CMS-PAS-EXO-22-008

CMS-PAS-EXO-22-008
Search for narrow trijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
CMS Collaboration
21 May 2023

Abstract: A search for narrow hadronic resonances decaying to three resolved jets is presented. The search uses 138 fb $^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data with a collision center of mass energy of 13 TeV, collected by the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The three-jet invariant mass spectrum is scrutinized for localized excesses compatible with new resonances with masses in the range of 1.75--9.00 TeV. The background from standard model processes is estimated by fitting the three-jet invariant mass spectrum with empirical functions, following techniques commonly used in dijet resonance searches. No significant deviations from the background expectations are observed. The results are interpreted in the context of several models predicting three-jet resonances, including a new right-handed boson $\mathrm{Z}_{R}$ decaying to three gluons, a Kaluza-Klein gluon decaying via an intermediate radion to three gluons, and an excited quark decaying via a vector boson to three quarks.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to PRL. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures	Summary	Additional Figures	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: The observed trijet invariant mass distribution and the background-only fit to the data using the $f_A$ fit function. The expected $m_{\mathrm{jjj}}$ distributions for $\mathrm{Z}_{R}$ signal masses of 2, 4, 6, and 8 TeV with nominal width are also shown. The normalizations correspond to $\sigma \times \mathcal{B}$ values of 200 fb, 50 fb, 20 fb, and 20 fb, respectively. Only 2016 data is shown for $m_{\mathrm{jjj}} <$ 1.76 TeV because of the high trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed data and the background prediction divided by the total uncertainty, along with expectations for the example $\mathrm{Z}_{R}$ signal points.
png pdf	Figure 2: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{Z}_{R} \rightarrow 3\mathrm{g})$ for the nominal (left) and narrow (right) width scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{Z}_{R} \rightarrow 3\mathrm{g})$ for the nominal (left) and narrow (right) width scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{Z}_{R} \rightarrow 3\mathrm{g})$ for the nominal (left) and narrow (right) width scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018.
png pdf	Figure 3: Limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\rho_{m}$ on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ (left) and $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ (right). Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. The mass exclusion ranges for the benchmark models are also shown.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: Limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\rho_{m}$ on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ (left) and $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ (right). Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. The mass exclusion ranges for the benchmark models are also shown.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: Limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\rho_{m}$ on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ (left) and $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ (right). Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. The mass exclusion ranges for the benchmark models are also shown.

Summary

In summary, the first generic search for new particles decaying to three hadronic jets has been presented. The search uses proton-proton collision data at

$\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV recorded by the CMS experiment from 2016--2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb

$^{-1}$ . The signal is identified as a peak in the smoothly falling three-jet invariant mass spectrum. No significant excesses above the standard model background expectations are observed. Limits are set on the product of the production cross section and branching ratio to three resolved jets. The results are interpreted in the context of a new right-handed boson

$\mathrm{Z}_{R}$ decaying to three gluons, a Kaluza-Klein gluon G decaying via an intermediate radion to three gluons, and an excited quark decaying via a vector boson to three quarks. This is the first search for the three-body decay of high-mass resonances into three resolved jets at the LHC, and also the first search for high-mass resonances that decay into three resolved jets through an intermediate resonance with mass ratio

$\rho_{m}$ between 0.2 to 0.8, significantly extending the model parameter space explored by a previous search [51].

