\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Let us consider the It\^o equation
\begin{equation}\label{nlin}
 dX(t)=b(t,X(t))\  dt+\sigma(t,X(t))\ dW(t), 
 \quad  X(0)=x.
\end{equation}
If we know that there exists a solution, we ask about uniqueness and
characterization of its law. 
We can look at equation \eqref{nlin} as a modification of equation
\begin{equation}\label{lin}
dZ(t)=a(t,Z(t))\ dt+\sigma(t,Z(t))\ dW(t), \quad  Z(0)=x.
\end{equation}
by a change of the drift term.
Equation \eqref{lin} is a ''good'' reference equation, for
which existence and uniqueness hold true.
Since  these two equations differ only in the drift terms,
a  classical tool to study equation
\eqref{nlin} is the Girsanov transform. 

In \cite{LS}, Chapter 7 is
devoted to this problem, where Liptser and Shiryaev 
investigate the relation between the laws of processes solving
equations \eqref{nlin} and \eqref{lin}. 
In this paper,
we address the same problem.

As far as the results are concerned, first in dimension one
 we prove  results similar to 
\cite{LS} but with different 
assumptions; in fact, our hypotheses involve the difference $b-a$
whereas in \cite{LS} involve separately $a$ and $b$.
Then, we consider the case of dimension bigger than one.
Our analysis includes the 
uniqueness problem, not tackled in \cite{LS}.
Moreover we extend these results 
to the infinite dimensional setting, whereas \cite{LS} 
deals only with the finite dimensional case.
Here, when 
we say finite dimensional we mean that the state space is finite 
dimensional, i.e. the
unknown $X$
 is a vector process with a finite number ($d<\infty$) of components; 
this models stochastic differential equations
on the state space $\mathbb R^d$. 
However, the infinite dimensional setting is related to abstract
models of  
stochastic partial differential equations
 (see, e.g., the book by Da Prato and Zabczyk \cite{dpz}).
Actually, the infinite dimensional setting is one of the main motivations of
 our study, as it will be explained in Section \ref{sAPP}.

As far as the techniques are concerned, in some parts 
our proofs are shorter than in \cite{LS}, in the sense that even with
the same assumption of \cite{LS} we get the results of \cite{LS}  with
shorter proofs.

Now, we explain how the paper is organized.
We start our exposition with the  one dimensional setting. Extension
to dimension bigger than one is in Section \ref{bigd}.
After the basic results presented in Sections \ref{sPRE} and \ref{easy}, 
 we shall analyze uniqueness in law  in Section \ref{coro},
 the absolute continuity  in Section \ref{mains}  
 and the equivalence of the laws in Section \ref{s-equi}. 
In Section \ref{conclu} our results will be compared with those in \cite{LS}.
In the  final
section the novelty 
of our results will be discussed, also in the infinite dimensional setting.






\section{Preliminaries}\label{sPRE}
We set our problem as in the book of Liptser and Shiryaev \cite{LS}, 
that is in a setting more general than 
\eqref{nlin}-\eqref{lin}.

Let $(\Omega, \Ff,\po)$ be a probability space and  $\{\Ff_t\}_{t\ge
  0}$ a filtration. We will always assume that 
the probability space is complete and the filtration is right
continuous. 
We denote by $\mathbb E$ the expectation with respect to the measure
$\po$, and by
 $\Ff_T(X)$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $\{X(u), 0\le u \le
T\}$.

When dealing with a Polish space,
i.e. a complete separable metric space, 
the $\sigma$-algebra associated is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra.
In particular,  for $0<t\le T$ let 
$\mathcal B_t$ be the $\sigma$-algebra of Borelian subsets of
$C([0,t];\mathbb R)$.
We say that a measurable functional 
$\phi:[0,T]\times C([0,T];\mathbb R)\to \mathbb R$ 
is  non anticipative
 if, for each $t \in [0,T]$, $\phi(t,\cdot)$  is $\mathcal B_{t}$-measurable. 


The two equations to deal with are
\begin{equation}\label{equX}
 dX(t)=  b(t,X)\ dt+ \sigma(t,X)\ dW(t); \qquad X(0)=x 
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{equZ}
 dZ(t)=  a(t,Z)\ dt+ \sigma(t,Z)\ dW(t); \qquad Z(0)=x 
\end{equation}

Here, $a$, $b$ and $\sigma$ are  non 
anticipative measurable functionals.
$W$ is a  Wiener process with respect to the
stochastic basis $(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\}, \po)$. 


