The "Rubin 2036: Opportunities for Discovery" Workshop: A Community Roadmap for the Future of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory After the LSST

Email: [email protected]

Introduction

The Vera C. Rubin Observatory was designed and built to carry out the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST): a decade-long, wide, fast, deep (WFD) optical survey of the southern sky in six broad photometric bands ($ugrizy$) [27, 11]. The four science pillars of the LSST are probing dark energy and dark matter, taking an inventory of the Solar System, exploring the transient and variable sky, and mapping the formation and structure of the Milky Way. The LSST began in 2026, and by the mid-2030s the nominal ten-year survey will be complete, delivering an unprecedented deep, six-band ($ugrizy$), time-domain data set spanning $\sim18{,}000\,\mathrm{deg}^2$. The telescope, camera, data-management system, and the software will remain one of the most capable wide-field imaging systems worldwide.

This paper summarizes the outcomes of the Rubin 2036: Opportunities for Discovery workshop² held at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC)³ on 3–5 August 2026. It presents potential directions for Rubin operations beyond the LSST, built on concrete science cases that the community could develop for upcoming prioritization processes, including the next decadal survey in astronomy and astrophysics (Astro2030).

The scientific cases for Rubin rely on its unique étendue ($A \cdot\Omega$, the product of collecting area and field of view). No facility planned for the 2030s will match Rubin’s combination of an 8.4 m aperture and a 9.6 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ field of view, together with rapid telescope slewing and short settling times that make it efficient for both wide-area and rapid target-of-opportunity observing. Other imaging and spectroscopic facilities, such as the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), the 4-meter Multi-Object Spectroscopic Telescope (4MOST), the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (Roman), and Euclid, will provide complementary capabilities. By the mid-2030s we will also have a large suite of data products and scientific discoveries enabled by the LSST itself.

Continuing to operate and evolve a built facility can be a high-return use of resources: the marginal cost of new capability is small relative both to the cost already committed and to any new facility of comparable reach.

Over the past decade a series of community studies has argued for planning Rubin’s use beyond the LSST, from the Cosmic Visions Dark Energy reports (S. Dodelson et al. 2016a,b; K. Dawson et al. 2018), through Astro2020 white papers on next-generation LSST science and future uses of the facility [28, 30], the LSST next-generation instrumentation workshop [41], dedicated narrow-band filter studies [43], and the Snowmass 2021 process [14, 24, 8] (see Appendix § 14 for a summary of previous work). The Astro2020 decadal survey, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s [38] set the current scientific priorities for the field. Its recommendations are now the subject of a National Academies mid-decadal review of progress [39], and considering science drivers now for the post-LSST future of Rubin positions the community to bring well-developed science cases to the next decadal survey (Astro2030).

The workshop brought together approximately 100 in-person and online participants to begin developing this roadmap. A program of invited framing talks on the first day and synergy talks on the second (Appendix § 12), together with short ‘lightning’ talks (Appendix § 13), introduced the scientific, programmatic, and cross-facility context and seeded many of the science cases; slides for a subset are available on the workshop website. The bulk of the time was devoted to collaborative work in five thematic groups: (A) continued LSST-style surveying (§ 2); (B) alternative cadences and footprints (§ 3); (C) narrow- and medium-band surveys and alternative filters (§ 4); (D) targets of opportunity and multi-messenger astronomy (§ 5); and (E) enabling technology and upgrades (§ 6). Each group developed and compared science cases against a common set of prompts, reproduced in full in Appendix § 11: the specific science goal and the single result that would matter most; why Rubin, and why the decision to pursue the capability cannot wait, framed around its area $\times$ field-of-view ($A \cdot\Omega$); the strongest skeptic’s objection and a rebuttal; the concrete change required (filter set, cadence, instrument, or software) and its lead time; which early-LSST data release must be in hand before the case is compelling; the success metric and figure of merit for the case; connections to other facilities, surveys, and groups; and the single most useful next step. Two cross-cutting perspectives, the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) and opportunities for Latin-American, particularly Chilean, co-leadership (§ 7), were considered across all cases. Other cross-cutting topics, such as satellite megaconstellations and climate-related degradation of seeing, emerged organically during the meeting. The themes were informed by discussions within the Scientific Organizing Committee, participant input during registration, and the previous community efforts noted above.

Each thematic group developed its results into a standalone document, archived in the workshop’s Zenodo community; these are listed in Table 1 and cited at the start of each group’s section below, and the present paper is a summary that points to them for full detail.

Group	Title (Zenodo community)	Reference
A	A survey-native foundation model for the faint, crowded sky	P. Yadav [42]
B	Cosmology and Astrophysics with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Using Alternative Cadences and Footprints	S. Birrer et al. [12]
C	Cosmology and Astrophysics with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Using New Filters	L. Bleem et al. [13]
D	Multi-Messenger Cosmology and Astrophysics after the LSST	S. P. MacBride et al. [33]
E	Enabling Technology and Upgrades for Rubin 2036	S. W. Allen et al. [6]

The workshop program and supporting material are collected on the workshop website, https://rubin-observatory.github.io/Rubin-Beyond-LSST/ which is intended to serve as a persistent home for this and future meetings in the series. The documents from each working group are available in the Rubin 2036 Zenodo community (https://zenodo.org/communities/rubin2036workshop).

Group A: Continued LSST-style Surveying

Contributors: P. Yadav. See P. Yadav [42] for the full Group A document.

Group A considered continuing to survey with the current system beyond the nominal ten years, gaining scientific reach from a longer time baseline, and deeper coadds rather than from any new hardware or change of observing strategy. Its case argues that the deeper, more crowded imaging a continued survey produces can only be exploited if the detection, deblending, and classification software evolves in step, an argument for sustained investment in data-analysis software, computing, and machine-learning infrastructure (including graphics-processing-unit (GPU) compute and curated training data) rather than in the observatory itself.

A survey-native foundation model for the faint, crowded sky

A continued, deepening survey produces science only if its faint, crowded sky can actually be measured, and at those depths the fraction of blended detections rises steeply while the availability of vetted training labels does not. The central question is whether a survey-native foundation model (a backbone pretrained self-supervised on Rubin’s own unlabeled ugrizy coadds) can deliver scene-level detection, deblending, and star/galaxy classification at the faint end using only a small fraction of the labels that supervised training requires. The single result that would matter is matching fully supervised performance from roughly 5–15% of the labels, making a scene-level catalog deployable across the whole footprint rather than only in the handful of spectroscopically rich deep fields. The $A\cdot\Omega$ argument here is two-sided: the same survey depth that drives fields into the blended regime (where morphology-only star/galaxy separation degrades to $\sim50\%$ correctly classified injected stars at $i=23.8$ in Rubin Data Preview 1 (DP1) source-injection tests) also guarantees that unlabeled pixels, unlike vetted labels, scale exactly with $A\cdot\Omega$. Evidence from the first application of the DeepDISC (G. Merz et al. [36]) scene-level framework to real LSST DP1 imaging (1,458 six-band tiles over the Extended Chandra Deep Field South and the Euclid Deep Field South; 288,277 objects, validated against the Hubble Space Telescope and the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey) shows scene-level inference reaching 94.8%/71.4% galaxy/star recall against HST (near-parity with a photometry-based random forest) while achieving 94.6% catalog purity on a held-out HST footprint versus 77.6% for the Scarlet-based (P. Melchior et al. [35]) production pipeline on the same sky. The requirement is not telescope time but infrastructure: sustained GPU compute and bulk-image access for data-release-scale pretraining ($\sim$2–3 yr to stand up), a deep-field truth program (source-injection plus curated spectroscopic/astrometric labels, coordinated with DESI/4MOST), and an integration path to release scene-level catalogs as supported value-added data products. The priors, rerunning the $i=23.8$ injection benchmark with image-based classifiers and a sweep over the fraction of labeled training examples, are obtainable from Data Preview 2 (DP2) and Data Release 1 (DR1). This case is cross-cutting, connecting to Roman (joint pixel-level training cuts the simulated unrecognized-blend fraction from 18.6% to 11.6%), Euclid, DESI and Spec-S5 (a proposed Stage-V spectroscopic facility), and to Groups B (which deep fields exist to train on), C (photo-z quality is bounded by blended-photometry quality), D (host identification in crowded fields), and E (compute/software infrastructure). A Chilean co-leadership tie-in was proposed around the truth/label program and a data-science training-school module.

Group B: Alternative Cadences and Footprints

Contributors: H. Best, S. Birrer, R. Blum, A. S. Bolton, R. Bonito, R. C. Chen, S. Corley, S. Digel, S. Erickson, C. E. Holt, S. Jha, A. I. Malz, P. Marshall, P. Sharma, A. S. Tramuto, L. Venuti, W. M. Wood-Vasey, P. Yadav; and Chilean co-leads T. Anguita and V. Motta. See S. Birrer et al. [12] for the full Group B document.

