Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with nominal width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 3\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with narrow width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 0.01\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$, where $\varphi$ is the radion. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$, where $V$ is a beyond-the-SM vector boson. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $Z_{R} \to ggg$. The acceptance is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$)/$N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings).

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Observed local significance for a 3-body decay $ggg$ resonance, shown for resonances with nominal width (blue solid line) and narrow width (red dashed line).

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $ggg$ resonance.

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $qqq$ resonance.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $Z_{R}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $G_{KK}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $q^{*}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to Z_{R} \to ggg$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to G_{KK} \to \varphi(gg)g$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to H)B(H\to Z(\eta_c~\text{or}~J/\psi))/$pb. The smaller (larger) quoted ranges around the expected limits represent $\pm 1\sigma$ ($\pm 2\sigma$) fluctuations.

The observed values of Sigma*BR(H->ZZ*), the SM expected cross section sBRsm and their ratio Sigma*BR/(Sigma*BR)_SM for the inclusive production and in each Stage-0 and reduced Stage-1 production bin for an integrated luminosity of 36.1/fb and at sqrt(s)=13 TeV. The bbH contribution is considered as a part of the ggF production bins. The upper limits correspond to the 95% CL obtained with pseudo-experiments using the CL_s method. The uncertainties are given as (stat.)+(exp.)+(th.) for Stage 0 and as (stat.)+(syst.) for reduced Stage 1. Values without uncertainity are 95% CL upper limits.

Signal acceptance obtained as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events satisfying the event selection criteria in each reconstructed event category over the total number of events generated in the phase space specified by a given reduced Stage-1 ggF production bin. Results are obtained in bins of BDT discriminants using coarse binning with several bins merged into one. Values less than 0.0001 are set to 0.

Signal acceptance obtained as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events satisfying the event selection criteria in each reconstructed event category over the total number of events generated in the phase space specified by the given reduced Stage-1 VBF and VH production bins. Results are obtained in bins of BDT discriminants using coarse binning with several bins merged into one. Values less than 0.0001 are set to 0.

The signal strengths mu for the inclusive production and in each Stage-0 and reduced Stage-1 production bin for an integrated luminosity of 36.1/fb and at sqrt(s)=13 TeV. The bbH contribution is considered as a part of the ggF production bins. The upper limits correspond to the 95% CL obtained with pseudo-experiments using the CL_s method. The uncertainties are given as (stat.)+(exp.)+(th.) for Stage 0 and as (stat.)+(syst.) for reduced Stage 1. Values without uncertainity are 95% CL upper limits.

Signal acceptance (in percent) obtained as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events satisfying the event selection criteria in each reconstructed event category to the total number of generated events, as predicted by the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO generator assuming the SM coupling tensor structure or the BSM tensor structure with ($\kappa_{SM}$ = 1, | $\kappa_{AVV}$ | $\neq$ 0).

Number of expected ggF Higgs boson events for an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV, as predicted by the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO generator assuming the SM coupling tensor structure or the BSM tensor structure with ($\kappa_{SM}=1$, $|\kappa_{Avv}|=6$). The highest-order SM predicition for the sum of the ggF, ttH and bbH contributions is also shown for comparison.

Number of expected VBF and VH Higgs boson events for an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV, as predicted by the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO generator assuming the SM coupling tensor structure or the BSM tensor structure with ($\kappa_{SM}=1$, $|\kappa_{Avv}|=5$). The highest-order SM predicition for the sum of the VBF and VH contributions is also shown for comparison.

Expected Correlation Matrix for Stage 0

Observed Correlation Matrix for Stage 0. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Expected Correlation Matrix for Reduced Stage 1

Observed Correlation Matrix for Reduced Stage 1. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Expected Covariance Matrix for Stage 0

Observed Covariance Matrix for Stage 0. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Expected Covariance Matrix for Reduced Stage 1

Observed Covariance Matrix for Reduced Stage 1. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Likelihood contours at 68% CL in the (Sigma_ggF*B , Sigma_VBF*B ) plane

Likelihood contours at 95% CL in the (Sigma_ggF*B , Sigma_VBF*B ) plane

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The couplings $\kappa_{Hgg}$ and $\kappa_{SM}$ are fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The couplings $\kappa_{Hgg}$ and $\kappa_{SM}$ are fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The coupling $\kappa_{Hgg}$ is fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The coupling $\kappa_{SM}$ is left as a free parameter of the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The coupling $\kappa_{Hgg}$ is fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The coupling $\kappa_{SM}$ is left as a free parameter of the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{AVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{AVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.