We need to recall what is a weak or strong solution.
We consider  processes $X$ with a.e. path in $C([0,T];\mathbb R)$, which are
adapted to the 
filtration $\{\Ff_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ and solve  equation \eqref{equX} a.s.:
\begin{equation}
 X(t)=x+ \int_0^t  b(s,X)\ ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X)\ dW(s)  \qquad \po-a.s.
\end{equation}
for every $t \in [0,T]$.
It is necessary that 
$$
 \po\{\textstyle\int_0^T|b(s,X)|ds<\infty\}
 =\po\{\int_0^T \sigma(s,X)^2 ds<\infty\}
 =1. 
$$
For simplicity, we fix the initial data $x \in \mathbb R$; however,
our results can be extended to cover the case of random initial data.
\begin{definition}[weak solution]
We say that there exists  a weak solution to equation \eqref{equX} 
if there exist a stochastic basis 
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\}_{t\ge 0},\po)$,
an  $\{\Ff_t\}$-Wiener process $W$
and 
 an $\{\Ff_t\}$-adapted process $X$ defined in it   such that
$X$ solves  equation \eqref{equX} $\po$-a.s.\\
We denote this solution by the triplet 
$\big(X,\ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W \big)$.
\end{definition}
On the other hand, if $X$ 
solves \eqref{equX} on a (a priori) given stochastic basis 
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\}_{t\ge 0},\po)$
with a given Wiener process $W$,
we have a strong solution. Therefore the Wiener 
process and the filtration are not part of the
solution itself but are assigned.

\begin{definition}[strong solution] 
We say that there exists  a strong solution 
to equation \eqref{equX} 
if, given any stochastic basis 
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\}_{t\ge 0},\po)$ and
$\{\Ff_t\}$-Wiener process $W$, 
there exists an $\{\Ff_t\}$-adapted process $X$   such that
$X$ solves  equation \eqref{equX} $\po$-a.s. 
\end{definition}


Moreover, we have two kinds of uniqueness. 

\begin{definition}[uniqueness in law] 
We say that uniqueness in law holds for equation \eqref{equX} if 
any two processes solving equation \eqref{equX}
with the same initial data have the same law.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[pathwise uniqueness] $\ $
We say that pathwise  uniqueness  holds for equation \eqref{equX} 
if  given two processes $X$ and $X^\prime$ solving equation \eqref{equX}
with the same initial data and defined with respect to the same
stochastic basis $(\Omega,\Ff,\{\Ff_t\}_{t\ge 0},\po)$ and 
Wiener process, 
we have 
$\po\{X(t)= X^\prime(t) \text{ for all } t\}=1$.
\end{definition}




In the following we shall assume that equation \eqref{equZ} has a
unique strong solution; uniqueness has to be understood as pathwise
uniqueness.
 But, 
a result of Cherny (see \cite{che}) says that
 uniqueness in law,  together with the strong existence, guarantees
the pathwise uniqueness.
Hence, we could simply assume existence of a strong solution and
uniqueness in law.
\\
On the other hand, from now on saying uniqueness of a  weak
solution we will mean 
uniqueness in law, unless otherwise specified.

Therefore,  the coefficients 
$a$ and $\sigma$ are required to 
satisfy the usual growth and Lipschitz conditions (see, e.g.,
\cite{LS}), that is
\[
{\mathbf{ [A1]}}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\; \exists \text{ constants } L_1,L_2 \text{ and a function }
K \text{ non decreasing and right continuous,}\\
\text{ with }0 \le K(s)\le 1, 
\text{ such that   }
\\[2mm]
 a(t,Y)^2+\sigma(t,Y)^2 
\le L_1 \int_0^t [1+Y(s)^2] dK(s)+L_2[1+ Y(t)^2 ]
  \\\hspace*{66mm} \forall t \in [0,T], Y \in C([0,T];\mathbb R)
\\\text{ and } \\
 |a(t,Y_1)-a(t,Y_2)|^2+|\sigma(t,Y_1)-\sigma(t,Y_2)|^2
\\
\hspace*{30mm}
\le L_1\int_0^t |Y_1(s)-Y_2(s)|^2dK(s)+L_2 |Y_1(t)-Y_2(t)|^2 
 \\\hspace*{66mm} \forall t \in [0,T], Y_1,Y_2 \in C([0,T];\mathbb R)
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Moreover,
the coefficients $a,b$ and $\sigma$ are such that
\[
{\mathbf{ [A2]}}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\; \exists \text{ a measurable functional } \gamma \text{ which is 
non anticipative  finite and  such that }\\ 
\quad\sigma(s,Y)\gamma(s,Y)=b(s,Y)-a(s,Y)\qquad
\forall s\in [0,T], Y \in C([0,T];\mathbb R).
\end{array}
\right.
\]