Group B addressed how to re-tune Rubin’s observing strategy after LSST (e.g., denser cadence, micro-, mini- and sub-surveys, monitoring programs, and target-of-opportunity splits) to reach science that the homogeneous, compromise-driven WFD main-survey cadence cannot. Group B participants also identified a “metacase” for the workshop at large: a proposal that the community establish a flexible, prioritized process for allocating post-LSST observing time, rather than commit now to a single fixed alternative cadence. Around that umbrella the group developed a set of concrete science-driven cadences.

The metacase: a process for the post-LSST science portfolio

The observation motivating the metacase is that Rubin’s capabilities are not exhausted by the LSST survey design: survey-cadence proposals have consistently oversubscribed the available LSST time, and new ideas will keep emerging as the survey progresses. Because cadence and footprint changes have shorter lead times than any other facility modification (shorter than filters or focal-plane hardware), they would not involve downtime for observatory updates and could in fact be pursued on an interim basis if, for example, new filters were being fabricated. What Rubin needs is a survey-strategy framework that can run concurrent programs of differing scale, area, filter set, exposure time, and cadence, together with a scientific prioritization process, modeled on the large/medium/small proposal structure used at other observatories (e.g., Roman’s mix of core community surveys and proposal-based general-astrophysics surveys). The counterargument that the LSST cadence was already optimized in a community process is answered by noting that the most important science in 2036 will differ from the original LSST science goals, and that the main survey necessarily compromised across all cases rather than serving finely targeted ones. Success would be measured by the number and oversubscription of proposals received and by the breadth of community participation; a Chilean tie-in (reserved Chilean-community time or a Chilean Time Allocation Committee, TAC) is a natural component. The metacase is the umbrella under which most Group B, and several cross-group, cases sit. One concrete instantiation discussed was a dedicated time-domain observing mode that relaxes the main survey’s uniformity and large-area requirements in order to maximize Rubin’s time-domain legacy.

Science-driven cadences

The group developed several cases that such a process would prioritize:

Transiting-exoplanet census of the Milky Way disk—A census of transiting planets across all spectral types in the Galactic disk, confirming candidates through $\ge3$ transits, over $\sim3{,}600\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ of the disk. It requires operational flexibility rather than hardware: a high-cadence mode that revisits each field many times per night on 1–6 hr cycles. Kepler (0.25% of sky) and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS; bright stars, $r \lesssim12$) leave most of the disk’s planet population unprobed; a benchmark target is confirming planets around $\ge10{,}000$ disk stars.

Young stellar objects across all timescales—A multi-band (ugriz), high-cadence (30-minute), short-duration ($\sim10$-day) sub-survey of thousands of young stellar objects (YSOs) in several star-forming regions of Rubin’s Galactic footprint would link short-term accretion bursts to long-term eruptive events such as those of EXor-type stars (young stars that undergo repeated months-to-years-long accretion outbursts). Exploiting Rubin’s étendue and its blue and red filters, it would recover light-curve morphologies, determine stellar photospheric properties, and characterize accretion physics as a function of stellar age and environment. Its complementarity with the low-cadence, multi-year LSST view uniquely constrains the occurrence rates of small- versus large-scale events in the accretion histories of young stars, extending the YSO micro-survey already proposed for the LSST (R. Bonito et al. [15]).

Type Ia supernova cosmology to $z \sim1.1$—A dedicated sub-survey drilling into non-Deep-Drilling-Field regions to fill the Hubble diagram out to $z \sim1.1$, where the ten-year LSST sample is sparse, which would enable tests of time-varying dark energy beyond $(w_0,w_a)$ and tests of cosmic isotropy along continuous sightlines. It needs no new filters; Group C’s offset filters would most benefit this case by preserving discovery depth. Mid-to-late-release cosmology results are the prior that would set the strategy.

Strongly-lensed AGN and supernovae for time-delay cosmography—Daily cadence on $\sim$2,000 deg$^2$, preferentially on the Roman high-latitude footprint, to measure time delays of lensed quasars and the rare, rapidly-fading lensed supernovae. Concrete performance metrics include accretion-disk sizes measured to 10%, a $5\sigma$ discrimination between competing models of the lens-population stellar initial mass function (IMF), and 1% $H_0$ from each of the lensed-SN and lensed active-galactic-nucleus (AGN) samples.

The few-second sky: ultracompact binaries and fast transients—Two cases exploit second-scale cadence. A fast-cadence Galactic survey (1–2 s continuous imaging over an hour, repeated over years) targets Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA)-era eclipsing double white dwarfs with sub-15-minute periods, comparing the optically-timed orbital decay $\dot{P}$ against the gravitational-wave (GW)-driven prediction to isolate tidal dissipation and test whether such binaries are calibrated GW sirens, a measurement whose precision scales as $\sim T^{-5/2}$, so a baseline beginning in the mid-2030s would maximize sensitivity by the time of LISA’s late-2030s Galactic-binary catalog. A complementary extragalactic case targets fast blue optical transients and fast-radio-burst (FRB) counterparts, which are washed out in a standard 30 s visit and require 1–2 s readouts plus second-scale alerting. Both depend on enabling technology from Group E (fast readout modes).

Solar-System and coordinated-observing mini-surveys—An ecliptic-restricted, daily-cadence mini-survey pairing $g$ and $r$ within each visit would catch the rise of cometary and active-asteroid outbursts and distinguish dust- from gas-driven activity by color; and a framework for commensal or simultaneous observing with other facilities (the Dark Energy Camera, DECam; the Southern Astrophysical Research Telescope, SOAR; the Very Large Telescope, VLT; LS4; radio: Simons Observatory, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, ACT; the Square Kilometre Array, SKA) would enable science requiring same-time multi-wavelength coverage (explicitly excluding multi-messenger triggers, which are Group D’s domain).

Group C: Narrow- and Medium-band Surveys and Alternative Filters

Contributors: M. Awais, L. Bleem, A. Broughton, J. Carlin, F. Castander, F. Charles, A. Chiti, J. F. Crenshaw, A. Dey, A. Drlica-Wagner, H. Ebina, A. Englert, K. Fanning, M. Hyun, J. B. Kalmbach, K. Kelkar, S. Kolwa, A. Kovačević, R. Long, A. I. Malz, S. Margheim, N. J. Mason, S. Mei, H. Miyatake, M. Moore, J. Myles, J. Newman, A. Nguyen, Y. Ordenes-Briceño, S. Panda, F. Pozo Nuñez, A. Raichoor, A. Rasmussen, M. Redden, L. Sajkov, B. Sherwin, S. Thomas, C.-H. To, H. I. Ullah, C. Williams, M. Yamamoto.

Group C examined multiple ways of changing Rubin’s filter complement beyond the Sloan-heritage ugrizy set (which is optimized for photo-$z$ near $z \sim0.2$): medium-band filters ($\lambda/\Delta\lambda\sim15$–20, $\sim$200–800 Å wide) for photometric redshifts, high-$z$ cosmology, AGN reverberation mapping, and stellar archaeology; narrow-band filters for emission-line and biosignature-proxy surveys; “offset” broad bands shifted in wavelength relative to ugrizy while preserving depth and cadence; and more exotic hardware concepts (ramp filters, a segmented “butcher-block” tiled filter array, and exploitation of the bandpass–angle-of-incidence coupling of Rubin’s telecentric design). The group’s document organizes its cases by science theme, from cosmology and large-scale structure to Local-Universe and Galactic archaeology, exoplanets and astrobiology, and Solar System science; we follow that grouping below. A recurring observation was that essentially every proposal costs of order one to a few million dollars per filter, a small marginal cost on an existing facility. The unifying metric proposed was the ratio $R(T,\Omega) = \mathrm{FoM}(\text{new filter set})/\mathrm{FoM}(\mathit{ugrizy})$ at fixed time $T$ and sky area $\Omega$. The seven cases below are summarized here; each is developed in full, with quantitative forecasts, figures, and references, in the group’s detailed document ([13]).

