The editors seem to have deleted a paragraph that introduces "Nerio" as the name of a lost moon of Mars. The story also fails to mention that the effect on Mars would need the rotation period of Mars to be tidally locked to this hypothesized moon in order to create the distortions in Mars' shape.
The arXiv link does provide that info, but strangely also does not mention the name of the moon until far down in the paper.
There are a lot of detailed discussions in the referenced paper about how such a large moon could possibly have been created and then "lost", with contradictory indicators that put substantial constraints on the theories. It would have been nice if the Space.com article made a concise summary of those lines of thought.