Few technical details:
from now on, we consider only finite time intervals $[0,T]$. 
Then, the law of a process 
solving equation \eqref{equX} or \eqref{equZ} is a probability measure on
$\mathcal B_T$.
Moreover,
if there is uniqueness in law for an equation with drift term $a$ we
denote by $\mu^a$ this unique law (unless otherwise stated).
If a measure $\nu_1$ is absolutely continuous with respect to a measure $\nu_2$ we write
$\nu_1\prec\nu_2$; if they are equivalent, i.e. $\nu_1\prec\nu_2$ and $\nu_2\prec\nu_1$, we 
write $\nu_1\sim\nu_2$.



\section{An easy case}\label{easy}
In this section, we prove a result of equivalence of laws for
equations
\eqref{equZ} and \eqref{equX}  but in the particular case 
of $b=a+g$ with a strong assumption on $\sigma$ and $g$. The proof is
based on classical tools of Girsanov transform and Novikov condition.

Instead of equation \eqref{equX}, let us  consider
\begin{equation}\label{equY}
 dY(t)=  a(t,Y)\ dt+ g(t,Y)\ dt\ +\sigma(t,Y)\ dW(t), \qquad Y(0)=x,
\end{equation}
where $g$ is a non anticipative measurable functional. Moreover, we assume that
there exists a 
finite and    non anticipative measurable functional
$\alpha$  such that
\begin{equation}\label{sistema}
 \sigma(s,Y)\alpha(s,Y)=g(s,Y)
\end{equation}
for each $s\in [0,T]$ and $Y \in C([0,T];\mathbb R)$. 

\begin{remark}\label{oss-su-s+}
Relationship \eqref{sistema}
is a compatibility condition; 
it means that when $\sigma$ vanishes, also $g$ must
vanish. 
In this case, $\alpha$ may be chosen arbitrarily in order to
satisfy \eqref{sistema}.
But, as we shall see, 
 in the Girsanov transform $\alpha$ takes into account the change of
drift between equations  \eqref{equY} and \eqref{equZ}. Therefore we
are interested only in the solution $\alpha$ of \eqref{sistema} which
vanishes when $g=0$, i.e. when the two drift terms are the same. 
Hence, from now on we consider
\begin{equation}\label{laAlfa}
\alpha(s,Y)=\sigma^+(s,Y)g(s,Y)
\end{equation}
where
$$
\sigma^+(s,Y)=\begin{cases}\dfrac 1{\sigma(s,Y)},& \sigma(s,Y)\neq 0\\  
                           0,& \sigma(s,Y)=0  \end{cases}
$$
\end{remark}