Cosmology and extragalactic science

High-redshift large-scale structure with medium bands—The goal is to measure high-redshift large-scale structure using Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) at $z \gtrsim2$ selected with medium-band filters, together with LSST-selected Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) refined by medium-band photometry, and to perform a $2 \times2$-point analysis (LAE/LBG clustering × cosmic microwave background, CMB, lensing) constraining $\Omega_M$, $S_8$, neutrino mass, and $(w_0, w_a)$ with the longest available lever arm, while accessing primordial-Universe physics ($f_{\mathrm{NL}}$) where structure is less nonlinear. The headline figure of merit is a forecast $\sim$4–5% constraint on $\sigma_8$ per medium band from the LAE clustering × Simons Observatory CMB-lensing cross-correlation, well beyond existing measurements at this redshift. Only Rubin can detect LAEs and enable clean LBG selection over the $\geq$11,000 deg$^2$ that Spec-S5 requires: the Blanco telescope is a candidate to be repurposed to host Spec-S5 itself, the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) has a much smaller aperture than Rubin, and Subaru/Hyper Supreme-Cam (HSC) surveys $\sim$3× more slowly than Rubin and is not survey-dedicated. The concrete need is a minimal set of $\sim$7 medium bands with $\lambda/\Delta\lambda\sim20$ spanning $2.1 \lesssim z \lesssim3.5$ with continuous coverage (LAE wavelength–redshift mapping: 400 nm $\to z = 2.3$; 700 nm $\to z = 4.8$), at $\sim$$1M per filter, ideally reaching $2 < z < 6.5$ with Roman supplementing the high end. Current target-selection efficiency with the Intermediate-Band Imaging Survey (IBIS) on DECam on the Blanco telescope plus HSC broadbands is already 75% against DESI. The case connects tightly to the Simons Observatory (SO; which supplies the CMB-lensing map), DESI, and the Prime Focus Spectrograph (PFS), and, most importantly, to Spec-S5, whose LAE sample requires $\sim$4 years of Rubin dark-time medium-band observing as a precursor: the two facilities should be optimized jointly. The precursor HSC-Niji survey (medium bands binned into four “quadrants” MBQ1–4 to avoid slow filter exchanges; MBQ1 delivered in 2025) demonstrates the approach, and photo-$z$ forecasts indicate that adding $\sim$16 medium bands to the six broad bands meets LSST Year 1 (Y1; and largely Year 10, Y10) weak-lensing and large-scale-structure (LSS) photo-$z$ requirements. The chief open question is how to quantify the marginal gain over LSST alone.

Offset broad bands for photometric redshifts—Rather than medium bands, this case adds a set of 5–7 broad bands offset in wavelength from ugrizy, gaining spectral information (and thus better per-object photo-$z$ and high-$z$ target selection) while still retaining the depth needed for transient and proper-motion science that medium bands would sacrifice. The target is a factor of $\sim$2 reduction in photo-$z$ scatter and outlier rate, matching the gain expected from doubling spectral resolution and exposure time, at $1–2M per filter. An empirical test using the Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS) 2020 catalog found that 11 offset broad bands outperform both the six-broadband and the twelve-medium-band scenarios in photo-$z$ scatter and outlier fraction, and a hybrid (six medium blue + six broad) is nearly as good. Because it preserves time-domain science, this is regarded as the “workhorse” filter option; it connects to Spec-S5 target selection, CMB cluster surveys (South Pole Telescope, SPT-3G+/SO), X-ray clusters (Athena), and radio weak lensing (SKA). The prior is synthetic photometry from COSMOS-class spectral-energy-distribution (SED) catalogs rather than new data.

AGN accretion-disk reverberation mapping and cosmology—Rubin will produce the largest homogeneous time-domain AGN sample ever assembled, turning continuum reverberation mapping from a targeted, single-quasar technique into a population-scale experiment across black-hole mass, accretion rate, and redshift. Medium bands ($\lambda/\Delta\lambda\sim15$–20) placed to separate continuum-dominated from line-dominated spectral regions, on a $\sim$1–2 day cadence in the Deep Drilling Fields, would measure accretion-disk sizes and temperature profiles after removing redshift-dependent contamination, resolving the long-standing puzzle that measured disks are larger than thin-disk theory predicts. A contamination-controlled disk-size sample could in principle serve as a geometric cosmological ruler complementing Type Ia supernovae. A pilot would target continuum lags for several hundred AGN; the mature program, several thousand. The case has natural Chilean co-leadership through Rubin, Gemini-South, and SOAR, with the Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey (S-PLUS) and 4MOST-ChANGES as tie-ins.

Protocluster assembly—A companion extragalactic case seeks a complete catalog of protoclusters at $z < 4$, tracing when the highest-mass halos assemble and how their galaxies transform, using precise medium-band or variable-filter photometric redshifts and intracluster light as a mass proxy, building on Euclid, Euclid×LSST, and Sunyaev–Zel’dovich candidate lists (LSST broadbands alone reach only $z \lesssim1.3$–1.4).

Local-Universe, stellar, emission-line, and exotic-filter concepts

Galactic archaeology and local dark matter—A set of $\sim$5 medium bands ($\sim$200 Å wide; a minimal set is Ca II H&K plus Mg$b$) sensitive to stellar metallicity and surface gravity would map Local Group structure and formation over $\geq$70% of the sky, identifying streams, tidally stripped stars, and rare low-metallicity stars, and delivering a 3D distance map to the Milky Way’s virial radius, a probe of small-scale dark matter and first-star enrichment. The target is [Fe/H] to $\sim$10% and 90% dwarf/giant discrimination at $g \lesssim25$. Offset broad bands are shown to be insufficient here: the target features have equivalent widths of only $\sim$5–10 Å, requiring true medium bands even for faint stars. The transient-cadence cost (a 200 Å band needs ∼150 s versus 30 s to stay background-limited) is mitigated by making exposure time a function of filter wavelength. IBIS, Niji, and DESI Run 2 are the precursors that will validate the method.

Extended-baseline proper motions for halo dark matter—This is a case to probe the distribution of dark matter in the Milky Way halo through the kinematics of satellite dwarf galaxies, globular clusters, and stellar streams, in particular by detecting and modeling the gaps in tidal streams thought to be produced by encounters with dark-matter subhalos, thereby constraining the subhalo mass function. Because proper-motion accuracy improves as $t^{-3/2}$ with time baseline, continuing the survey past 2036 yields large astrometric gains: extending proper-motion accuracy to better than 0.5 mas yr$^{-1}$ at or below $r \approx24$ over the entire southern sky, within several years of continued post-LSST operation. Rubin will already have built a decade-long baseline over an area larger than Roman’s, and to depths not reached by planned astrometric surveys such as GaiaNIR, so additional epochs compound the advantage of Rubin. This would require no hardware change: roughly ten to twenty broad-band epochs per year suffice to keep the baseline growing while allowing outlier rejection, and this case is the strongest argument for keeping some fraction of the post-LSST cadence in broad bands (the existing ugrizy or the “offset” broad bands above) rather than moving entirely to medium or narrow bands, which motivates its placement in Group C. The prerequisite is a demonstration, using Gaia as a prior, that LSST can measure proper motions to the required accuracy for faint, low-proper-motion sources, plausibly by DR1 but perhaps requiring a longer baseline. It connects to the offset-broad-band and Galactic-archaeology cases above and to near-field cosmology programs.

Narrow-band Hα emission-line imaging—An Hα survey that would serve science from supernova remnants to the star-forming filaments of large-scale structure, bridging to 4MOST spectroscopy, exploiting Rubin’s unique combination of the widest field of view and active-optics-driven uniform image quality. It needs an Hα filter or two ramp filters within the existing broadband range (potentially the largest narrow-band filter yet built), with DR1 setting the achievable redshift depth (focus on $z < 1$); a possible Chilean tie-in is 4MOST-CHANCES. Satellite megaconstellations are a comparatively larger concern for narrow-band than for broadband imaging, since the line signal itself is faint, so trail masking and mitigation are more important here.

Biosignature-proxy and Kuiper-belt-object triage—Two physics-based “triage” cases (explicitly not claims of detection) ask whether a single well-placed band sharpens a population-scale search. The first tests whether a ∼710 nm medium band (full width at half maximum, FWHM, 20–40 nm), alternated with $r$ and $i$, can flag a vegetation-red-edge-like reflectance feature and separate it from haze/methane look-alikes, reducing the number of stacked detections needed to reach $3\sigma$–$5\sigma$; the second tests whether a ∼450 nm blue-visible medium band (FWHM ≈60–80 nm) improves separation of organic-rich, ice-rich, mixed, and weakly active Kuiper-belt-object surface states beyond ugrizy (figure of merit: ≥25% gain in the pairwise Mahalanobis distance at fixed cost), calibrated against the New Horizons flyby measurements of the Kuiper-belt object Arrokoth as ground truth. Both are framed as low-cost additions to the survey that concentrate scarce spectroscopy on the highest-information targets, and both have sensitivity to weather (near-simultaneous color pairs) and satellite-megaconstellation trails in the blue.

Exotic filter hardware—Three hardware concepts round out the group. The “butcher-block” segmented filter array would bond 21 uniform narrow-band tiles, one per charge-coupled-device (CCD) raft, into a single 75 cm element, giving each raft a clean, non-smeared bandpass that sidesteps the fast-beam smearing problem, and sampling ∼21 redshift slices in one exposure with dithering (precedents: NASA “butcher-block” arrays, PAUCam). Leveraging the bandpass–angle-of-incidence covariance, explicitly a generic technique, not a science case, uses masks on the primary mirror to shift bandpasses by $|\Delta\lambda|/\lambda\approx0.01$ using existing glass, exploiting Rubin’s telecentric coupling of pupil radius to incidence angle (14.1°–23.5°). And “ramp” (spatially variable) filters recur as the favored configuration for the protocluster and Hα cases, with the caveat that their feasibility and the required new data-processing pipeline remain to be demonstrated. A shared implication across all of these is that current reduction pipelines assume a discrete, unchanging filter set, so non-standard filters would require new data-processing pipelines, a substantial but tractable development effort.

