Measured inclusive jet differential cross section as a function of PT for the absolute rapidity range 1.1 to 1.6 with the jet resolution parameter D = 0.7.

Measured inclusive jet differential cross section as a function of PT for the absolute rapidity range 1.6 to 2.1 with the jet resolution parameter D = 0.7.

Measured inclusive jet differential cross section as a function of PT for the absolute rapidity range 0.1 TO 0.7 with the jet resolution parameter D = 0.5.

Measured inclusive jet differential cross section as a function of PT for the absolute rapidity range 0.1 TO 0.7 with the jet resolution parameter D = 1.0.

ET distribution for generic jets.

Pseudorapidity (YRAP) distribution for generic jets.

ET distribution for jets tagged as B-jets.

Pseudorapidity (YRAP) distribution for jets tagged as B-jets.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Charged energy flow for non-diffractive enriched events, requiring at least one charged particle in the pseudorapidity range -3.5 < eta < -1.5 and at least one charged particle in the pseudorapidity range 1.9 < eta < 4.9.

Total energy flow for inclusive mininum bias events, requiring at least one charged particle in the pseudorapidity range 1.9 < eta < 4.9.

Total energy flow for hard scattering events, requiring at least one charged particle with transverse momentum > 3 GeV and in the pseudorapidity range 1.9 < eta < 4.9.

Total energy flow for diffractive enriched events, requiring no charged particles in the pseudorapidity range -3.5 < eta < -1.5 and at least one charged particle in the pseudorapidity range 1.9 < eta < 4.9.

Total energy flow for non-diffractive enriched events, requiring at least one charged particle in the pseudorapidity range -3.5 < eta < -1.5 and at least one charged particle in the pseudorapidity range 1.9 < eta < 4.9.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of 4. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1900 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

The distribution of $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ in different $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ regions for simulated background events. Events with 0 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.2 (blue), 0.2 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.6 (red), and 0.6 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 1.0 (green) are compared. All distributions are normalized to unity. The similar $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ distributions demonstrate that $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ are decorrelated.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ in $K_{\mathrm{S}}^{\mathrm{0}}$ vertices in data (black) and simulation (purple). The lower panel shows the ratio between data and simulation.

The vertex reconstruction efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

The ML tagging efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

Number of predicted and observed events in the control, validation, and search regions. Predictions are calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) and fitting the data under the background-only hypothesis. Regions are organized by $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ values, and region names corresponding with Fig. 7 are given in parentheses. The predicted number of events that pass the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection and the observed number of events that pass or fail the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection are shown in seperate rows.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

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