We have the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{semplice}
Assume 
 there exists a unique weak solution 
$\big(Z,\ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W \big)$
to equation \eqref{equZ}.
If 
\begin{equation}\label{unifo}
 \sup_{X\in C([0,T];\mathbb R)}\int_0^T \alpha(s,X)^2ds=c<\infty,
\end{equation}
then  equation \eqref{equY} has a weak solution, which is unique in
law.
Moreover, the law of the process $Z$ is equivalent to the law of the
process solving \eqref{equY}, that is $\mu^a \sim \mu^{a+g}$.
In particular
\begin{equation}\label{RNperY}
\frac{d\mu^{a+g}}{d\mu^{a}\;\;}(Z)=
\mathbb E\Big[e^{\textstyle\int_0^T \alpha(s,Z)dW(s)
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T \alpha(s,Z)^2ds}\big|\Ff_T(Z)\Big]
\end{equation}
$\po$-a.s.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Because of \eqref{unifo} we have that 
$$
  \mathbb E\Big[e^{\textstyle\frac 12 \int_0^T \alpha(s,Z)^2 ds}\Big]
   \le e^{\textstyle\frac c2}<\infty.
$$
This is Novikov condition, which allows to apply Girsanov
transform. More precisely (see \cite{KS}), Novikov condition makes sure that
the process $\delta$ defined by 
$$
 \delta_t=e^{\textstyle\int_0^t \alpha(s,Z)dW(s)  
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \alpha(s,Z)^2 ds}, \; 0\le t\le T,
$$
is a martingale. To highlight the dependence on $Z$ and $W$ we will
often write $\delta_T$ as $\delta_T(Z,W)$.
We define a new probability measure on 
$(\Omega, \mathcal F_T)$ by  $d\po^*= \delta_T(Z,W) d\po$. 
Then Girsanov theorem (see \cite{gir}) tells us that
$$
W^{*}(t)=W(t)-\int_0^t \alpha(s,Z) \ ds \ , \qquad t \in [0,T],
$$
is a  Wiener process with respect to
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po^{*})$; 
substituting into equation \eqref{equZ} we get
$$
 Z(t)=x +\int_0^t a(s,Z)\ ds + \int_0^t g(s,Z)\  ds
  +\int_0^t\sigma(s,Z)dW^{*}(s).
$$
This means that 
$\big(Z,\ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po^*), \ W^* \big)$
is a weak solution of equation \eqref{equY}.

For any Borelian subset $\Lambda$ of $C([0,T];\mathbb R)$, 
set $\mathcal L_Y(\Lambda)=\po^*\{Z \in \Lambda\} $ and 
$\mu^{a}(\Lambda)=\po\{Z \in \Lambda\}$. Then
$\mathcal L_Y \prec \mu^{a}$, since
$\po^*\prec \po$ by construction. Moreover, 
consider the  random variable $ \mathbb E[\delta_T(Z,W)|\Ff_T(Z)]$; it
is $\Ff_T(Z)$-measurable and therefore there exists a  
$\mathcal B_T$-measurable non negative function 
$D: C([0,T];\mathbb R)\to \mathbb R$ such that
$D(Z(\omega))=\mathbb E[\delta_T(Z,W)|\Ff_T(Z)](\omega)$ for $\po$-a.e. $\omega$.
Now, we have
\begin{multline}
 \mathcal L_Y(\Lambda)=\po^*\{Z \in \Lambda\}
 =\int\limits_{\{Z \in \Lambda\}}\delta_T(Z,W)\ d\po
 = \int\limits_{\{Z \in \Lambda\}}\mathbb E\big[\delta_T(Z,W)|\Ff_T(Z)\big]\ d\po
\\
 =\int\limits_{\{Z \in \Lambda\}}D(Z) \ d\po
 =\int_\Lambda D(z)\ d\mu^a(z)
\end{multline}
Hence 
$$
 \frac{d\mathcal L_Y}{d\mu^a}(Z)=D(Z) \quad \text{ for } Z \in
 C([0,T];\mathbb R).
$$
This proves \eqref{RNperY},
as soon as we have uniqueness in law for equation \eqref{equY}.