Group D: Targets of Opportunity and Multi-messenger Astronomy

Contributors: S. Anand, L. Eisert, S. Fu, N. Hazra, Y. Kang, K. Kelkar, M.-X. Lin, S. MacBride, A. Palmese, S. Panda, Y. Utsumi.

The coming decade will bring major advances in gravitational-wave and neutrino detection. The next-generation (XG) ground-based GW observatories (the Einstein Telescope, ET, and Cosmic Explorer, CE), the space-based LISA, and next-generation neutrino arrays (KM3NeT, TRIDENT, IceCube-Gen2) will eventually increase compact-object-merger and neutrino-alert detection rates by one to two orders of magnitude while revealing new source populations. Rubin, with its field of view, depth, and already-demonstrated low-latency target-of-opportunity (ToO) infrastructure, is uniquely able to identify and characterize the electromagnetic (EM) counterparts at these rates. Group D developed eight science cases, spanning multi-messenger cosmology in the XG gravitational-wave era, extragalactic transient astrophysics, and Galactic multi-messenger science, all building on Rubin’s LSST-era ToO heritage and developed in full in the group’s detailed document (S. P. MacBride et al. [33]).

Bright standard sirens from ET/CE mergers

In the nearer term, through the mid-2030s, the most likely configuration is the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) $A^\sharp$ upgrade (LIGO Scientific Collaboration [31]): with the fifth observing run (O5) expected to end around 2031 and $A^\sharp$ following after a few years of upgrades, a three-detector network of the two US LIGO detectors plus LIGO-India is forecast to yield $\sim100$ binary-neutron-star (BNS) and neutron-star–black-hole (NSBH) mergers per year localized to $\sim10\ \mathrm{deg}^2$ (I. Gupta et al. [25]). Looking further ahead, the XG observatories CE (M. Evans et al. [23]) and ET (A. Abac et al. [2]), once operating at design sensitivity, would increase the ground-based detection rate by one to two orders of magnitude over the current LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA (LVK) network, to $\sim10^5$–$10^6$ BNS mergers per year, of which thousands per year could be localized to $\sim10\ \mathrm{deg}^2$ or less, depending on the exact network configuration (I. Gupta et al. [25]). The goal is to extend Rubin’s ToO system past LSST to discover and localize kilonova counterparts in sufficient numbers to enable their spectroscopic follow-up and to contribute to a percent-level $H_0$ measurement, mapping $H(z)$ with gravitational-wave and electromagnetic data in the 2040s. Each bright siren requires a kilonova identified and characterized within days before it fades; a large fraction of well-localized events fall within $\sim1$–$10\ \mathrm{deg}^2$, ideal for a single Rubin pointing. Meeting this challenge requires Rubin’s wide field of view and faint reach (N. Borghi et al. [16]): only a system with Rubin’s faint reach and low-latency ToO infrastructure (demonstrated at $<5\ \mathrm{min}$ response in commissioning; S. MacBride et al. 2026) can triage an order of magnitude more events than the current LVK network can. What this science case needs is a rapid-cadence mode for Rubin (minutes-to-hours) and a ToO allocation beyond the LSST-era 3%. The prior is the LSST-era ToO performance record, with a first assessment possible after the LVK IR1 run (~mid-2027). For context, GW170817 alone gives $H_0$ to $\sim14\%$ using the gravitational-wave detection alone (B. P. Abbott et al. [3]), and $\sim7\%$ and below in later standard-siren analyses of the same event (K. Hotokezaka et al. [26]; A. Palmese et al. [40]; A. J. Amsellem et al. [7]); $\sim50$ events reach $\sim2\%$ (H.-Y. Chen et al. [18]), and a full XG network can measure $H_0$ to $0.2\%$ (enough to resolve the current $H_0$ tension) within a year of observations (H.-Y. Chen et al. [17]). In addition to kilonovae detection, standard sirens from stellar-mass black holes detected by CE and ET could be observed using long-baseline monitoring of the sky areas of well-localized black-hole mergers for variability exceeding historical flares, adding a source of standard sirens that extends to larger cosmological distances.

Bright sirens from LISA massive-black-hole mergers

LISA (to be launched in $\sim2035$) will detect massive black-hole binary (MBHB) mergers ($\sim10^4$–$10^8\ M_\odot$) out to $z\sim10$, with localizations from tens of $\mathrm{deg}^2$ down to sub-$\mathrm{deg}^2$, evolving over days to weeks before merger. A fraction of these mergers will occur in gas-rich circumbinary environments that can produce a detectable optical transient or quasi-periodic signature; Rubin could identify host candidates and extend the standard-siren Hubble diagram to a much longer cosmological lever arm. The case is for sustained, deep monitoring of LISA localization regions over days to weeks, using a robust photometric redshift catalog built from LSST/\mathit{Roman}/\mathit{Euclid}. The expected yield is $\sim1$ Rubin-detectable EM counterpart per year (out to $z\sim2$–$4$, model-dependent) (A. Mangiagli et al. [34]).

Candidate hosts for the pulsar-timing-array background

In the nanohertz band, the maturing pulsar-timing-array (PTA) effort (NANOGrav, the European, Chinese, and Parkes arrays, MeerKAT, and ultimately the SKA) is expected by the mid-2030s to resolve both the anisotropy of the gravitational-wave background and a handful of individual nearby sources, predicted to be bright, inspiring supermassive black-hole binaries (SMBHBs) superposed on a many-source background. Rubin’s depth and wide field can supply a catalog of candidate host galaxies for these nearby SMBHBs (expected to peak at $z\sim0.1$–$1$, detected directly in host-galaxy images or from associated AGN variability) to seed the single-source templates that PTAs use in their searches. A confirmed association would characterize the bright foreground of the background and constrain SMBHB evolution, and even a null result is informative; the case requires only a sufficiently deep galaxy survey and no hardware change.

A kilonova-demographics engine in the XG era

Beyond individual sirens, Rubin’s ToO system could build a large population of well-sampled kilonova light curves from the ET/CE catalog, resolving how ejecta mass, velocity, and composition depend on progenitor properties, moving beyond the single well-characterized event (GW170817) available today [37]. A population-level luminosity function, viewing-angle dependence, and ejecta-mass distribution can come only from a large photometric sample; this requires a distinct sub-day griz rapid-cadence mode over the first $\sim1$–2 weeks post-merger for faint and distant kilonovae. Ejecta demographics feed nuclear-astrophysics (r-process) modeling, and at ET/CE rates automated light-curve classification and on-the-fly inference are required to triage which events warrant spectroscopy.

Lensed binary-neutron-star mergers

Building on the census of $>50{,}000$ galaxy-scale lenses that LSST will assemble, Rubin’s ToO system could search for the optical counterparts of strongly lensed BNS mergers flagged by XG detectors. The XG era should raise the BNS merger detection rate to $\sim100\ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, with an estimated $\sim0.1$–3 lensed events per year; catching the rapidly-rising, intrinsically UV-bright kilonova (redshifted into the optical, where u-band imaging aids discrimination from other transients) demands slewing and imaging within the first hour, exactly the rapid-response ToO capability this program builds. A single lensed multi-messenger detection would be transformative, extending standard-siren cosmology to $z \sim1$–2, well beyond the reach of unlensed events. No new hardware is required; the case connects to several collaborations: the LVK/CE/ET, the LSST Strong Lensing, the LSST Transients and Variable Stars, and the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC).

Neutrino electromagnetic counterparts

By the mid-2030s, KM3NeT [4] and TRIDENT will open the Southern sky at TeV energies and IceCube-Gen2 [1] will deliver ultra-high-energy ($>100$ TeV) alerts, extending uniform high-energy neutrino coverage across the whole sky, which IceCube alone cannot provide. At conventional energies (1–50 TeV) neutrino error boxes are large (0.8–7 deg$^2$, up to 50 deg$^2$ for cascades), which Rubin can blanket in a few pointings to deliver potential counterparts with arcsecond localizations, using its $z/y$-band depth to peer through dust. The needed change is a ToO scheduler protocol that promptly triggers low-latency $z/y$ imaging on a verified neutrino alert; a clean deep-Southern reference image and catalog of known variable sources (a priori from early LSST) is required to distinguish a genuine neutrino counterpart from the many unrelated variable sources in the error region. Several aspects of the observing strategy remain to be worked out; the case is framed as an argument that Rubin’s relevance to neutrino follow-up will grow as electromagnetic counterparts to neutrino signals are discovered.

Galactic supernovae

With the advent of next-generation neutrino observatories, the group proposed to leverage Rubin Observatory for rapid electromagnetic follow-up of the next Galactic supernova, likely a core-collapse supernova (CCSN). This is a rare event ($\sim$1–2 per century) that would enable unprecedented multimessenger characterization by combining neutrino, gravitational-wave, and optical data. The case has two parts: first, extending Rubin’s target-of-opportunity (ToO) capabilities beyond LSST to respond to neutrino alerts (from SNEWS [5], DUNE [22], and Hyper-K [10]), for which Rubin’s wide field of view and depth are essential for scanning the $\sim$2–25 deg$^2$ localization regions these detectors provide and for catching faint or dust-obscured signals; second, building a dedicated all-sky rapid-response mode triggered by next-generation gravitational-wave detectors (CE and ET, operational by the mid-2030s), since these could detect Galactic CCSNe anywhere on the sky, and only a Rubin response within minutes can capture the scientifically unique shock-breakout and pre-peak lightcurve evolution that serendipitous discovery cannot guarantee [9]. Both cases require modest additional development (leveraging existing LSST ToO infrastructure and strategies) and near-instantaneous autonomous scheduler overrides given the minutes-scale response window, and offer strong connections to neutrino/GW collaborations.

