There are dozens, scores, and likely hundreds of different (hypothetical) bosons described as the sole (or at least dominant) matter in a boson star (cf. link at the end of this comment).
In the preprint linked at the top I count at least sixteen different specific (hypothetical) bosons in their References section, and the preprint discusses two very broad families (in §2).
The authors' claim is that a wide variety of (massive) boson theories can in bulk behaviour produce the important characteristics of a boson star constrained by what they know of this particular binary (see end of 1st paragraph of §6).
> assumed it was just light on details because it's wikipedia
An encyclopedic overview should probably not point to every paper one would get from a search of the literature, let alone to a search of preprints.
Wikipedia is likely light on details because the topic is niche because it's an idea which is nowhere near as convincing as perturbations of black hole solutions of the Einstein Field Equations ("standard black holes"), and not even more persuasive than e.g. fuzzballs, gravastars, and other relativistic dark star hypotheses also aiming to overthrow standard black holes for various reasons.
Even the list of reasons for studying just boson stars gets long: because the compact object may be dominated by a particle that might solve problems in particle physics (but which would be hard to prove/disprove in an Earthbound lab soon); or that might also describe dark matter and/or dark energy; or that (if observed) would support a broader theory like M-theory; or that might put to bed any questioning of unitarity; ... And because some types of boson stars (if found in nature) might support one of these broader aims to the exclusion of the other aims, it's a somewhat busy field with papers and anti-papers. Here's a couple hundred: <https://arxiv.org/search/?query=%22boson+star%22&searchtype=...>
I'd seen the wikipedia a few years back, and I assumed it was just light on details because it's wikipedia.