Viceversa, any weak solution 
$\big(Y,(\tilde \Omega, \tilde\Ff,\{\tilde \Ff_t\},\tilde\po),\tilde W\big)$
of equation \eqref{equY} 
gives rise to a weak solution 
$\big(Y,(\tilde \Omega, \tilde\Ff,\{\tilde \Ff_t\},\tilde\po^*),\tilde W^*\big)$
of equation \eqref{equZ}, with a similar
expression of the Radon-Nikodym derivative  (only a change of sign
appears). Indeed, thanks to \eqref{unifo}
\begin{equation}\label{p-den}
\Hat\delta_t(Y,\tilde W)=e^{\textstyle-\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y)d\tilde W(s)
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y)^2 ds}
\end{equation}
is a martingale; define $d\tilde\po^*=\Hat\delta_T(Y,\tilde W) d\tilde \po$ and 
$ \tilde W^{*}(t)=\tilde W(t)+\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y) \ ds$.
Then, $\tilde W^{*}$ is a  Wiener process with respect to $\tilde \po^{*}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{altraRN}
 \mu^a(\Lambda)=\tilde\po^*\{Y\in \Lambda\}
 = \int\limits_{\{Y\in \Lambda\}} \Hat\delta_T(Y,\tilde W) \ d\tilde \po.
\end{equation}
Now, suppose there exist two different weak solutions of equation \eqref{equY}:
$$
 \big(Y_i,
 (\tilde \Omega_i, \tilde\Ff_i,\{\tilde \Ff_{{i}_t}\},\tilde\po_i),
  \tilde W_i\big)\qquad
 i=1,2.
$$
We have that $d\tilde\po_i^*=\Hat\delta_T(Y_i,\tilde W_i) d\tilde \po_i$;
moreover, 
\[\begin{split}
 \Hat\delta_t(Y_i,\tilde W_i)&=e^{\textstyle-\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y_i)d\tilde W_i(s)
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y_i)^2 ds}
\\&=
e^{\textstyle-\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y_i)d\tilde W_i^*(s)
+\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \alpha(s,Y_i)^2 ds}=:
\frac 1{\underline \delta_t(Y_i,\tilde W^*_i)}.
\end{split}\]
Again \eqref{unifo} provides that 
$\underline \delta_T(Y_i,\tilde W^*_i)$ is well defined.
Then, $d\tilde\po_i=\underline\delta_T(Y_i,\tilde W^*_i) d\tilde
\po^*_i$. Now, 
uniqueness in law for the solution of equation \eqref{equZ} 
means that the joint distribution of $(Y_1,W^*_1)$ is the same as of 
$(Y_2,W^*_2)$ (see \cite{che}  Th. 3.1).
Then, we get
\[\begin{split}
\tilde P_1(Y_1\in \Lambda)
  &=\int_{\tilde \Omega_1} \underline \delta_T(Y_1,\tilde W^*_1) 
  \mathbb I_{\{Y_1  \in \Lambda\}}d\tilde \po^*_1 
   \\&=
    \int_{\tilde \Omega_2} \underline \delta_T(Y_2,\tilde W^*_2) 
  \mathbb I_{\{Y_2  \in \Lambda\}}d\tilde \po^*_2 
  = 
  \tilde P_2(Y_2\in \Lambda)
\end{split}\]
for any Borelian subset $\Lambda$ of $ C([0,T];\mathbb R)$; 
here ${\mathbb I}_\cdot$ is the indicator  function. 
Thus, we have uniqueness in law for equation \eqref{equY}.
\hfill $\Box$

\begin{remark}\label{ledensi}
i) The expression  \eqref{RNperY} can be written as
$$
\frac{d\mu^{a+g}}{d\mu^{a}\;\;}(Z)=
\mathbb E\Big[e^{\textstyle\int_0^T \alpha(s,Z)dW(s)}\big|\Ff_T(Z)\Big]
e^{-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T \alpha(s,Z)^2ds}.
$$
The same holds for other similar expressions of  Radon-Nikodym
derivatives appearing later on.
\\ii) Consider the assumptions of Theorem \ref{semplice}. Then, 
given a weak solution
$\big(Y,(\tilde \Omega, \tilde\Ff,\{\tilde \Ff_t\},\tilde\po),\tilde W\big)$  
of equation \eqref{equY}, from \eqref{altraRN} in the previous proof  we have
\begin{equation}\label{a:su:a+g}
 \frac{d\mu^{a}\;\;}{d\mu^{a+g}}(Y)=
 \tilde{ \mathbb E}\Big[e^{\textstyle-\int_0^T \alpha(s,Y)d\tilde W(s)
 -\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T \alpha(s,Y)^2 ds}\big|\Ff_T(Y)\Big]
\end{equation}
$\tilde \po$-a.s.
\end{remark}





\section{Uniqueness in law}\label{coro}
According to Remark \ref{oss-su-s+},
if {\bf [A2]} holds true we set
$$
 \gamma(s,Y)=\sigma^+(s,Y)[b(s,Y)-a(s,Y)].
$$