White-dwarf binaries and the SNIa progenitor problem with LISA

LISA will detect a large Galactic population of double-white-dwarf (DWD) and other ultra-compact binaries in the millihertz (mHz) band, some with optical counterparts (eclipsing or AM CVn-type accreting systems). Cross-matching LISA sky localizations and orbital periods against Rubin’s alert stream and photometric archive, vetted with Gaia astrometry, spectroscopy, and archival catalogs, can identify and confirm these counterparts, building on the $\sim$50–75 systems expected to be found jointly by LISA and LSST. The signature outcome is a merging DWD detected by LISA that is spatially and temporally coincident with a Rubin-discovered SN Ia: a smoking-gun test of the double-degenerate progenitor channel and a direct measurement of the merger-to-explosion delay. Realizing it motivates continued rapid-ToO response and regular deep, high-cadence monitoring of the Galactic plane after LSST.

A cross-cutting outcome of the group is the need for direct, collaboration-level coordination of operational timelines between Rubin and the other major facilities (gravitational-wave and neutrino detectors, in particular): the community should avoid, for example, taking the main camera off-sky for a multi-year upgrade during a partner experiment’s planned multi-year observing run. The group also examined the impact of weather and climate at Cerro Pachón on post-LSST operations: multi-messenger ToOs are particularly vulnerable to weather losses, since a fading transient cannot be re-observed, and long-term climate trends (rising integrated water vapor and more frequent extreme El Niño events) should be folded into post-LSST scheduling and ToO simulations.

Group E: Enabling Technology and Upgrades

Contributors: S. Allen, A. Bolton, C. Claver, H. Drass, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. M. Fanning, M. Hyun, J. B. Kalmbach, K. Lin, S. MacBride, A. I. Malz, G. Megias Homar, A. Nguyen, A. A. Plazas Malagón, C. Poppett, S. Ritz, A. Roodman, B. Stalder, C. Stubbs, J. Suárez-Pérez, S. Thomas, Y. Utsumi

Group E was concerned with the instrumental capabilities underpinning the scientific opportunities discussed by the other groups. Proposed modifications were organized into three tiers by cost, risk, and lead time. The discussion focused on hardware modifications, though algorithmic advancements and on-summit edge computing were discussed briefly. Two physical constraints were particularly important: (1) Rubin’s fast $f/1.2$ beam limits how narrow or spatially variable a filter can be, and (2) the camera is modular electronically but not mechanically, so even a single-raft swap requires the costly operation of opening the cryostat. Several system configuration changes were identified that could be implemented almost immediately to provide novel capabilities. Moderate upgrades were perceived to be possible to implement on the mid-2030s timeline, and the design and fabrication of a new filter set was perceived to have the largest marginal science gain per dollar. Major upgrades were discussed briefly, since they were not perceived to be viable on a mid-2030s timeline.

The scope of Group E overlaps Group C (filters) and underpins Groups A, B, and D (image quality, fast readout, on-summit compute). This section is best read as a summary of the technical capabilities that could enable the scientific roadmaps described in the other sections. The full tier-by-tier discussion, together with the group’s appendices summarized in § 6.4, is given in its detailed document [6].

Tier 1: configuration-only changes (minimal hardware cost, months–1yr, software/configuration/calibration)

Several new capabilities require no procurement, only new operating modes, calibration, and software, and can be interspersed with survey operations using hardware that already exists (a spare ITL raft (a $3 \times3$ array of CCDs) at SLAC, the LSSTComCam single-raft commissioning camera, a spare shutter). These include readout-mode changes (current 3.3 s at 5–6 e$^{-}$ rms; 2.2 s demonstrated within noise spec; row-binning to $0.2 \times0.4$ arcsec$^{2}$ pixels nearly doubles readout speed); a region-of-interest (ROI) “guider” mode (design 50 × 50 pixels/amp at 9 Hz; $\sim$80 Mpix across the focal plane at 5 Hz); open-shutter, continuous-readout ($\sim$10 ms effective temporal resolution) and shuttered readout (effective frame rates $\sim$20 Hz); a no-filter “light bucket” mode; and recoating the combined primary/tertiary mirror (M1M3) to improve $u$-band throughput, where Rubin is most photon-starved. Together these improve capabilities for fast-transient, FRB-counterpart, AGN-variability, Milky-Way GW-counterpart, and $\sim$10–100 ms compact-object light-curve science, directly serving Groups B and D, and the group flagged them as the fastest, lowest-risk items on the whole list.

Tier 2: moderate upgrades ($10M-$100M, 5yr R&D + 5yr build)

Alternative filter sets.—A new filter complement was perceived as an avenue to deliver high-impact science on a timescale that could be commensurate with the end of LSST. The technical viability of several different alternative filter sets was discussed. Rubin’s fast $f/1.2$ beam was of central importance in these discussions. This fast beam spreads the light from a point source over a $\sim12\,\mathrm{cm}$ ($\sim100\,\mathrm{cm}^{2}$) footprint on the filter, or conversely, a point on the filter surface is spread over $\sim12\,\mathrm{cm}$ on the focal plane. In addition, the incident angle for the fast beam ranges from $\sim14^\circ$–$23^\circ$, thereby limiting the minimum bandwidth of a filter. Together, these features limit both the minimum bandpass and spatial resolution.

Offset broad bands ($\sim5$ filters, $\sim100$–$150\,\mathrm{nm}$ wide) are the most straightforward, along with a single “light bucket” extra-broad filter; a medium-band set (dividing each broad band into 4–5 bands, IBIS/Niji-like, $\sim\$15$–$20\mathrm{M}$) would plausibly deliver a factor-of-$\sim2$ improvement in photo-$z$ scatter plus emission-line and stellar-population capability, all mounting into the existing filter exchanger with no focal-plane redesign.

Narrow bands (feasible down to $\sim15$–$20\,\mathrm{nm}$, not $\sim8\,\mathrm{nm}$) were disfavored due to low throughput but may be considered if motivated by science cases. Notable variants were also proposed, including “comb filters” comprised of combinations of medium-band filters, a broad “light bucket” filter, and “one filter to rule them all” using a single, deliberately non-uniform (segmented, linear, or radial; offset, broad, medium, narrow, or comb) filter to build differential spectra of every object. The binding constraint on both tame and exotic filter proposals is manufacturability, not optical design (i.e., the fast beam and the vendor experience with the original filters), which a bounded vendor design study, paired with quantitative photo-$z$ image simulations using public tools such as imSim, SIGGi, and RAIL, tasked to Group C, can retire.

Other moderate upgrades. —The group scoped additional upgrades in the moderate cost range: a faster shutter (the current shutter opens or closes in $\sim0.9\,\mathrm{s}$ nominal, [29]; a spare “B-unit” exists; $\sim0.3\,\mathrm{s}$ achievable with modest safety engineering, $0.1\,\mathrm{s}$ as a purpose-built stretch goal); a single-raft detector replacement as both standalone science (one raft subtends $\sim40$ arcmin, enough for a fast Galactic-plane survey) and a pathfinder for a future focal-plane upgrade, with options spanning fast single-layer poly-Si CCDs ($\sim10\,\mathrm{fps}$), low-noise MAS Skipper/SiSeRO devices, complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensors, and near-infrared (NIR)-sensitive Ge CCDs (to $\sim1.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$) or InGaAs sensors; ground-layer adaptive optics via an actuated secondary (M2 GLAO), targeting $\sim0.5$ arcsec delivered image quality across the $3.5^\circ$ field; a tunable-laser satellite calibrator in the spirit of the Landolt NASSA mission (part of the PIONEER program), and an AuxTel upgrade to reach the sub-nanometer bandpass knowledge that supernova cosmology and any new narrow/medium-band filter set will require; and GPU edge computing on the summit for a $\sim1$–$3\,\mathrm{s}$ alert stream, real-time classification and ToO triggering (e.g., LISA follow-up), and information-driven dynamic scheduling, described as the lowest-risk item with the weakest dependencies on the other options.

Tier 3: major upgrades ($100M+$, multi-year downtime)

The most ambitious options were enumerated briefly, but detailed discussion was deferred due to the long lead times to deployment: a full focal-plane detector replacement (which necessarily begins with a pathfinder raft that itself delivers science); mounting filters immediately in front of the detectors to defeat the $12\,\mathrm{cm}$ beam-footprint problem (which changes, rather than eliminates, the filter-design problem because the beam is not telecentric at the focal plane); a redesign of the camera and optics to perform a near-infrared wide-fast-deep survey; and a spectroscopic instrument (a single raft of integral-field units, which with $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ fibers would need $\sim1\,\mathrm{M}$ fibers and many hundreds of spectrographs), considered only because a dedicated Spec-S5 facility may not fully meet the Rubin community’s wide-field spectroscopic needs, and with the strong caveat that spectroscopy would surrender Rubin’s defining advantage of wide-field, fast-slewing time-domain imaging.

