labeled trees and factorization of a full cyclic permutation into transpositions.
\begin{theorem}[D{\'e}nes \cite{denes1959representation-potmiothaos}. See also {\cite[Section 2]{moszkowski1989solution-ejoc}} and {\cite[Lemma 2.1]{pawlowski2022chromatic-ac}}]\label{Denes}
Given a graph $ G $, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Any edge ordering of $ G $ is a full cyclic permutation ordering.
\item $ G $ is a tree.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.6,  0.5) node[v](1){} node[above]{$ 1 $};
\draw (-1.6, -0.5) node[v](2){} node[below]{$ 2 $};
\draw (     0,    0) node[v](3){} node[above]{$ 3 $};
\draw ( 1.6,  0.5) node[v](4){} node[above]{$ 4 $};
\draw ( 1.6, -0.5) node[v](5){} node[below]{$ 5 $};
\draw (1)--(2) node[midway, xshift=-8, yshift=0]{$ e_{1} $};
\draw (2)--(3) node[midway, xshift=2, yshift=-6]{$ e_{2} $};
\draw (3)--(4) node[midway, xshift=-2, yshift=6]{$ e_{3} $};
\draw (4)--(5) node[midway, xshift=8, yshift=0]{$ e_{4} $};
\draw (1)--(3) node[midway, xshift=2, yshift=6]{$ e_{5} $};
\draw (3)--(5) node[midway, xshift=-2, yshift=-6]{$ e_{6} $};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A butterfly graph.}
\label{fig: butterfly graph}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.6,  0.5) node[v](1){};
\draw (-1.6, -0.5) node[v](2){} node[below]{\rule{0mm}{3mm}};
\draw (   0,    0) node[v](3){};
\draw (   1.6,    0) node[v](4){};
\draw ( 3.2,  0.5) node[v](5){};
\draw ( 3.2, -0.5) node[v](6){};
\draw (3)--(1)--(2)--(3)--(4)--(5)--(6)--(4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A dumbbell graph.}
\label{fig: dumbbell graph}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Note that Theorem \ref{Denes} plays an important role in the studies of the chromatic symmetric functions and the chromatic operator for trees \cite{pawlowski2022chromatic-ac,foley2022transplanting}.
Also, note that recently the second author \cite{uchiumi2022signed} studied an analogue of Theorem \ref{Denes} for signed graphs and the hyperoctahedral group.

It is a natural question to ask what graphs admit a full cyclic permutation ordering.
For example, let $ G $ be the butterfly graph pictured in Figure \ref{fig: butterfly graph} and define the edge ordering $ \omega $ by $ \omega \coloneqq (e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},e_{5},e_{6}) $.
Then
\begin{align*}
\pi_{\omega} = \tau_{e_{6}} \tau_{e_{5}} \tau_{e_{4}} \tau_{e_{3}} \tau_{e_{2}}\tau_{e_{1}}
= (3 \ 5) (1 \ 3) (4 \ 5) (3 \ 4) (2 \ 3) (1 \ 2)
= (1 \ 3 \ 2 \ 5 \ 4).
\end{align*}
Therefore $ \omega $ is a full cyclic permutation ordering of the butterfly graph $ G $.

When a graph $ G $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering, considering the signature of a full cycle, we can see that the Betti number $ \beta(G) $ is even.
However, the converse is false.
For example, one can show that the dumbbell graph (Figure \ref{fig: dumbbell graph}) has no full cyclic permutation orderings although its Betti number is $ 2 $.

We regard a graph as a topological space by identifying each edge with the unit interval $ [0,1] $ and gluing them at vertices.
In this article, we will show that having a full cyclic permutation ordering is a topological property as follows.

Let $ \Sigma $ be an orientable closed surface and $ \iota \colon G \to \Sigma $ an embedding.
We call a connected component of the complement of the image of $ \iota $ a \textbf{face}.
An embedding $ \iota $ is a \textbf{$ 2 $-cell embedding} if every face is homeomorphic to an open disk.
For any $ 2 $-cell embedding $ \iota \colon G \to \Sigma $,
\begin{align*}
|V_{G}| - |E_{G}| + f_{\iota} = 2-2 g_{\Sigma},
\end{align*}
where $ f_{\iota} $ denotes the number of faces of the $ 2 $-cell embedding $ \iota $ and $ g_{\Sigma} $ the genus of $ \Sigma $.
Let $ \beta(G) \coloneqq |E_{G}| - |V_{G}| + 1 $ denote the \textbf{Betti number} (also called the \textbf{circuit rank}) of the connected graph $ G $.
Then
\begin{align*}
2g_{\Sigma} + f_{\iota} = \beta(G) + 1.
\end{align*}
Therefore maximizing the genus $ g_{\Sigma} $ is equivalent to minimizing the number of faces $ f_{\iota} $ and hence the \textbf{maximum genus} $ \gamma_{\mathrm{max}}(G) $, the  maximum of genus $ g_{\Sigma} $ such that there exists a $ 2 $-cell embedding $ G \to \Sigma $, satisfies
\begin{align*}
\gamma_{\mathrm{max}}(G) \leq \left\lfloor \dfrac{\beta(G)}{2} \right\rfloor
\end{align*}
holds, where $ \lfloor \ \rfloor $ denote the floor function.
If the equality holds, then we say that $ G $ is \textbf{upper embeddable}.
Here is the main theorem of this article.