Additional Figures
png pdf	Additional Figure 1: Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with nominal width (top left), $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with narrow width (top right), ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ (bottom left), and $\mathrm{q}^{*}\rightarrow \mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}$ . The efficiencies for 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking conditions are shown separately. The bottom two figures also show efficiencies for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios for cascade decays with intermediate resonances.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-a: Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with nominal width (top left), $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with narrow width (top right), ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ (bottom left), and $\mathrm{q}^{*}\rightarrow \mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}$ . The efficiencies for 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking conditions are shown separately. The bottom two figures also show efficiencies for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios for cascade decays with intermediate resonances.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-b: Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with nominal width (top left), $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with narrow width (top right), ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ (bottom left), and $\mathrm{q}^{*}\rightarrow \mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}$ . The efficiencies for 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking conditions are shown separately. The bottom two figures also show efficiencies for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios for cascade decays with intermediate resonances.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-c: Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with nominal width (top left), $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with narrow width (top right), ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ (bottom left), and $\mathrm{q}^{*}\rightarrow \mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}$ . The efficiencies for 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking conditions are shown separately. The bottom two figures also show efficiencies for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios for cascade decays with intermediate resonances.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-d: Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with nominal width (top left), $\mathrm{Z}_{R}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ with narrow width (top right), ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}\rightarrow \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ (bottom left), and $\mathrm{q}^{*}\rightarrow \mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}$ . The efficiencies for 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking conditions are shown separately. The bottom two figures also show efficiencies for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios for cascade decays with intermediate resonances.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2: The observed local significance for a $\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}$ resonance versus $\mathrm{Z}_{R}$ mass, shown for resonances with nominal width (blue) and narrow width (red). The most significant excesses correspond to 2.1 (2.2) standard deviations.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3: The observed local significance versus $m_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\rho_{m}$ for resonances decaying via a cascade. The largest deviations are observed at $\rho_{m} =$ 0.3, $m_{\mathrm{X}} =$ 4.1 TeV for $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g}$ and $\rho_{m} =$ 0.7, $m_{\mathrm{X}} =$ 3.9 TeV for $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q}$ . The corresponding local (global) significance values are 2.2 (0.36) and 2.1 (0.27) standard deviations, respectively.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-a: The observed local significance versus $m_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\rho_{m}$ for resonances decaying via a cascade. The largest deviations are observed at $\rho_{m} =$ 0.3, $m_{\mathrm{X}} =$ 4.1 TeV for $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g}$ and $\rho_{m} =$ 0.7, $m_{\mathrm{X}} =$ 3.9 TeV for $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q}$ . The corresponding local (global) significance values are 2.2 (0.36) and 2.1 (0.27) standard deviations, respectively.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-b: The observed local significance versus $m_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\rho_{m}$ for resonances decaying via a cascade. The largest deviations are observed at $\rho_{m} =$ 0.3, $m_{\mathrm{X}} =$ 4.1 TeV for $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g}$ and $\rho_{m} =$ 0.7, $m_{\mathrm{X}} =$ 3.9 TeV for $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q}$ . The corresponding local (global) significance values are 2.2 (0.36) and 2.1 (0.27) standard deviations, respectively.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-a: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-b: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-c: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-d: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-e: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-f: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-g: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g})\mathrm{g})$ for different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{KK}}}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-a: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-b: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-c: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-d: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-e: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-f: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-g: Limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q})\mathrm{q})$ for resonances $\mathrm{X}$ in different $\rho_{m}$ scenarios. Only 2016 data is used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of the higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions are also shown for the benchmark $\mathrm{q}^{*}$ model.
png pdf jpg	Additional Figure 6: Three dimensional display of the event with the highest $m_{\mathrm{jjj}}$ of 7.20 TeV. Energy deposited in the electromagnetic (green) and hadronic (blue) calorimeters and the reconstructed tracks of charged particles (yellow) are shown. Reconstructed three most energetic jets are represented by the yellow cones.

