Overview: Cosmology with the SKAO

The SKA telescopes will revolutionise our ability to do cosmology at radio wavelengths, via both their own data and in synergy with other wavelengths. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

This matters because cosmology operates at the edge of what current instruments can measure, where systematic errors and model assumptions are never trivial. Small discrepancies between independent measurements have historically pointed toward missing physics rather than simple calibration errors, and the ongoing tension in the Hubble constant is a live example of how a persistent disagreement between methods can reshape the theoretical landscape. Each new dataset that approaches this territory with independent systematics adds real information to a problem that has resisted easy resolution for more than a decade. SKAO will be the first instrument able to conduct large-scale cosmological surveys as done in the last decades in the optical and near-infrared. This complementarity will be vital as cosmology hits the limit of systematic uncertainties.

Radio cosmology surveys will have radically different systematics, allowing data combinations across surveys to calibrate systematics and increase overall constraining power. Neutral hydrogen (HI) intensity mapping surveys are now reaching maturity, as demonstrated by the progress made by the MeerKLASS survey with MeerKAT.

Along with continuum galaxy surveys, they will provide detailed maps of the Universe covering large fractions of the sky, allowing us to answer questions about fundamental physics. In combination with weak lensing and HI galaxy probes, HI intensity maps will also measure the distributions of matter and velocities to give precisions tests of the $Λ$CDM model.

In combination with gravitational wave observations and fast radio bursts, they will also help us measure the expansion history and baryon content of the Universe. Here we provide an overview of the achievements of precursor surveys and the progress towards SKA cosmology, starting with AA* and reaching full maturity with AA4 telescopes.

The relevance goes beyond one dataset because even small shifts in measured parameters can matter when the field is testing the limits of the standard cosmological model. The Lambda-CDM framework describes the observable universe with remarkable economy, but its success rests on two components, dark matter and dark energy, whose physical nature remains entirely unknown. Any credible measurement that tightens or loosens the constraints on those components moves the entire theoretical enterprise forward, regardless of whether the immediate result looks dramatic on its own terms.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether the effect survives when independent surveys, different calibration strategies and tighter control of systematic uncertainties enter the picture. Programmes such as Euclid, DESI and the Rubin Observatory will deliver datasets over the next several years that cover the same parameter space with largely independent methods. If the current signal persists through those tests, its theoretical implications will become impossible to set aside. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source