\begin{theorem}\label{main theorem: full cyclic}
Given a graph $ G $, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item\label{main theorem: full cyclic 1} $ G $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering.
\item\label{main theorem: full cyclic 2} There exists a $ 2 $-cell embedding $ \iota \colon G \to \Sigma $ such that $ f_{\iota} = 1 $.
\item \label{main theorem: full cyclic 3} $ \beta(G) $ is even and $ G $ is upper embeddable, that is, $ \beta(G) = 2 \gamma_{\mathrm{max}}(G) $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Note that the equivalence of (\ref{main theorem: full cyclic 2}) and (\ref{main theorem: full cyclic 3}) is trivial by the definition of the upper embeddability.
Figure \ref{fig: embedding} shows how the butterfly graph can be embedded into a torus with exactly one face.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-43]
\draw (-1.6,  0.5) node[v](1){} node[above]{$ 1 $};
\draw (-1.6, -0.5) node[v](2){} node[below]{$ 2 $};
\draw (     0,    0) node[v](3){} node[above]{$ 3 $};
\draw ( 1.6,  0.5) node[v](4){} node[above]{$ 4 $};
\draw ( 1.6, -0.5) node[v](5){} node[below]{$ 5 $};
\draw (1)--(2);
\draw (2)--(3);
\draw (3)--(4);
\draw (4)--(5);
\draw (1)--(3);
\draw (3)--(5);
\draw[right hook->] (3,0) -- (5,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) ellipse (2.5 and 1.5);
\draw (-1.2,0.1) to[out=320,in=220] (1.2,0.1);
\draw (-1.08,0) to[out=40,in=140] (1.08,0);
\draw[very thick] (0,-0.35) to[out=330,in=30] (0,-1.5);
\draw[dotted,very thick] (0,-0.35) to[out=210,in=150] (0,-1.5);
\draw[very thick] (0,0) ellipse (1.8 and 1);
\draw (0.29,-0.98) node[circle, draw, inner sep=1.5pt, minimum size=2pt, fill=black](){};
\draw (0.22,-0.62) node[circle, draw, inner sep=1.5pt, minimum size=2pt, fill=black](){};
\draw (0.2,-1.3) node[circle, draw, inner sep=1.5pt, minimum size=2pt, fill=black](){};
\draw (0,-1) node[circle, draw, inner sep=1.5pt, minimum size=2pt, fill=black](){};
\draw (0.55,-0.95) node[circle, draw, inner sep=1.5pt, minimum size=2pt, fill=black](){};
\draw (0.38, -0.66) node[scale=0.5](){$ 1 $};
\draw (0.35, -1.4) node[scale=0.5](){$ 2 $};
\draw (0.38, -1.17) node[scale=0.5](){$ 3 $};
\draw (0, -1.2) node[scale=0.5](){$ 4 $};
\draw (0.6, -1.15) node[scale=0.5](){$ 5 $};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A $ 2 $-cell embedding of the butterfly graph into a torus with exactly one face. }
\label{fig: embedding}
\end{figure}

Upper embeddable graphs are well-studied objects by many researchers \cite{
huang2000face-joctsb
,jungerman1978characterization-totams
,nebesky1981every-jogt
,nebesky1983note-cmj
,nebesky1985locally-cmj
,payan1979upper-dm,
skoviera1991maximum-dm
,skoviera1992decay-ms
,skoviera1989maximum-dm
,xuong1979how-joctsb
,xuong1979upper-embeddable-joctsb
}.
Using the characterization by Jungerman \cite[Theorem 2]{jungerman1978characterization-totams}, we have the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}
Given a graph $ G $, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item $ G $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering.
\item There exists a spanning tree $ T $ of $ G $ such that every connected components of $ G \setminus T $ consists of an even number of edges.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}

The organization of this article as follows.
In Section \ref{section: topological invariance}, we will prove a key lemma which shows having full cyclic permutation ordering is invariant under homeomorphism.

In Section \ref{section: embedding and rotation system}, we will review the relation of $ 2 $-cell embeddings and rotation systems.
Moreover, we will give the proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem: full cyclic}.

In Section \ref{section: identity permutation ordering}, we will study another extreme condition, that is, edge orderings $ \omega $ such that $ \pi_{\omega} $ is the identity permutation, which Eden \cite{eden1967relation-joct} studied.
Eden gave necessary conditions for such orderings and asked whether the condition is also sufficient.
We will give a counter example for this question.

\section{Topological invariance of having a full cyclic permutation ordering}\label{section: topological invariance}

\begin{proposition}\label{circular shift}
Let $ G $ be a graph and $ \omega = (e_{1}, e_{2}, \dots, e_{m}) $ a linear order on $ E_{G} $.
Suppose that $ \omega^{\prime} = (e_{2}, \dots, e_{m}, e_{1}) $ is a the circular shift of $ \omega $.
Then the cycle types of $ \pi_{\omega} $ and $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ coincide.
In particular, $ \ell_{\omega} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $ \pi_{\omega} = \tau_{e_{m}} \cdots \tau_{e_{2}}\tau_{e_{1}} $ be the corresponding permutation.
Then $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} = \tau_{e_{1}}\tau_{e_{m}} \cdots \tau_{e_{2}} = \tau_{e_{1}}\pi_{\omega}\tau_{e_{1}}^{-1} $.
Therefore $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ is a conjugate of $ \pi_{\omega} $ and hence the cycle types coincide.
\end{proof}

\textbf{Subdivision} of an edge $ e $ in a graph $ G $ with endvertices $ \{u,v\} $ is an operation that replaces $ e $ by edges $ e^{\prime}, e^{\prime\prime} $ with endvertices $ \{u, w\} $ and $ \{v, w\} $ with a new vertex $ w $.
The converse operation is called \textbf{smoothing}.