References
1	UA1 Collaboration	Two-jet mass distributions at the CERN proton-antiproton collider	PLB 209 (1988) 127
2	UA2 Collaboration	A measurement of two-jet decays of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons at the CERN ${\bar{p} p}$ collider	Z. Phys. C 49 (1991) 17
3	UA2 Collaboration	A search for new intermediate vector mesons and excited quarks decaying to two jets at the CERN ${\rm \bar{p} p}$ collider	NPB 400 (1993) 3
4	CDF Collaboration	The two-jet invariant mass-distribution at $\sqrt{s} =$ 1.8 TeV	PRD 41 (1990) 1722
5	CDF Collaboration	Search for quark compositeness, axigluons and heavy particles using the dijet invariant mass spectrum observed in ${\rm \bar{p} p}$ collisions	PRL 71 (1993) 2542
6	CDF Collaboration	Search for new particles decaying to dijets in ${\rm \bar{p} p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 1.8 TeV	PRL 74 (1995) 3538	hep-ex/9501001
7	CDF Collaboration	Measurement of dijet angular distributions by the Collider Detector at Fermilab	PRL 77 (1996) 5336	hep-ex/9609011
8	CDF Collaboration	Search for new particles decaying to dijets at CDF	PRD 55 (1997) 5263	hep-ex/9702004
9	CDF Collaboration	Search for new particles decaying into dijets in proton-antiproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 1.96 TeV	PRD 79 (2009) 112002	0812.4036
10	D0 Collaboration	Measurement of dijet angular distributions and search for quark compositeness	PRL 80 (1998) 666	hep-ex/9707016
11	D0 Collaboration	The dijet mass spectrum and a search for quark compositeness in ${\rm \bar{p} p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 1.8 TeV	PRL 82 (1999) 2457	hep-ex/9807014
12	D0 Collaboration	Search for new particles in the two-jet decay channel with the D0 detector	PRD 69 (2004) 111101	hep-ex/0308033
13	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for new particles in two-jet final states in 7 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC	PRL 105 (2010) 161801	1008.2461
14	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for quark contact interactions in dijet angular distributions in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector	PLB 694 (2011) 327	1009.5069
15	ATLAS Collaboration	A search for new physics in dijet mass and angular distributions in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector	New J. Phys. 13 (2011) 053044	1103.3864
16	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for new physics in the dijet mass distribution using 1 fb $^{-1}$ of pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV collected by the ATLAS detector	PLB 708 (2012) 37	1108.6311
17	ATLAS Collaboration	ATLAS search for new phenomena in dijet mass and angular distributions using pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	JHEP 01 (2013) 029	1210.1718
18	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for new phenomena in the dijet mass distribution using pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PRD 91 (2015) 052007	1407.1376
19	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for new phenomena in dijet angular distributions in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector	PRL 114 (2015) 221802	1504.00357
20	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for new phenomena in dijet mass and angular distributions from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 754 (2016) 302	1512.01530
21	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for resonances in the mass distribution of jet pairs with one or two jets identified as $b$ -jets in proton--proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 759 (2016) 229	1603.08791
22	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 fb $^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PRD 96 (2017) 052004	1703.09127
23	CMS Collaboration	Search for dijet resonances in 7 TeV pp collisions at CMS	PRL 105 (2010) 211801	CMS-EXO-10-010 1010.0203
24	CMS Collaboration	Search for quark compositeness with the dijet centrality ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	PRL 105 (2010) 262001	CMS-EXO-10-002 1010.4439
25	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of dijet angular distributions and search for quark compositeness in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV	PRL 106 (2011) 201804	CMS-EXO-10-009 1102.2020
26	CMS Collaboration	Search for resonances in the dijet mass spectrum from 7 TeV pp collisions at CMS	PLB 704 (2011) 123	CMS-EXO-11-015 1107.4771
27	CMS Collaboration	Search for quark compositeness in dijet angular distributions from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	JHEP 05 (2012) 055	CMS-EXO-11-017 1202.5535
28	CMS Collaboration	Search for narrow resonances and quantum black holes in inclusive and b-tagged dijet mass spectra from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	JHEP 01 (2013) 013	CMS-EXO-11-094 1210.2387
29	CMS Collaboration	Search for narrow resonances using the dijet mass spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	PRD 87 (2013) 114015	CMS-EXO-12-016 1302.4794
30	CMS Collaboration	Search for quark contact interactions and extra spatial dimensions using dijet angular distributions in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	PLB 746 (2015) 79	CMS-EXO-12-050 1411.2646
31	CMS Collaboration	Search for resonances and quantum black holes using dijet mass spectra in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	PRD 91 (2015) 052009	CMS-EXO-12-059 1501.04198
32	CMS Collaboration	Search for narrow resonances decaying to dijets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRL 116 (2016) 071801	CMS-EXO-15-001 1512.01224
33	CMS Collaboration	Search for narrow resonances in dijet final states at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the novel CMS technique of data scouting	PRL 117 (2016) 031802	CMS-EXO-14-005 1604.08907
34	CMS Collaboration	Search for dijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV and constraints on dark matter and other models	PLB 769 (2017) 520	CMS-EXO-16-032 1611.03568
35	CMS Collaboration	Search for new physics with dijet angular distributions in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JHEP 07 (2017) 013	CMS-EXO-15-009 1703.09986
