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 $pp \to q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $p_T$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the pseudorapidity difference between the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.