Actionable items and appendices

Rather than a single recommendation, the group distilled its discussion into a set of concrete, near-term actionable items with indicative owners and lead times: bounded, fundable studies that could begin now to inform the Astro2030 process. The configuration-only (Tier 1) items require only months and existing hardware, while the moderate (Tier 2) items entail roughly one to three years of study before any build decision. They span a vendor-plus-simulation filter design study and photometric-redshift forecasts; readout-noise, ROI/guider, and continuous/stuttered-readout development on spare hardware; a faster-shutter safety study; a mirror-recoating throughput/UV trade study; an LSSTComCam detector-technology pathfinder; ground-layer-turbulence characterization for GLAO; a summit GPU edge-computing prototype; and a bandpass-calibration requirements study. The full, itemized list with owners and lead times is given in the group’s document, which also includes two further appendices: an assessment of maintaining LSSTCam beyond its ten-year design life (spares, obsolescence, and refurbishment), and a worked proof-of-concept design of medium-band and H$\alpha$ filters optimized for Rubin’s fast $f/1.2$ beam. We refer the reader to S. W. Allen et al. [6] for the details.

Chilean and Latin-American Engagement

Contributors: S. Anand, L. Eisert, N. Hazra, Y. Kang, S. Panda, B. Ried Guachalla, M. Rubio

The Rubin Observatory is located on Cerro Pachón, Chile, and Latin-American, and specifically Chilean, co-leadership was one of the two cross-cutting considerations applied to every recommendation from each group (§ 1; Appendix § 11), and several of the science cases developed in the studies already name a Chilean co-lead or tie-in (e.g., the transiting-exoplanet census and the strong-lensing time-delay case, § 3; the medium-band Galactic-archaeology and AGN cases, § 4). A dedicated Day-2 mini-session, “Chilean Community and (post-)LSST Survey”, went further and examined directly the obstacles to broader Chilean and Latin-American co-leadership.

The consensus from the session was that the obstacle is organizational more than scientific. From the point of view of cosmology, for example, Chile has comparatively few theoretical cosmologists and, as participants noted, limited institutional participation in the DESC, and few Chile-based researchers currently lead Rubin-related projects. Participants argued this is not for lack of interest, but because of disconnection between institutes, an unresolved policy for how Rubin data rights apply to non-US, non-Chilean-national researchers based in Chile, and the absence of a clearly publicized point of contact for who leads Rubin-related science of interest to the Chilean community. The formal machinery that exists, an implementation committee and the Rubin Survey Cadence Optimization Committee, SCOC, was reported to have made little visible progress since the pandemic, and the data-center plan for Chilean community access to post-LSST Rubin data remains undetermined.

Two existing programs were raised as models to build on: the annual La Serena Data School (hosted by NOIRLab/Gemini-South) and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO)/Rubin site visits, both valued by participants but constrained by scheduling that does not always match the Chilean academic calendar. Benchmarking against other Chile-based facilities pointed to two concrete templates: the Simons Observatory’s SO-Chile initiative (research-exchange internships of order 2–4 slots and $\sim$6 months, plus in-kind contributions, run in partnership with Universidad de Antofagasta), and the Gemini/Chile-office postdoctoral model (funded jointly by Gemini and a grant from Chile’s National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development, FONDECYT, or from the host university), which participants suggested Rubin could adapt into a joint fellowship, and which has an international analog in bilateral postdoc programs such as the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI)/KIPAC.

The session’s proposed near-term next steps are: (i) encourage Rubin to publish a clear list of points of contact and project leadership for Rubin-related science, together with an explicit statement of the data-rights policy for Chile-based, non-Chilean-national researchers; (ii) reconvene the implementation and SCOC committees; (iii) pilot a joint postdoctoral fellowship on the Gemini/Chile-office model; and (iv) hold a Chile-based Rubin 2036 event, timed to the Chilean academic calendar rather than to the convenience of visitors.

Conclusion

The Rubin 2036: Opportunities for Discovery workshop gathered community participants around the question: what should be done with Rubin after the LSST? The workshop built directly on more than a decade of prior community planning (Appendix § 14) and was timed to prepare well-developed science cases for the next decade of survey (Astro2030). Although the LSST began only in 2026, the long lead times of any facility change, from cadence and filters to focal-plane hardware, mean that it is not too early to start this process now. The overarching consideration is that Rubin’s étendue will remain unmatched through the 2030s, so continuing to operate and evolve the facility can be a high-return, best-available investment rather than a marginal extension.

The five groups reached the following main conclusions:

• Group A (continued LSST-style surveying): a deeper, extended survey pays off only if the faint, crowded sky can be measured, so the priority is sustained investment in data-analysis software, computing, and machine-learning infrastructure, such as survey-native foundation models, rather than in new hardware (§ 2; [42]).

• Group B (alternative cadences and footprints): a flexible, proposal-driven process (a “metacase”) for allocating post-LSST time is the natural organizing framework, enabling science-driven cadences from a Milky-Way

exoplanet-transit census to Type Ia supernova cosmology, time-delay cosmography, and second-scale transients (§ 3; [12]).

• Group C (narrow- and medium-band surveys and filters): new filter sets are the highest-leverage, modest-cost evolution of the hardware, with offset broad bands preserving time-domain science and medium and narrow bands unlocking high-redshift large-scale structure, AGN reverberation mapping, Galactic archaeology, and emission-line science (§ 4; [13]).

• Group D (targets of opportunity and multi-messenger): extending Rubin’s demonstrated target-of-opportunity system into the next-generation (XG) gravitational-wave and neutrino observatory era will make it the premier engine for multi-messenger cosmology and astrophysics, at a modest fraction of observing time (§ 5; S. P. MacBride et al. 2026).

• Group E (enabling technology and upgrades): the instrumental options fall into configuration-only changes available now and moderate upgrades feasible on the mid-2030s timeline, with a new filter complement offering the largest science return per dollar (§ 6; [6]).

Cross-cutting priorities recurred throughout, including opportunities for Chilean and Latin-American co-leadership (§ 7), the impact of weather and climate at Cerro Pachón, the effect of satellite megaconstellations, and the programmatic reality that any post-LSST program must make a compelling case to multiple funding agencies and sources within the facility’s operating-cost envelope. The science cases collected here are offered as a non-exhaustive reference point for the community’s contributions to the Astro2030 process.

Next steps include an online follow-up seminar, to be held as a Rubin Science Assembly⁴ on 29 October 2026, followed by a second in-person meeting in the series, which we aim to hold in 2027; dedicated sessions at the LSST@ regional community meetings (e.g., LATAM, Europe, Asia) and at future Rubin Community Workshops are also planned. The workshop’s outputs, the per-group documents and their supporting materials, are archived in the Rubin 2036 Zenodo community⁵ and linked from the workshop website,⁶ which will serve as a persistent home for this and future meetings in the series.

Acknowledgments

This work resulted from collaborations supported by the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC) through a Workshop Program grant to Andrés Alejandro Plazas Malagón (AAPM) for Rubin 2036 held from August 3rd to 5th, 2026, made possible by an endowment by the Kavli Foundation.

The work of AAPM was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC02-76SF00515. AAPM thanks the Department of Physics of Harvard University and the Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Cosmology Group at Boston University, and the Department of Physics at Washington University in St. Louis for their hospitality during the preparation of this paper.

R. Bonito acknowledges support by the INAF Mini-Grant “Physical properties of Accreting young stellar objects: exploration of their light Curves and Emission (PACE).” A. S. Tramuto and R. Bonito acknowledge support by the Rubin LSST Discovery Alliance Science Catalyst Grant PREVIEW (PI: Bonito).

Argonne National Laboratory’s work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of High Energy Physics, under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357.

Appendix

The Workshop Prompts

Workshop participants were given prompts with questions to answer per science case to provide structure to the discussions and guide their development.

The last two entries in Table 2 (AI/ML and Chilean/Latin-American co-leadership) are cross-cutting considerations applied in each topical area where relevant, alongside the eight science prompts.