We have the following
\begin{proposition}\label{unici}
Assume {\bf [A1]} and {\bf [A2]}.\\
If there exist two weak solutions
$\big(X, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$ and 
$\big(X^\prime, (\Omega^\prime, \Ff^\prime,\{\Ff^\prime_t\},\po^\prime), 
\ W^\prime\big)$ to equation \eqref{equX}, 
 with the same initial data $x$, 
such that
\begin{equation}\label{unic}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds<\infty
   \}=
 \po^\prime\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma(s,X^\prime)^2 ds<\infty
 \}=1,
\end{equation}
 then the laws of $X$ and $X^\prime$ are the same. 
\end{proposition}
\proof 
Consider the first solution $\big(X, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$.
According to {\bf [A1]} there exists a 
solution $Z$ of equation \eqref{equZ} with respect 
to the stochastic basis $(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po)$
and the Wiener process $W$.
For any integer $n\ge 1$, define the truncation function 
$$
 \chi^n_t(Z)= 
\begin{cases} 
1 &\text{ if }\int_0^t  \gamma(s,Z)^2ds < n,
\\
0 &\text{ otherwise. } 
\end{cases}
$$
We have that   
$$
 \sup_{Z \in C([0,T];\mathbb R)}
  \int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds\le n.
$$
We use Theorem \ref{semplice} with 
$g(s,Y)=\chi^n_s(Y)[b(s, Y)-a(s,Y)]$ in order to 
get that
the new  equation
\begin{multline}\label{eqN}
 Y(t)=x+ \int_0^t a(s,Y)\ ds+\int_0^t \chi^n_s(Y)[b(s,Y)-a(s,Y)]\  ds
\\ +\int_0^t\sigma(s,Y)dW(s)
\end{multline}
has a unique weak solution. For short, 
we denote its law by $\mu^{b,n}$ and we have
$\mu^{b,n}\prec \mu^a$, with
$\mu^{b,n}(\Lambda)=\po^{*n}\{Z\in \Lambda\}$,
$d\po^{*n}=\rho^n_T(Z,W) d\po$, 
and the martingale $\rho^n=\rho^n(Z,W)$ defined by
$\rho^n_t=e^{\textstyle\int_0^t \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) 
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}$. In particular,
\[
\mathbb E[\rho_t^n(Z,W)]=\mathbb E[\rho_0^n(Z,W)]=1 \qquad\text{ for all }t,
\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{den-n}
\frac{d\mu^{b,n}}{d\mu^{a}}(Z)=
\mathbb E\big[e^{\textstyle\int_0^T \chi_s^n(Z)\gamma(s,Z)dW(s)
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T\chi_s^n(Z)
\gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}|\Ff_T(Z)\big]
\end{equation}
$\po$-a.s..\\
This holds for any $n$ integer. 
Therefore we have uniquely defined the sequence $\{\mu^{b,n}\}_{n=1}^\infty$.

On the other hand, 
we can define
a process solving equation \eqref{eqN} {\it with the Wiener process} $W$.
Let us
define the sequence of stopping times (depending on the process $X$)
$$
 \tau^n= \inf\{t\in [0,T]: \chi^n_t(X)=0 \} \wedge T 
$$
considering the infimum to be $+\infty$ when the set is empty.\\
Given any $n$,  
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po)$ and  $ W$,
if $\big(X, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$  
is a  weak solution to equation \eqref{equX} then
equation
\begin{multline}\label{Neq}
X^n(t)=X(t\wedge\tau^n)\\+\int_0^t[1-\chi^n_s(X)]a(s,X^n)\ ds
+\int_0^t[1-\chi^n_s(X)]\sigma(s,X^n)\ dW(s)
\end{multline}
has a unique strong solution $X^n$, thanks to
assumption {\bf [A1]}. 
Moreover, by It\^o calculus we get that this process $X^n$ solves  \eqref{eqN}.
Hence, $\mu^{b,n}$ coincides with the law of $X^n$.
From \eqref{Neq} we have ($\po$-a.s)
\[
X^n(t)=\begin{cases}X(t) \quad \text{ on } \{\tau^n\ge t\}\\
          X(\tau^n)+\int_{\tau^n}^t a(s,X^n)ds+\int_{\tau^n}^t \sigma(s,X^n)dW_s 
              \quad \text{ on }   \{\tau^n< t\}\end{cases}
\]
In particular, $ X=X^n$ on the set $\{\tau^n=T\}\supseteq \{\chi_T^n(X)=1\}$.
According to  \eqref{unic} we have 
$\displaystyle\lim_{n \to \infty}\po\{ \chi_T^n(X)=0\}=0$. 
Hence
\[
 \po\{ \| X-X^n\|_{C([0,T];\mathbb R)}>0\} \le \po\{ \chi_T^n(X)=0\} \to 0  \qquad
 \text{ as } n \to \infty. 
\]
Therefore, ${\mu^{b,n}}$ 
converges to the law of $X$ in the metric of total variation.

