Yep: the article seems to say "there is no collapse" (in the title) but then it turns out to say "collapse as explained by these models may not be". Two very different things. I was caught as you by the title.
No, the mistake is in the natural interpretation of the title. The title seems to imply "collapse is not a thing", whereas the article is about "these explanations of collapse do not hold".
EDIT: I misread the article, I thought it was about whether collapse occurs in general, not about physical explanations for collapse