A graph $ G^{\prime} $ is called a \textbf{subdivision} of $ G $ if $ G^{\prime} $ is obtained from $ G $ by taking subdivisions several times.
It is well known that two graphs $ G $ and $ H $ are homeomorphic as topological spaces if and only if they have a isomorphic subdivision.

In order to prove that having a full cyclic permutation ordering is a topological property, it is sufficient to show that the property is invariant under subdivision and smoothing.
In the rest of this section, we will assume the following conditions.

\begin{itemize}
\item $ e $ is an edge of a graph $ G $ with $ r_{G}(e) = \{u,v\} $.
\item $ G^{\prime} $ is a graph obtained by subdivision of $ e $ with an additional vertex $ w $.
\item $ e $ is subdivided into $ e^{\prime}, e^{\prime\prime} $ such that $ r_{G}(e^{\prime}) = \{u,w\} $ and $ r_{G}(v) = \{v,w\} $.
\end{itemize}

\begin{proposition}\label{subdivision}
For any edge ordering $ \omega $ of $ G $, there exists an edge ordering $ \omega^{\prime} $ of $ G^{\prime} $ such that $ \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} = \ell_{\omega} $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $ \omega $ is an edge ordering of $ G $.
By Proposition \ref{circular shift}, we may assume that the minimal element with respect to $ \omega $ is $ e $ and hence $ \omega = (e, e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $.
Then $ \pi_{\omega} = \sigma(u \ v) $, where $ \sigma \coloneqq \tau_{e_{m}} \cdots \tau_{e_{1}} $.
Define the edge ordering $ \omega^{\prime} $ of $ G^{\prime} $ by $ \omega^{\prime} \coloneqq (e^{\prime}, e^{\prime\prime}, e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $.
Then
\begin{align*}
\pi_{\omega^{\prime}}
&= \sigma(v \ w)(u \ w)
= \pi_{\omega}(u \ v)(v \ w)(u \ w)
= \pi_{\omega}(v \ w).
\end{align*}

Let $ (v \ a_{1} \ \dots \ a_{s}) $ denote the cyclic permutation containing $ u $ in the cycle decomposition of $ \pi_{\omega} $.
We can write $ \pi_{\omega} = \nu (u \ a_{1} \ \dots \ a_{s}) $, where $ \nu $ denotes the product of the other cyclic permutations in the cycle decomposition.
Since $ \pi_{\omega}(w) = w $,
\begin{align*}
\pi_{\omega^{\prime}} = \pi_{\omega}(v \ w)
= \nu (v \ a_{1} \ \dots \ a_{s})(v \ w)
= \nu (v \ w \ a_{1} \ \dots \ a_{s}).
\end{align*}
Thus $ \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} = \ell_{\omega} $.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{smoothing}
Let $ \omega^{\prime} $ be an edge ordering of $ G^{\prime} $ such that $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ has no fixed points.
Then there exists an edge ordering $ \omega $ of $ G $ such that $ \ell_{\omega} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First note that by Proposition \ref{circular shift}, any circular shift does not change the cycle types of $ \pi_{\omega} $ and hence the property of having no fixed points.
Therefore we may suppose
\begin{align*}
\omega^{\prime} = (e^{\prime}, e_{1}, \dots, e_{k}, e^{\prime\prime}, e_{k+1}, \dots, e_{m}).
\end{align*}
We will show that the edge orderings
\begin{align*}
\omega_{1} \coloneqq (e, e_{1}, \dots, e_{k}, e_{k+1}, \dots, e_{m}) \quad \text{ and } \quad
\omega_{2} \coloneqq (e_{1}, \dots, e_{k}, e, e_{k+1}, \dots, e_{m})
\end{align*}
satisfy $ \ell_{\omega_{1}} = \ell_{\omega_{2}} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $ by induction on $ k $, the number of edges between $ e^{\prime} $ and $ e^{\prime\prime} $ in the edge ordering $ \omega^{\prime} $.
When $ k=0 $, that is, $ \omega^{\prime} = (e^{\prime}, e^{\prime\prime}, e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $, we have $ \omega \coloneqq \omega_{1} = \omega_{2} = (e, e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $ and $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} = \pi_{\omega}(v \ w) $.
Therefore $ \ell_{\omega} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $.
Assume $ k \geq 1 $.
We will prove the claim by division into cases.

\begin{case}\label{smoothing: case 1}
$ u \not\in r_{G}(e_{1}) $ or $ v \not\in r_{G}(e_{k}) $.
By symmetry, we only need to prove the case $ v \not\in r_{G}(e_{k}) $.
Define the edge ordering $ \psi^{\prime} $ of $ G^{\prime} $ and the edge orderings $ \psi_{1}, \psi_{2} $ of $ G $ by
\begin{align*}
\psi^{\prime} &\coloneqq (e^{\prime}, e_{1}, \dots, e_{k-1}, e^{\prime\prime}, e_{k}, \dots, e_{m}), \\
\psi_{1} &\coloneqq (e, e_{1}, \dots, e_{k-1}, e_{k}, \dots, e_{m}), \\
\psi_{2} &\coloneqq (e_{1}, \dots, e_{k-1}, e, e_{k}, \dots, e_{m}).
\end{align*}
By the induction hypothesis, we have $ \ell_{\psi_{1}} = \ell_{\psi_{2}} = \ell_{\psi^{\prime}} $.
Since $ \tau_{e_{k}}\tau_{e^{\prime\prime}} = \tau_{e^{\prime\prime}}\tau_{e_{k}} $ and $ \tau_{e_{k}}\tau_{e} = \tau_{e}\tau_{e_{k}} $, we have $ \pi_{\psi^{\prime}} = \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ and $ \pi_{\psi_{2}} = \pi_{\omega_{2}} $.
Moreover, $ \pi_{\psi_{1}} = \pi_{\omega_{1}} $ since $ \psi_{1} = \omega_{1} $.
Therefore $ \ell_{\omega_{i}} = \ell_{\psi_{i}} = \ell_{\psi^{\prime}} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $ for each $ i \in \{1,2\} $.
\end{case}