If we start from another solution 
$\big(X^\prime, (\Omega^\prime, \Ff^\prime,
\{\Ff^\prime_t\},\po^\prime), \ W^\prime\big)$ fulfilling \eqref{unic},
we would consider
the solution 
$\big(Z^\prime, (\Omega^\prime, \Ff^\prime,
\{\Ff^\prime_t\},\po^\prime), \ W^\prime\big)$
to equation \eqref{equZ}, giving  the same $\mu^{b,n}$. Indeed, there
is uniqueness in law for both equations \eqref{equZ} and \eqref{equY}.
Hence, $\mu^{b,n}$ converges to the law of $X^\prime$.
Since the limit  of $\mu^{b,n}$ is unique, we conclude that the laws of $X$
and $X^\prime$ are the same.
\hfill $\Box$


\begin{remark}\label{sol:deb}
Given a weak solution 
$\big(X, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$
of equation \eqref{equX}, it is easier 
to construct a  solution 
$\big(X^n,\ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W \big)$ 
of equation \eqref{eqN}
when the noise is independent of the unknown,
 i.e. $\sigma(t,X)=\sigma(t)$. 
Indeed, 
we look for a process solving
\[
 X^n(t)=x+\int_0^t a(s,X^n)\ ds+\int_0^t \chi^n_s(X^n)[b(s,X^n)-a(s,X^n)]\  ds
 +\int_0^t\sigma(s)dW(s).
\]
Notice that, given a path $X^n_\omega$, 
this equation reduces to equation \eqref{equX} if 
$\chi^n(X_\omega^n)=1$ and
to equation \eqref{equZ} if $\chi^n(X_\omega^n)=0$. 

Now, we construct pathwise the solution process.
For
$\po$-a.e. $\om$,  set  
$ X_\omega^n(t)=X_\omega(t)$ for $0\le t \le \tau^n(\om)$. 
In particular, $\chi^n_{\tau^n(\om)}(X^n_\om)=0$ and
whatever is $X_\omega^n(t)$ for $t>\tau^n(\om)$ 
we will have $\chi^n_t(X_\omega^n)=0$ for $t>\tau^n(\om)$.
Therefore the evolution
of \eqref{eqN} on the time interval $]\tau^n(\om),T]$ 
is given by equation \eqref{equZ}. 
Summing up, 
we have that a solution of equation \eqref{eqN} with the Wiener
process $W$ is the process defined pathwise as follows:
\[X^n(t)=
\begin{cases}
X(t), & t \in [0,\tau^n]\\
\psi^{\tau^n}(X(\tau^n),W)(t), & t \in ]\tau^n,T]
\end{cases}
\]
where  $\psi^{t_0}(y,W)$ 
 denotes the solution of equation \eqref{equZ} (with the Wiener process $W$)
 on the time interval 
$[t_0,T]$ and with initial data $Z(t_0)=y$:
$$ 
 \psi^{t_0}(y,W)(t)=y+\int_{t_0}^t a(s,\psi^{t_0}(y,W))\ ds 
   + \int_{t_0}^t \sigma(s)\ dW(s)
$$
We point out that in this case is enough to assume that 
equation \eqref{equZ} has a unique strong solution
on any time interval $[t_0,T]\subseteq [0,T]$ and that the mapping
$[0,T]\times \mathbb R\times C_0([0,T];\mathbb R ) \ni
(s,y,W) \mapsto \psi^{s}(y,W) \in C([s,T];\mathbb R )$ is
measurable. Actually for fixed initial time, this mapping 
is already known to have nice properties (see, e.g., \cite{IW} Ch. 4 
for the properties of the 
mapping $\psi:\mathbb R\times C_0([0,T];\mathbb R )
\to C([0,T];\mathbb R )$ providing a strong solution on the time
interval $[0,T]$).