Prompt	Question
Goal	In 1–2 sentences, state the specific science question and the single result that would matter. Name one question, not a whole field.
Why Rubin, why now	Say what only Rubin can do here: its area × field-of-view × time ($A \cdot\Omega$) that no other 2036-era facility matches, and why the decision cannot wait.
The skeptic’s objection and our answer	Write the strongest reason a decadal panel would say no, then a short rebuttal framed as the best available investment, not merely a good idea.
What Rubin needs	Name the concrete change (filter set / cadence / instrument / software) and a rough lead time (filters $\gtrsim$2–3 yr; focal-plane technology >5 yr).
Priors	Which early-LSST result (DR3 / DR6…) must be in hand before this case is airtight?
Success metric / figure of merit	Give the standard metric and a broader “discovery-potential” metric: what this unlocks that a traditional dark-energy figure of merit misses. Name 1–2 concrete numbers.
Connections	Which other facilities, surveys, and workshop groups does this link to?
Next steps	The most useful next steps after the workshop, and potential contributors.
AI/ML angle	Does artificial intelligence / machine learning enable or change this case? If so, is it essential to the method or an accelerant, and what data, compute, or software would it require?
Chilean / Latin-American co-leadership and engagement	Name a co-lead, data-access, or training/exchange tie-in that would advance Chilean and Latin-American participation in the case (see also § 7).

Two further considerations arose from the workshop’s own discussions, rather than being specified in the original prompts, and were applied retroactively to cases where they were relevant: the impact of weather (seeing, cloud cover, and precipitable water vapor, including their long-term trends at Cerro Pachón) on any proposed observing strategy, and the impact of satellite megaconstellations on image quality, scheduling, and downstream data processing.

Framing Talks

A small number of invited talks on Day 1 and Day 2 framed the discussion without substituting for it; per the workshop’s discussion-heavy design (§ 1). Slides for a subset of them are available at the workshop’s website https://rubin-observatory.github.io/Rubin-Beyond-LSST/pages/Rubin2036proceedings/.

Day	Speaker	Talk
1	A. Plazas Malagón (SLAC/KIPAC/Rubin)	“Introduction”: workshop motivation, Rubin beyond the LSST, charge and goals.
1	A. Roodman (KIPAC/SLAC)	“Previous Work and Technical Constraints,” surveying the studies reviewed in Appendix § 14.
1	R. Blum (NOIRLab)	“NOIRLab’s Perspective on Plans and Processes for the Future.”
1	R. Wechsler (KIPAC/SLAC)	“A Crystal-ball View of Astrophysics and Cosmology in 2036.”
1	J. Frieman (KIPAC/SLAC)	“Decadal and Funding Agency Landscape.”
Day	Speaker	Talk
2	C. Poppett (UC Berkeley/LBNL)	“A Next-Generation Spectroscopic Observatory,” on the Spec-S5 concept.
2	J. Newman (U. Pittsburgh)	“Spec-S5: The Concept from Snowmass.”
2	H. Miyatake (KMI/Nagoya)	“HSC Niji”: medium-band cosmology with Subaru/HSC as a pathfinder for Rubin.
2	A. Palmese (CMU)	“Gravitational-Wave Multi-messenger Astronomy in the 2030s.”

Lightning Talks

Day-1 lightning talks. The slides are available at the workshop’s website https://rubin-observatory.github.io/Rubin-Beyond-LSST/pages/Rubin2036proceedings/

Speaker	Topic	Group
P. Yadav	Deep-learning detection, deblending, and star/galaxy classification with DeepDISC on LSST DP1 (scene-level model matches random forests and beats morphology-only classification at faint magnitudes).	A
S. Jha	Rubin as chronicler of the time-domain sky; the case for shifted broad-band filters (not medium/narrow) as the post-LSST workhorse, and for a proposal-based, community-driven survey model.	B
A. Chiti	Metallicity-sensitive imaging for dark-matter science (DECam MAGIC; tidal tails around Crater II; Rubin can exceed Euclid/Roman via proper motion + metallicity).	C
J. Newman	Gaining spectral information while retaining transient science with offset broad bands; COSMOS2020 test showing 11 offset bands beat both 6-broad and 12-medium scenarios in photo-$z$.	C
M. Wood-Vasey	“A truly global Rubin”: science, community, and data questions, including regional Rubin 2036@ events and industrializing data processing.	cross-cutting
S. MacBride	GW cosmology and astrophysics in 2036: bright sirens from ET/CE binary neutron stars and LISA massive-black-hole binaries; Rubin’s field of view is ideal for well-localized mergers.	D
H. Ebina	Medium-band target selection of Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters (IBIS + DESI; $\sim650$ LAE deg$^{-2}$ at 75% purity), a pathfinder for high-$z$ LSS cosmology and Spec-S5.	C
J. F. Suárez-Pérez	Unsupervised anomaly detection and transient classification (ML on 58M DESI DR2 spectra), adaptable to Rubin’s $\sim$10-billion-source light-curve stream.	cross-cutting
B. Long, N. J. Mason, A. Kovačević	Broadband Rubin photometry as a first-stage physical discriminator for outer-Solar-System targets (a candidate $\sim450$ nm band).	C
A. Kovačević, N. J. Mason, M. Moore	Can one 710 nm band turn a weak red-edge signal into a decision-grade Rubin measurement? (physical triage, not biosignature confirmation).	C
S. Birrer	A strong-lensing “crystal ball” for Rubin 2036: an alternative cadence on the Roman $\sim$2,000 deg$^2$ footprint ($5\times$ cadence, 2× exposure).	B
S. Corley	The exoplanet gap: Kepler covered $\sim$0.25% of the sky and TESS only bright stars, leaving the Galaxy’s planet population unmapped.	B
A.I. Malz	“One filter to rule them all” plus information-theoretic cadence optimization: a spatially varying filter building differential spectra, and an improved approach to survey strategy.	E
N. Hazra	Kilonova detections leveraging Rubin’s synergy with XG GW detectors: $\mathcal{O}(100)$ well-localized binary-neutron-star mergers per year, $\sim$30–100 joint ET–Rubin detections per year, informing which Einstein Telescope configuration is built.	D

Prior Community Efforts

This workshop builds on more than a decade of community planning on the future of Rubin/LSST after its main survey. We summarize that lineage here; a consistent thread is that Rubin/LSST is a facility to be evolved, not retired, and that the concrete decision among “continue as-is / modest filter change / new instrument” should take into consideration results from on-sky LSST data.

The Cosmic Visions Dark Energy Panel (2016–2018).—Convened by DOE High Energy Physics after the 2014 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) report, the CVDE panel held community workshops at the University of Chicago (September 2016) and LBNL (November 2017) and produced linked reports on the science [20] and the enabling technology [21], followed by a Small Projects Portfolio [19]. Together they framed the completion of Stage-IV surveys (DESI, LSST) as a launching point rather than an endpoint, arguing that great cosmological information remains at $z > 1$ and on nonlinear scales, and proposed a moderate-cost portfolio including complementary spectroscopy and narrow-/offset-broad-band imaging to sharpen LSST photometric redshifts. This is the intellectual origin of the “Stage V” framing later adopted by Snowmass.

The 2019 Argonne Next-generation Instrumentation Workshop.—The first dedicated technical workshop on what hardware follows LSSTCam [41] mapped three evolution pathways: continued imaging (possibly with new $\sim$20 nm narrow-band filters), an alternative-sensor focal plane (microwave kinetic inductance detectors, MKIDs; germanium CCDs; InGaAs for near-IR reach), or conversion to a massively multiplexed ($\sim$30,000-fiber) multi-object spectrograph, and concluded, without advocacy, that new filters are the cheapest near-term option while cryogenic IR focal planes are currently cost-prohibitive. Its cost/performance/risk taxonomy recurs throughout the later literature and in Group E of this workshop.

The Astro2020 Decadal white papers (2019).—Two Astro2020 submissions addressed the question directly. “Next Generation LSST Science” [28] laid out the continue/modify/replace scenarios, argued LSST’s imaging étendue will remain scientifically premier well past ten years (especially for dynamic-sky science), and called for a mid-decade community process. “Future Uses of the LSST Facility” [30], a non-advocacy assessment by the LSST Project Science Team, quantified how crowded depth, photometric precision, and parallax/proper-motion accuracy continue to improve past year 10 and estimated the extended-operations cost. A companion Astro2020 white paper made the specific science case for adding $\sim$15–20 nm narrow-band filters to Rubin [43], for stellar astrophysics, emission-line nebulae, and improved photometric redshifts, the direct precedent for much of Group C.

Snowmass 2021.—The dedicated Snowmass white paper “Rubin Observatory after LSST” [14] restated the three-scenario framework and worked through the science drivers (dark energy beyond $w_0$–$w_a$, gravity and dark-matter tests, the $H_0$ and $\sigma_8$ tensions, strong-lensing cosmography, GW/kilonova follow-up, dwarf-satellite proper motions, Roman/Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) synergy), recommending the case be revisited by year 5 of the survey. The Cosmic Frontier topical-group reports reinforced this: the complementarity report [24] formally advocated continued Rubin operation after LSST alongside DESI-II, CMB-S4, and a Stage-V spectroscopic facility, and the Cosmic Frontier 04 (CF04) report [8], whose §4.5 is titled “Opportunity: The Rubin Observatory after LSST,” gave the most detailed menu, escalating from continuing as-is, to re-surveying with half-bandwidth-offset filters (roughly halving photo-$z$ errors), to a 20–30-band low-resolution “filter spectrograph” ($\sigma_z \sim0.005(1+z)$), to a full camera replacement, and stated that it was premature to choose among them before 1–2 years of LSST data.