36	CMS Collaboration	Search for narrow resonances in the b-tagged dijet mass spectrum in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	PRL 120 (2018) 201801	CMS-EXO-16-057 1802.06149
37	CMS Collaboration	Search for high mass dijet resonances with a new background prediction method in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 05 (2020) 033	CMS-EXO-19-012 1911.03947
38	CMS Collaboration	Search for narrow resonances in the b-tagged dijet mass spectrum in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV	Accepted by PRD	CMS-EXO-20-008 2205.01835
39	CMS Collaboration	Search for low mass vector resonances decaying to quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	PRL 119 (2017) 111802	CMS-EXO-16-030 1705.10532
40	CMS Collaboration	Search for low mass vector resonances decaying into quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JHEP 01 (2018) 097	CMS-EXO-17-001 1710.00159
41	CMS Collaboration	Search for low-mass resonances decaying into bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRD 99 (2019) 012005	CMS-EXO-17-024 1810.11822
42	CMS Collaboration	Search for Low-Mass Quark-Antiquark Resonances Produced in Association with a Photon at $\sqrt {s}$ =13 TeV	PRL 123 (2019) 231803	CMS-EXO-17-027 1905.10331
43	CMS Collaboration	Search for low mass vector resonances decaying into quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	PRD 100 (2019) 112007	CMS-EXO-18-012 1909.04114
44	CMS Collaboration	Search for dijet resonances using events with three jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	PLB 805 (2020) 135448	CMS-EXO-19-004 1911.03761
45	ATLAS Collaboration	A search for pair-produced resonances in four-jet final states at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 78 (2018) 250	1710.07171
46	CMS Collaboration	Search for pair-produced resonances decaying to quark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	PRD 98 (2018) 112014	CMS-EXO-17-021 1808.03124
47	CMS Collaboration	Search for pair-produced resonances each decaying into at least four quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRL 121 (2018) 141802	CMS-EXO-17-022 1806.01058
48	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for R-parity-violating supersymmetric particles in multi-jet final states produced in $p-p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC	PLB 785 (2018) 136	1804.03568
49	CMS Collaboration	Search for pair-produced three-jet resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRD 99 (2019) 012010	CMS-EXO-17-030 1810.10092
50	CMS Collaboration	Search for resonant and nonresonant production of pairs of dijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV	Accepted by JHEP	CMS-EXO-21-010 2206.09997
51	CMS Collaboration	Search for high-mass resonances decaying to a jet and a Lorentz-boosted resonance in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV	PLB 832 (2022) 137263	CMS-EXO-20-007 2201.02140
52	K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, A. Pietila, and M. Raidal	Doubly charged Higgs at LHC	NPB 487 (1997) 27	hep-ph/9606311
53	K. S. Agashe et al.	LHC signals from cascade decays of warped vector resonances	Including private communications with authors, 2017 JHEP 05 (2017) 078	1612.00047
54	K. Agashe, M. Ekhterachian, D. Kim, and D. Sathyan	LHC signals for KK graviton from an extended warped extra dimension	JHEP 11 (2020) 109	2008.06480
55	U. Baur, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas	Excited-quark and -lepton production at hadron colliders	PRD 42 (1990) 815
56	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13\,TeV	JINST 15 (2020) P10017	CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165
57	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
58	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- $k_t$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
59	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
60	CMS Collaboration	Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data	JINST 15 (2020) P09018	CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503
61	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV	JINST 12 (2017) P02014	CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663
62	CMS Collaboration	Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data	CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
63	T. Sjöstrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
64	J. Alwall et al.	The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations	JHEP 07 (2014) 079	1405.0301
65	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 10	1706.00428
66	CMS Collaboration	Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements	EPJC 80 (2020) 4	CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179
67	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit	NIM A 506 (2003) 250
68	R. A. Fisher	On the interpretation of $\chi^{2}$ from contingency tables, and the calculation of P	J. R. Stat. Soc. 85 (1922) 87
69	ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group	Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011	Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011
70	P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies	Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method	JINST 10 (2015) P04015	1408.6865
71	CMS Collaboration	Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS	EPJC 81 (2021) 800	CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927
72	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV	CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 link	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
73	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV	CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 link	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
74	E. Gross and O. Vitells	Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics	EPJC 70 (2010) 525	1005.1891
75	A. L. Read	Presentation of search results: The CL $_{\text{s}}$ technique	JPG 28 (2002) 2693
76	T. Junk	Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics	NIM A 434 (1999) 435	hep-ex/9902006
77	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727