In the article from 1997 Cocozza, C. and Kipnis, C. 1977 Existence de processus Markoviens pour des systemes infinis de particules. Ann. lnst. H. Poincare, Sect. B, 13, 239-257. , one reads
and in page 244, one reads:
I couldn't derive the expression for $(\tilde{\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds$ from lemma I.1
From Lemma I.1 b)taking $x=y$ one obtains $$ (\tilde{\eta^x_t})^2 \equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 - 2\int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s)\eta^x_s \, ds $$
So
$$ (\tilde{\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds\equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 - 2\int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s)\eta^x_s \, ds - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds $$
But how do one arrive at $$ (\tilde{\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds\equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 - 2\int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s) \, ds - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds $$
Is it true that $$ \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s)\eta^x_s \, ds = \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s) \, ds ? $$ If we divide in cases we see that the left side is equal to $$ - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)1_{\eta^x_s = 1} \, ds$$ while the right side is equal to $$ - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)1_{\eta^x_s = 1} \, ds + \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)1_{\eta^x_s = 0} \, ds$$ Is this a typo?
Assuming it is a typo:
We continue our computations from the following equivalence $$ (\tilde{\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds\equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 - 2\int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s)\eta^x_s \, ds - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds \\ \equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 + 2\int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)1_{\eta^x_s = 1} \, ds - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)\, ds\\ \equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 + \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)1_{\eta^x_s = 1} \, ds - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s) 1_{\eta^x_s = 0}\, ds\\ \equiv ({\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s) \, ds $$ Question is now, how do we see that
$$ ({\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s) \, ds \equiv \tilde{\eta^x_t}?$$


Note that $\eta^x_t \in\{0,1\}$ this implies that $(\eta^x_t)^2 = \eta^x_t$ and therefore
$$ ({\eta^x_t})^2 - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s) \, ds = {\eta^x_t} - \int_0^t c(x,\eta_s)(1 - 2\eta^x_s) \, ds = \tilde{\eta^x_t} $$
This is indeed a typo