Recurring recommendations.—Across all of these efforts the same conclusions recur: (i) Rubin should be evolved, not retired, given its unmatched étendue; (ii) a standard continue/modify-filters/replace-instrument menu; (iii) narrow-, medium-, and offset-broad-band filters as the most consistently recommended modest-cost path; (iv) the intrinsic value of a longer time baseline (proper motions, parallaxes, depth) independent of any hardware change; (v) a massively multiplexed spectrograph as the recurring “big” option, now largely externalized to Spec-S5; and (vi) deferral of the final decision until real survey data are in hand. Practical resources compiled for participants include the Rubin survey-strategy documentation⁷ and the HSC medium-band filter specifications⁸.

Workshop Participants

Table 5 lists the workshop participants as the union of the registered participants (final registration count, 6 August 2026) with the per-group contributor rosters, case write-ups, and the framing- and lightning-talk speakers. Names are given alphabetically by given name, with self-reported institution/affiliation.

Name	Institution / Affiliation
Aaron Roodman	SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
Adam Bolton	SLAC National Lab
Adam Myers	University of Wyoming
Aditya Arunachalam	UIUC
Agnès Ferté	SLAC
Alejandro Cartes Silva	Universidad de Chile
Alex Broughton	KIPAC/SLAC National Lab
Alex Drlica-Wagner	Fermilab/UChicago
Alex Malz	Space Telescope Science Institute
Alvaro Callejas Tavera	Instituto de Astronomia UNAM
Anand Raichoor	APC / IN2P3 / CNRS
Andjelka Kovacevic	University of Belgrade Faculty of Mathematics
Andrés Plazas Malagón	SLAC / KIPAC / Rubin
Andrew Rasmussen	SLAC, KIPAC
Anh Nguyen	Stanford
Anirudh Chiti	Stanford University
Annika Peter	The Ohio State University
Anthony Englert	Brown University
Antonella Palmese	Carnegie Mellon University
Arjun Dey	NSF NOIRLab
Ben Sherwin	Stanford/SLAC
Bernardita Ried Guachalla	Stanford/SLAC
Brian Stalder	Rubin Observatory
Bryce Kalmbach	SLAC
Burcin Mutlu-Pakdil	Dartmouth College
Carlos Eduardo Falandes	INPE
Carrie Holt	Las Cumbres Observatory
Cenk Kayhan	Kayseri University
Charles Claver	NOIR Lab
Chris Stubbs	Harvard
Christina Williams	NOIRLab
Chun-Hao To	UChicago
Claire Poppett	UC Berkeley, Space Sciences Lab
Conghao Zhou	UC Santa Cruz
Dalya Akl	New York University, Abu Dhabi
David Schlegel	Berkeley Lab
Eric Bellm	University of Washington / Rubin Observatory
Francisco Castander	IEEC, ICE-CSIC, Barcelona
Franco Mallia	Campo Catino Observatory
Guillem Megias Homar	California Institute of Technology
Hafiz Inam Ullah	ESFM - Escuela Superior de Física y Matemáticas - IPN

Table 5 continued on next page

Name	Institution / Affiliation
Haifeng Wang	LUTDLab-CWNU-China
Hammad Rasheed	IFIN-HH, Bucharest, Romania
Haruki Ebina	UC Berkeley
Hironao Miyatake	KMI, Nagoya University
Holger Drass	Rubin Operations
Hsin-Fang Chiang	SLAC/Rubin Observatory
Jay Baptista	KIPAC
Jeff Carlin	Rubin Observatory / NOIRLab
Jeffrey Newman	U. Pittsburgh
Jerzy Surma	Warsaw School of Economics
John Franklin Crenshaw	KIPAC
John Suárez-Pérez	Tecnologico de Monterrey
Josh Frieman	KIPAC/SLAC
Justin Myles	Princeton University
Kenneth Lin	University of California, Berkeley / LBNL
Kevin Fanning	SLAC
Kevin Reil	SLAC/Rubin
Kiley Gruenberg	SLAC National Lab
Kouki Saito	University of Electro-Communications
Kshitija Kelkar	Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Kyla Matan	University of Pittsburgh
Leonid Sajkov	Stanford/KIPAC
Lindsey Bleem	Argonne
Liyang Chen	Tsinghua University
Lukas Eisert	SLAC
Lyla Choi	Stanford
Maia Moore	University of Kent / University of Belgrade
Marcelo A B De Cicco	INMETRO
Masaya Yamamoto	Princeton University
Massimo Carpinelli	University of Milano-Bicocca
Maya Redden	Stanford University
Meng-Xiang Lin	Simon Fraser University & CITA
Michael Wood-Vasey	University of Pittsburgh
Minhee Hyun	KIPAC / Stanford University / Rubin Observatory
Monica Rubio	Universidad de Chile
Muhammad Awais	ESFM IPN
Nandini Hazra	NCBJ Warsaw
Nicolas Mai	Paris Cité University
Nigel J. Mason	University of Kent
Nitya Pandey	University of Chile and European Southern Observatory, Chile
Patricia Burchat	Stanford University / KIPAC
Paul Gontard	Stanford University
Paulina Venegas	NOIRLAB
Peter Ferguson	University of Washington
Phil Marshall	SLAC / Rubin
Phil Puxley	AURA
Poulomi Dey	University of Delhi
Name	Institution / Affiliation
Prince Yadav	University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Rebecca Chen	Stanford/KIPAC/SLAC
Rebecca Long	University of Kent
Richard Delacruz	SLAC
Rieko Momose	NAOJ
Risa Wechsler	KIPAC/SLAC
Robert Blum	NOIRLab Rubin Observatory
Rosaria Bonito	INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo, Italy
Ryan Foley	UC Santa Cruz
Ryuichi Takahashi	Hirosaki University
Sandrine Thomas	NOIRLab/Vera C. Rubin Observatory
Sarah Greenstreet	NSF NOIRLab
Sarang Shah	Inter-University Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics
Saurabh Jha	Rutgers University
Sean MacBride	University of Zurich
Seth Digel	KIPAC/SLAC
Shenming Fu	SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
Sherman Butler-Losey	Southern Methodist University
Shreya Anand	Stanford
Shun-Sheng Li	KIPAC
Simon Birrer	Stony Brook University
Simona Mei	APC/IN2P3/UPCité
Steve Allen	KIPAC
Steve Jurado	Universidad de Chile
Steve Margheim	NSF NOIRLab
Steve Ritz	UC Santa Cruz
Steven Dillmann	Stanford University
Sthabile Kolwa	University of South Africa
Suber Corley	Arizona State University
Swayamtrupta Panda	International Gemini Observatory, NSF/NOIRLab
Theo Schutt	Stanford/SLAC
Vivek Kumar Jha	NCRA-TIFR
Yasna Ordenes-Briceño	IEA, Universidad Diego Portales
Yijung Kang	Rubin Observatory/SLAC
Yousuke Utsumi	NAOJ
Yusuke Tampo	SAAO/UCT
Zeeshan Ahmed	KIPAC/SLAC

**Note—**Self-reported at registration; affiliations may have since changed.

Organizing Committees

A. Roodman and A. A. Plazas Malagón served as co-chairs of the Scientific Organizing Committee (SOC); A. A. Plazas Malagón also chaired the Local Organizing Committee (LOC). The SOC and LOC memberships are listed in Table 6 and Table 7.

Name	Institution / Affiliation
Aaron Roodman	KIPAC/SLAC
Alex Broughton	KIPAC
Alex Drlica-Wagner	Fermilab/UChicago
Andrés A. Plazas Malagón	KIPAC/SLAC/Rubin
Anirudh Chiti	KIPAC
Antonella Palmese	Carnegie Mellon University
Ashley Villar	CfA/Harvard
Bob Blum	NOIRLab
Chris Stubbs	Harvard
Chuck Claver	NOIRLab
Claire Poppett	LBNL
Elisabeth Krause	University of Arizona
Enrique Paillas	Universidad Diego Portales
Francisco Castander	ICE, Barcelona
Guillermo Moroni	Fermilab
Hironao Miyatake	Nagoya University/KMI
Jeff Newman	University of Pittsburgh
John Franklin Crenshaw	KIPAC
Josh Frieman	KIPAC/SLAC
Mario Jurić	University of Washington/Rubin Observatory
Michael Strauss	Princeton University
Phil Marshall	IPAC/SLAC
Risa Wechsler	KIPAC/SLAC
Steve Allen	KIPAC/SLAC
Tomás Ahumada	NOIRLab
Yasna Ordenes-Briceño	Universidad Diego Portales

Name	Institution / Affiliation
Adam Bolton	SLAC
Alex Broughton	KIPAC
Andrés A. Plazas Malagón	SLAC/KIPAC/Rubin
Anirudh Chiti	KIPAC
Araceli Zapata	SLAC
Heather Shaughnessy	SLAC
John Franklin Crenshaw	KIPAC
Josh Shiode	KIPAC
María Herraez	SLAC
Regina Matter	SLAC