\begin{case}
$ r_{G}(e_{1}) = \{u,x\} $ with $ x \neq v $ or $ r_{G}(e_{k}) = \{v,y\} $ with $ y \neq u $.
By symmetry, we may suppose the former case.
Let $ H^{\prime} $ be a graph obtained by replacing $ e_{i} $ for $ i \in \{2, \dots, k\} $ with the edge $ f_{i} $ with endvertices $ (u \ x)(r_{G}(e_{i})) $, the image of $ r_{G}(e_{i}) $ by the transposition $ (u \ x) $.
Let $ H $ be the smoothing of $ H^{\prime} $ with respect to $ w $.

Define the edge ordering $ \psi^{\prime} $ of $ H^{\prime} $ and the edge orderings $ \psi_{1}, \psi_{2} $ of $ H $ by
\begin{align*}
\psi^{\prime} &\coloneqq (e^{\prime}, f_{2}, \dots, f_{k}, e_{1},  e^{\prime\prime}, e_{k}, \dots, e_{m}), \\
\psi_{1} &\coloneqq (e, f_{2}, \dots, f_{k}, e_{1}, e_{k}, \dots, e_{m}), \\
\psi_{2} &\coloneqq (f_{2}, \dots, f_{k}, e_{1},  e, e_{k}, \dots, e_{m}).
\end{align*}
Since $ v \not\in \{u,x\} = r_{G}(e_{1}) $, $ \psi^{\prime} $ satisfies the condition for Case \ref{smoothing: case 1}.
Therefore $ \ell_{\psi_{1}} = \ell_{\psi_{2}} = \ell_{\psi^{\prime}} $.
Since
\begin{align*}
\tau_{e_{1}} \tau_{f_{k}} \cdots \tau_{f_{2}}
= (u \ x)(u \ x) \tau_{e_{k}} \cdots \tau_{e_{2}}(u \ x)
= \tau_{e_{k}} \cdots \tau_{e_{2}} \tau_{e_{1}},
\end{align*}
we have $ \pi_{\psi^{\prime}} = \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ and $ \pi_{\psi_{i}} = \pi_{\omega_{i}} $ for each $ i \in \{1,2\} $ and hence $ \ell_{\omega_{i}} = \ell_{\psi_{i}} = \ell_{\psi^{\prime}} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $.
\end{case}

\begin{case}
$ r_{G}(e_{1}) = r_{G}(e_{k}) = \{u,v\} $.
Assume $ k=1 $.
Then $ \omega^{\prime} = (e^{\prime}, e_{1}, e^{\prime\prime}, e_{2}, \dots, e_{m}) $ and $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}}(w) = w $.
This contradicts to the assumption that $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ has no fixed points.
Therefore $ k \geq 2 $.
Let $ H^{\prime} $ be a graph obtained by removing $ e_{1}, e_{k} $ and replacing $ e_{i} $ for $ i \in \{2, \dots, k-1\} $ with the edge $ f_{i} $ with endvertices $ (u \ v)(r_{G}(e_{i})) $.
Let $ H $ be the smoothing of $ H^{\prime} $ with respect to $ w $.

Define the edge ordering $ \psi^{\prime} $ of $ H^{\prime} $ and the edge orderings $ \psi_{1}, \psi_{2} $ of $ H $ by
\begin{align*}
\psi^{\prime} &\coloneqq (e^{\prime}, f_{2}, \dots, f_{k-1}, e^{\prime\prime}, e_{k+1}, \dots, e_{m}), \\
\psi_{1} &\coloneqq (e, f_{2}, \dots, f_{k-1}, e_{k+1}, \dots, e_{m}), \\
\psi_{2} &\coloneqq (f_{2}, \dots, f_{k-1}, e, e_{k+1}, \dots, e_{m}).
\end{align*}
By the induction hypothesis, $ \ell_{\psi_{1}} = \ell_{\psi_{2}} = \ell_{\psi^{\prime}} $.
Since
\begin{align*}
\tau_{f_{k-1}} \cdots \tau_{f_{2}}
= (u \ v)\tau_{e_{k-1}} \cdots \tau_{e_{2}}(u \ v)
= \tau_{e_{k}}\tau_{e_{k-1}} \cdots \tau_{e_{2}}\tau_{e_{1}},
\end{align*}
we obtain $ \pi_{\psi^{\prime}} = \pi_{\omega^{\prime}} $ and $ \pi_{\psi_{i}} = \pi_{\omega_{i}} $ for each $ i \in \{1,2\} $ and hence $ \ell_{\omega_{i}} = \ell_{\psi_{i}} = \ell_{\psi^{\prime}} = \ell_{\omega^{\prime}} $.
\end{case}

