Abstract:Parametric strong lensing studies of galaxy clusters often display misleading features: group/cluster scale dark matter components without any stellar counterpart, offsets between both components larger than what might be allowed by neither Cold Dark Matter nor self interacting Dark Matter models, or significant unexplained external shear components. I am revisiting mass models where such misleading (and interesting) features have been reported, adopting the following working hypothesis: any group or cluster scale dark matter clump introduced in the modelling should be associated with a luminous counterpart, and any well motivated and reliable prior should be considered, even when this degrades the fit. The goal is to derive a physically motivated description of the dark matter component which might be compared to theoretical expectations. I succeed doing so in galaxy clusters AS 1063, MACS J0416 and MACS J1206, finding that the shape of the inner dark matter component has a flat density profile. These findings may be useful for the interpretation within dark matter scenario, such as self-interacting dark matter. I fail in Abell 370: a three dark matter clumps mass model (each clump being associated with its stellar counterpart) is unable to reproduce the observational constraints with a precision smaller than 2.3 arcsec. In order to provide a sub arcsec precision, I need to describe the dark matter distribution using a four dark matter clumps model, as found in earlier works. Examining the total projected mass maps, I however find a good agreement between the total mass and the stellar distribution in Abell 370, both being, to first order, bimodal. I interpret the misleading features as being symptomatic of the lack of realism of a parametric description of the dark matter distribution. I encourage caution and criticism on the outputs of parametric strong lensing modelling.

Comment on "A Non-Parametric Estimate of Mass 'Scoured' in Galaxy Cores" (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1006.0488" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0488">arXiv:1006.0488</a>)

Reply to "Comment on 'Comparison of potential models with the pp-scattering data below 350 MeV.' "

Comments on the "Monoceros" affair

Comment on "No-core calculations" of the spectra of light nuclei

Is the Core-cusp Problem a Matter of Perspective? Jeans Anisotropic Modeling against Numerical Simulations

Response to <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1005.2615" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2615">arXiv:1005.2615</a>

Double Counting of `Chiral Anomaly' in a Model Study of Primordial Baryogenesis

Response to Biophysical Journal comment to the editor by Skóra regarding the article entitled: Vast heterogeneity in cytoplasmic diffusion rates revealed by nanorheology and Doppelgänger simulations

Reply to Comment on "A slightly oblate dark matter halo revealed by a retrograde precessing Galactic disk warp"

Reply to the Comments on the XENON100 First Dark Matter Results

The κ-Model under the Test of the SPARC Database

Comment on "Excluding Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter Based on Solar System Ephemeris"

Reply to Comment on "Dark matter as a Weyl geometric effect"

Why do semi-analytic models predict higher scatter in the stellar mass-halo mass relation than cosmological hydrodynamic simulations?

Knowing the unknowns: uncertainties in simple estimators of galactic dynamical masses

Mass & Light in Galaxy Clusters: Parametric Strong Lensing Approach

Reply to Comment on "Gravitational Waves From Ultra- Short Period Exoplanets"

To beta or not to beta: can higher-order Jeans analysis break the mass-anisotropy degeneracy in simulated dwarfs?

Response to Comment on "Dark Matter Annihilation Can Produce a Detectable Antihelium Flux through $\barΛ_b$ Decays"

Physical Correlations of the Scatter between Galaxy Mass, Stellar Content, and Halo Mass

Comment on "Scaling Hypothesis for the Spectral Densities in the Nonlinear Sigma Model"