\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{homeomorphic}
Having a full cyclic permutation ordering is a topological property.
Namely, if graphs $ G $ and $ H $ are homeomorphic and $ G $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering, then $ H $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $ \omega $ is a full cyclic permutation ordering if and only if $ \ell_{\omega} = 1 $, having full cyclic permutation ordering is an invariant property under subdivision by Proposition \ref{subdivision}.
Moreover, since every cyclic permutation has no fixed points when $ |V_{G}| \geq 2 $, having full cyclic permutation ordering is invariant under smoothing by Proposition \ref{smoothing}.
\end{proof}

\section{Graph embeddings and rotation systems}\label{section: embedding and rotation system}

Let $ I_{v}(G) $ denote the set of edges of $ G $ incident to a vertex $ v \in V_{G} $.
A \textbf{rotation system} of $ G $ is a collection $ \rho = (\rho_{v})_{v \in V_{G}} $ consisting of cyclic orders $ \rho_{v} $ on $ I_{G}(v) $, where a cyclic order on $ I_{G}(v) $ is an equivalence class of linear orders on $ I_{G}(v) $ obtained by identifying $ (e_{1}, e_{2}, \dots, e_{s}) $ with its circular shift $ (e_{2}, \dots, e_{s}, e_{1}) $, denoted $ [e_{1}, \dots, e_{s}] $.

Every embedding of $ G $ to an orientable closed surface defines a rotation system with the clockwise ordering for each vertex.
Conversely, from a rotation system we can obtain a $ 2 $-cell embedding of $ G $ on an orientable closed surface as follows.

Define $ D_{G} $ by
\begin{align*}
D_{G} \coloneqq \Set{(e,u,v) \in E_{G} \times V_{G} \times V_{G} | r_{G}(e) = \{u,v\}}.
\end{align*}
We call an element of $ D_{G} $ a \textbf{dart}.
A dart $ (e,u,v) $ shows an orientation of the edge $ e $ from $ u $ to $ v $.
Define the involution $ \alpha $ on $ D_{G} $ by $ \alpha(e,u,v) \coloneqq (e,v,u) $.
Given a rotation system $ \rho = (\rho_{v})_{v \in V_{G}} $, we will define bijections $ \sigma $ and $ \phi $ from $ D_{G} $ to itself.
Suppose that $ \rho_{v} = [e_{1}, \dots, e_{s}] $ and $ r_{G}(e_{i}) = \{v, u_{i}\} $.
Define $ \sigma $ by $ \sigma(e_{i}, v, u_{i}) \coloneqq (e_{i+1}, v, u_{i+1}) $, where we consider $ e_{s+1} = e_{1} $ and $ v_{s+1} = v_{1} $.
Let $ \phi \coloneqq \sigma \circ \alpha $.

For every dart $ d $, the target of $ d $ coincides with the source of $ \phi(d) $ since $ \phi(e_{i}, u_{i}, v) = \sigma(e_{i}, v, u_{i}) = (e_{i+1}, v, u_{i+1}) $.
Therefore each orbit in $ D_{G}/\langle \phi \rangle $ determines a closed walk on $ G $ and we can make a polygon whose sides are formed by the darts in the orbit.
Gluing the sides of the polygons obtained from the orbits in $ D(G)/\langle \phi \rangle $ by the involution $ \alpha $, we obtain an embedding of $ G $ on a closed surface.
One can show that this surface is actually orientable (See \cite[Subsection 3.2]{mohar2001graphs}) and hence this embedding is the desired $ 2 $-cell embedding.

\begin{theorem}[See {\cite[Theorem 3.2.4]{mohar2001graphs}}]
Given a graph $ G $, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between rotation systems of $ G $ and $ 2 $-cell embeddings of $ G $ on oriented closed surfaces up to orientation-preserving homeomorphism.
\end{theorem}

Note that, from the construction, the number of the faces of the embedding corresponding to a rotation system is equal to the number of the orbits in $ D_{G}/\langle \phi \rangle $.

Let $ \omega $ be an edge ordering of $ G $.
For each $ v \in V_{G} $, let $ \omega_{v} $ denote the linear order on $ I_{v}(G) $ induced by $ \omega $.
Moreover, let $ \rho_{\omega, v} $ be the cyclic order on $ I_{v}(G) $ determined by $ \omega_{v} $.
Thus we obtain the rotation system $ \rho_{\omega} \coloneqq (\rho_{\omega, v})_{v \in V_{G}} $ from an edge ordering $ \omega $ and hence the corresponding bijections $ \sigma_{\omega} $ and $ \phi_{\omega} = \sigma_{\omega}\alpha $.

\begin{lemma}\label{edge ordering to rotation system}
Let $ \omega $ be an edge ordering of a graph $ G $.
For each $ v \in V_{G} $, let $ e_{i_{v}} $ denote the minimal element of $ \omega_{v} $, that is, $ i_{v} \coloneqq \min\Set{i | e_{i} \in I_{G}(v)} $.
Define a map $ f \colon V_{G}/\langle \pi_{\omega} \rangle \to D_{G}/\langle \phi_{\omega} \rangle $ by
\begin{align*}
f([v]) \coloneqq [(e_{i_{v}}, v, \tau_{i_{v}}(v))],
\end{align*}
where the brackets denote equivalence classes and $ \tau_{i} $ denotes the transposition corresponding to the edge $ e_{i} $ for each $ i $.
Then $ f $ is a bijection.
In particular, $ \ell_{\omega} $ equals the number of faces of the $ 2 $-cell embedding corresponding to the rotation system $ \rho_{\omega} $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we will show that the map $ f $ is well-defined.
Fix $ v \in V_{G} $ and suppose that
\begin{align*}
\Set{e_{i} \in E_{G} | (\tau_{i}\tau_{i-1} \cdots \tau_{1})(v) \neq (\tau_{i-1} \cdots \tau_{1})(v) } = \Set{e_{j_{1}}, e_{j_{2}}, \dots, e_{j_{k}}}
\end{align*}
with $ j_{1} < j_{2} < \dots <j_{k} $.
Let $ v_{0} \coloneqq v $ and $ v_{p} \coloneqq \tau_{j_{p}}(v_{p-1}) $ for $ p \in \{1, \dots, k\} $.
Then $ \pi_{\omega}(v) = v_{k} $.
Since $ \phi_{\omega}(e_{j_{p}}, v_{p-1}, v_{p})
= \phi(e_{j_{p}}, v_{p}, v_{p-1})
= (e_{i_{p+1}}, v_{p}, v_{p+1}) $ for each $ p \in \{1, \dots, k-1\} $, we have $ (\alpha\phi_{\omega}^{k-1})(e_{j_{1}}, v_{0}, v_{1}) = \alpha(e_{j_{k}}, v_{k-1}, v_{k}) = (e_{j_{k}}, v_{k}, v_{k-1}) $.
By definition, $ e_{j_{k}} $ is the maximal element in $ I_{G}(v_{k}) $ with respect to the order $ \omega_{v_{k}} $.
Therefore $ \sigma_{\omega}(e_{j_{k}}, v_{k}, v_{k-1}) = (e_{i_{v_{k}}}, v_{k}, \tau_{i_{v_{k}}}(v_{k})) $ and hence $ \phi_{\omega}^{k}(e_{i_{v}}, v, \tau_{i_{v}}(v)) = (e_{i_{\pi(v)}}, \pi(v), \tau_{i_{\pi(v)}}(\pi(v))) $.
Thus the map $ f $ is well-defined.

Next, to prove the surjectivity, take $ W \in D_{G}/\langle \phi_{\omega} \rangle $.
Suppose that $ e_{i_{W}} $ is an edge which is minimal with respect to the order $ \omega $ such that $ (e_{i_{W}}, v, \tau_{i_{W}}(v)) \in W $.
Assume $ e_{i_{W}} $ is not minimal in $ I_{G}(v) $ with respect to $ \omega_{v} $.
Then $ e_{j} \coloneqq \sigma_{\omega}^{-1}(e_{i_{W}}) $ is less than $ e_{i_{W}} $ with respect to $ \omega $ and $ (e_{j}, \tau_{j}(v),v) = \phi_{\omega}^{-1}(e_{i_{W}, v, \tau_{i_{W}}}(v)) \in W $.
This contradicts to the minimality of $ e_{i_{W}} $.
Therefore $ e_{i_{W}} $ is minimal in $ I_{G}(v) $.
Hence $ f([v]) = [(e_{i_{W}}, v, \tau_{i_{W}}(v))] = W $.

Finally, we prove the injectivity.
Let $ u,v \in V_{G} $ and suppose that $ f([u]) = f([v]) $.
Then we have $ \phi_{\omega}^{k}(e_{i_{u}}, u, \tau_{i_{u}}(u)) = (e_{i_{v}}, v, \tau_{i_{v}}(v)) $ for some $ k \in \mathbb{Z} $.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $ k > 0 $.
Set $ (e_{j_{0}}, v_{0}) \coloneqq (e_{i_{u}}, u) $ and define the darts $ (e_{j_{p}}, v_{p}, \tau_{j_{p}}(v_{p})) $ by $ (e_{j_{p}}, v_{p}, \tau_{j_{p}}(v_{p})) \coloneqq
\phi_{\omega}(e_{j_{p-1}}, v_{p-1}, \tau_{j_{p-1}}(v_{p-1})) $ for $ p \in \{1, \dots, k\} $.
Then we obtain the sequence of edges $ (e_{j_{0}}, e_{j_{1}}, \dots, e_{j_{k}}) $.
Note that $ (e_{j_{0}}, v_{0}) = (e_{i_{u}}, u) $ and $ (e_{j_{k}}, v_{k}) = (e_{i_{v}}, v) $.
Suppose that
\begin{align*}
\Set{p \in \{1, \dots, k\} | e_{j_{p-1}} >_{\omega} e_{j_{p}} }  = \{p_{1}, \dots, p_{s}\}
\end{align*}
with $ p_{1} < \dots < p_{s} = k $.
Then $ \pi_{\omega}^{t}(v_{0}) = v_{j_{p_{t}}} $ for $ t \in \{1, \dots, s\} $.
In particular, $ \pi_{\omega}^{s}(u) = \pi_{\omega}^{s}(v_{0}) = v_{j_{p_{s}}} = v $.
Thus $ [u] = [v] $ and hence $ f $ is injective.
\end{proof}

Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{main theorem: full cyclic}.
\begin{theorem}[Restatement of Theorem \ref{main theorem: full cyclic}]
Given a graph $ G $, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item\label{main theorem: full cyclic 1; restatement} $ G $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering.
\item\label{main theorem: full cyclic 2; restatement} There exists a $ 2 $-cell embedding $ \iota \colon G \to \Sigma $ such that $ f_{\iota} = 1 $.
\item $ \beta(G) $ is even and $ G $ is upper embeddable, that is, $ \beta(G) = 2 \gamma_{\mathrm{max}}(G) $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We only need to prove the equivalence $ (\ref{main theorem: full cyclic 1; restatement}) \Leftrightarrow (\ref{main theorem: full cyclic 2; restatement}) $.
The implication $ (\ref{main theorem: full cyclic 1; restatement}) \Rightarrow (\ref{main theorem: full cyclic 2; restatement}) $ follows by Lemma \ref{edge ordering to rotation system}.

To prove the converse, suppose that $ G $ has a $ 2 $-cell embedding with exactly $ 1 $ face.
Let $ G^{\prime} $ be the graph obtained by subdividing every edge of $ G $.
Since $ G^{\prime} $ is homeomorphic to $ G $, $ G^{\prime} $ has a $ 2 $-cell embedding with exactly $ 1 $ face and the corresponding rotation system $ \rho $.

Let $ \{v_{1}, \dots, v_{s}\} $ denote the set of vertices in $ G^{\prime} $ of degree $ 3 $ or more.
From the construction of $ G^{\prime} $, they have no common incident edges.
Fix a linear ordering $ \omega_{i} $ by the initial element of the cyclic ordering $ \rho_{v_{i}} $ for each $ i \in \{1, \dots, s\} $.
Also, fix a linear ordering $ \omega^{\prime} $ on $ E_{G^{\prime}} \setminus (\bigcup_{i=1}^{s}I_{G}(v_{i})) $.

Define the edge ordering $ \omega $ by concatenating $ \omega_{1}, \dots, \omega_{s}, \omega^{\prime} $.
Then the corresponding rotation system $ \rho_{\omega} $ coincides with $ \rho $.
Therefore $ \ell_{\omega} = 1 $ by Lemma \ref{edge ordering to rotation system}.
Namely, $ G^{\prime} $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering.
Thus we can conclude that $ G $ has a full cyclic permutation ordering by Lemma \ref{homeomorphic}.
\end{proof}

\section{Identity permutation ordering}\label{section: identity permutation ordering}

In this section, a graph is not necessarily connected.
We say that an edge ordering $ \omega $ of a graph $ G $ is an \textbf{identity permutation ordering} if $ \pi_{\omega} = \varepsilon $, where $ \varepsilon $ denotes the identity permutation.
Every edgeless graph vacuously has an identity permutation ordering.
The minimal example of a non-trivial graph having an identity permutation ordering is the dipole with $ 2 $ edges.
Eden \cite{eden1967relation-joct} studied simple graphs that have an identity permutation ordering and mentioned the complete graph $ K_{4} $ is the minimal example.
Figure \ref{fig: dipole and K4} shows identity permutation orderings of the dipole and $ K_{4} $.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-36]
\draw (0,0) node[v](1){} node[above](){$ 1 $};
\draw (1.5,0) node[v](2){} node[above](){$ 2 $};
\draw (0.75, 0.45) node(){$ e_{1} $};
\draw (0.75,-0.5) node(){$ e_{2} $};
\draw (1) to[out=30, in=150] (2);
\draw (1) to[out=330, in=210] (2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,1.5) node[v](1){} node[above left](){$ 1 $};
\draw (0,0) node[v](2){} node[below left](){$ 2 $};
\draw (1.5,0) node[v](3){} node[below right](){$ 3 $};
\draw (1.5,1.5) node[v](4){} node[above right](){$ 4 $};
\draw (1) -- (2) node[midway, xshift=-7]{$ e_{1} $};
\draw (1) -- (3) node[midway, xshift=-15, yshift=7]{$ e_{3} $};
\draw (1) -- (4) node[midway, yshift=7]{$ e_{5} $};
\draw (2) -- (3) node[midway, yshift=-7]{$ e_{6} $};
\draw (2) -- (4) node[midway, xshift=-15, yshift=-7]{$ e_{4} $};
\draw (3) -- (4) node[midway, xshift=7]{$ e_{2} $};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The dipole and the complete graph $ K_{4} $ have an identity permutation ordering.}
\label{fig: dipole and K4}
\end{figure}

Eden gave necessary conditions (without proof) for simple connected graphs having an identity permutation ordering as follows.
\begin{proposition}[{Eden \cite[P. 130]{eden1967relation-joct}}]\label{Eden's conditions}
Let $ G $ be a simple connected graph on $ n $ vertices with $ m $ edges.
If $ G $ has an identity permutation ordering, then the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item $ m $ is even.
\item There exist a set $ \mathcal{C} $ consisting of closed walks and a map $ g \colon V_{G} \to \mathcal{C}$ such that the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $ g $ is bijective.
\item Every $ v \in V_{G} $ belongs to the closed trail $ g(v) $.
\item The sum of the number of edges of closed trails in $ \mathcal{C} $ is $ 2m $.
\item Each edge of $ G $ belongs to exactly two closed trails in $ \mathcal{C} $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $ \omega = (e_{1}, \dots, e_{m}) $ be an identity permutation ordering.
Since the identity permutation is an even permutation, we have $ m $ is even.
Let $ f \colon V_{G} \to D_{G}/\langle \phi_{\omega} \rangle $ be the bijection considered in Lemma \ref{edge ordering to rotation system}.
Note that $ V_{G} = V_{G}/\langle \pi_{\omega} \rangle $ since $ \pi_{\omega} = \varepsilon $.

For each $ v \in V_{G} $, there exists no dart $ d \in D_{G} $ such that both $ d $ and $ \alpha(d) $ belong to $ f(v) $ since $ \pi_{\omega} $ is the identity.
Thus, forgetting the direction of each dart in $ f(v) $, we obtain the closed trail $ g(v) \subseteq E_{G} $.
Letting $ \mathcal{W} \coloneqq \Set{g(v) | v \in V_{G}} $, we have a surjection $ g \colon V_{G} \to \mathcal{W} $.

We will prove $ g $ is injective.
Assume that there exist distinct vertices $ u,v $ such that $ g(u) = g(v) $.
Let $ \omega^{\prime} = (f_{1}, \dots, f_{r}) $ be the induced order of $ \omega $ on $ g(u) $.
Since $ \pi_{\omega^{\prime}}(u) = u $ and $ g(u) = \{f_{1}, \dots, f_{r}\} $, the edges $ f_{1} $ and $ f_{r} $ are incident to $ u $.
Also, $ f_{1} $ and $ f_{r} $ are incident to $ v $ by the same reason.
Hence $ f_{1} $ and $ f_{r} $ are parallel edges between $ u $ and $ v $.
This contradicts that $ G $ is simple.
Therefore $ g $ is injective and hence bijective.

By the definition of maps $ f $ and $ g $, every $ v \in V_{G} $ belongs to $ g(v) $.
Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{v \in V_{G}}|g(v)| = \sum_{v \in V_{G}}|f(v)| = |D_{G}| = 2m.
\end{align*}
For any $ e \in V_{G} $, the two darts on $ e $ belongs distinct orbit $ f(u) $ and $ f(v) $.
Then $ e $ belongs to $ g(u) $ and $ g(v) $ and the other trails do not contain $ e $.
Thus the map $ g \colon V_{G} \to \mathcal{C} $ has the desired properties.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
For the complete graph $ K_{4} $ in Figure \ref{fig: dipole and K4}, the following map $ g $ satisfies the conditions in Proposition \ref{Eden's conditions}.
\begin{align*}
g(1) = \{e_{1}, e_{4}, e_{5}\}, \quad
g(2) = \{e_{1}, e_{3}, e_{6}\}, \quad
g(3) = \{e_{2}, e_{4}, e_{6}\}, \quad
g(4) = \{e_{2}, e_{3}, e_{5}\}.
\end{align*}
\end{example}

Eden asked whether the necessary conditions in Proposition \ref{Eden's conditions} are also sufficient.
We will give a counter example for this question.
Let $ G $ be the graph on $ 12 $ vertices with $ 20 $ edges pictured in Figure \ref{fig: counter example for Eden's question}.
Define a map $ g $ by
\begin{align*}
g(v_{1}) &= v_{1}v_{2}v_{10}v_{1}, \quad
g(v_{2}) = v_{2}v_{9}v_{10}v_{2}, \quad
g(v_{3}) = v_{3}v_{10}v_{4}v_{3}, \quad
g(v_{4}) = v_{4}v_{10}v_{11}v_{4}, \\
g(v_{5}) &= v_{5}v_{6}v_{12}v_{5}, \quad
g(v_{6}) = v_{6}v_{9}v_{12}v_{6}, \quad
g(v_{7}) = v_{7}v_{8}v_{12}v_{7}, \quad
g(v_{8}) = v_{8}v_{11}v_{12}v_{8}, \\
g(v_{9}) &= v_{9}v_{2}v_{1}v_{10}v_{9}, \
g(v_{10}) = v_{10}v_{3}v_{4}v_{11}v_{10}, \
g(v_{11}) = v_{11}v_{8}v_{7}v_{12}v_{11}, \
g(v_{12}) = v_{12}v_{5}v_{6}v_{9}v_{12}.
\end{align*}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1,2) node[v](1){} node[above]{$ v_{1} $};
\draw (-2,1) node[v](2){} node[left]{$ v_{2} $};
\draw ( 1,2) node[v](3){} node[above]{$ v_{3} $};
\draw ( 2,1) node[v](4){} node[right]{$ v_{4} $};
\draw (-1,-2) node[v](5){} node[below]{$ v_{5} $};
\draw (-2,-1) node[v](6){} node[left]{$ v_{6} $};
\draw ( 1,-2) node[v](7){} node[below]{$ v_{7} $};
\draw ( 2,-1) node[v](8){} node[right]{$ v_{8} $};
\draw (-1,0) node[v](9){} node[left]{$ v_{9} $};
\draw ( 0,1) node[v](10){} node[yshift = 10]{$ v_{10} $};
\draw ( 1,0) node[v](11){} node[right]{$ v_{11} $};
\draw ( 0,-1) node[v](12){} node[yshift = -13]{$ v_{12} $};
\draw (2) -- (9) -- (10) -- (2) -- (1) -- (10) -- (3) -- (4) -- (10) -- (11) -- (4);
\draw (6) -- (5) -- (12) -- (6) -- (9) -- (12) -- (11) -- (8) -- (12) -- (7) -- (8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A counter example for Eden's question.}
\label{fig: counter example for Eden's question}
\end{figure}

The conditions in Proposition \ref{Eden's conditions} are satisfied.
Suppose that $ G $ has an identity permutation ordering $ \omega $.
By Lemma \ref{edge ordering to rotation system} there exists a $ 2 $-cell embedding $ \iota $ with $ f_{\iota} = \ell_{\omega} = 12 $ faces.
Then the genus $ g_{\iota} $ satisfies
\begin{align*}
2-2g_{\iota} = |V_{G}| - |E_{G}| + f_{\iota} = 12 - 20 + 12 = 4.
\end{align*}
Therefore $ g_{\iota} = -2 $, which is a contradiction.

\begin{problem}
Characterize graphs that have an identity permutation ordering.
\end{problem}

\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors wish to thank Professor Sachiko Saito for her valuable comments about topics of topology.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}