An easy example fulfilling these requirements is for the linear 
equation, i.e.  the drift term is $a(t,Z)=c(t)Z(t)$ 
with $c, \sigma$:$[0,T]\to \mathbb R $ measurable and bounded.
Indeed, we have
\begin{equation}\label{caso-lin}
  \psi^{s}(y,W)(t)=e^{\int_s^t c(u)du}y+\int_s^te^{\int^t_u c(r)dr}  \sigma(u)dW(u),
\qquad t\in [s,T].
\end{equation}
\end{remark}




\section{Absolute continuity of $\mu^b$ with respect to $\mu^a$}\label{mains}
We consider equations \eqref{equX} and \eqref{equZ} with the same
initial data $x\in \mathbb R$.
We have the following result. The assumptions are the same as for the 
uniqueness result of the previous section; therefore we denote by
$\mu^b$ the unique law for equation \eqref{equX}.

Let us denote by $\chi_t(Z)$ the indicator function of the set 
$\{\int_0^t \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds<\infty\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{4.1}
Assume {\bf [A1]} and {\bf [A2]}.\\
If there exists a weak solution
$\big(X, \ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$ 
to equation \eqref{equX} such that
\begin{equation}\label{un}\tag{\ref{unic}$^\prime$}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds<\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
 then $\mu^b \prec \mu^a$.
Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{mu-b-a}
 \frac{d\mu^b}{d\mu^{a}}(Z)=\mathbb E\big[
   e^{\textstyle \mathcal I_T(Z) -\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
   |\Ff_T(Z)\big]\qquad \po-a.s.,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{rho-lim}
  \mathcal I_T(Z)=\po-\lim_{n \to \infty}  
  \chi_T(Z) \int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s). 
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\proof 
Going back to the proof of Proposition \ref{unici},
we have that $\mu^{b,n}\prec \mu^a$ and 
$\|\mu^{b,n}-\mu^b\|_{var}\to 0$.
Then, if $\mu^a(\Lambda)=0$ for some Borelian subset $\Lambda$ of 
$C([0,T];\mathbb R)$, then $\mu^{b,n}(\Lambda)=0$ and finally 
$ \mu^{b}(\Lambda)=0$. This proves $\mu^b\prec \mu^a$.

Moreover,  $\|\mu^{b,n}-\mu^b\|_{var}\to 0$ implies 
that $\mu^{b,n}$ (equivalently, $\po^{*n}$) is a Cauchy
sequence in the metric of total variation.
Since
$\|\po^{*n}-\po^{*m}\|_{var}
=\|\frac{d\po^{*n}}{d\po}-\frac{d\po^{*m}}{d\po}\|_{L^1(\po)}$, 
this is the same as saying that
$$
\frac{d\po^{*n}}{d\po\;\;}= 
 \rho^n_T(Z,W)= e^{\textstyle\int_0^t \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) 
-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
$$ 
is a Cauchy sequence in the metric of $L^1(\po)$. Therefore
$\rho^n_T(Z,W)$ converges in the norm of $L^1(\po)$
to some limit, which is denoted by  $\rho_T(Z,W)$. We want to
identify $\rho_T(Z,W)$.

Notice that if $\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds<\infty$ $\po$-a.s., then 
the stochastic integral in the exponent of $\rho^n_T(Z,W)$
would converge in probability to $\int_0^T  \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)$ 
(see \cite{LS}, Section 4.2.6) and the deterministic integral to 
$\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds$. 
Otherwise, we proceed following the
argument given in \cite{LS} (Section 4.2.9), but with some modification. 
The random variable 
$$ \mathcal I_T^n(Z):=
\chi_T(Z) \int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)
$$ 
converges in probability. Indeed, 
$ \chi_T(Z)\int_0^T|\chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)-\gamma(s,Z)|^2ds$ 
converges to 0 $\po$-a.s.; hence there is convergence in probability.
Therefore, by Lemma 4.6 of \cite{LS},
$\mathcal I_T^n(Z)$ ($n=1,2,\ldots$) is a Cauchy sequence in probability.
It follows that
it converges in probability to a random variabile, which we denote by
$\mathcal I_T(Z)$. 

First, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 \chi_T(Z) \rho_T
&= \chi_T(Z)\
 \po-\lim_n e^{\textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) 
 -\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
\\&= \po-\lim_n \chi_T(Z) 
 e^{\textstyle \int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) 
 -\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
\\&=
\chi_T(Z) e^{\po-\lim_n[\textstyle\chi_T(Z)  \int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) 
 -\frac 12 \textstyle\chi_T(Z) \int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds]}
\\&=
\chi_T(Z) 
e^{\textstyle \mathcal I_T(Z)-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T
  \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
\qquad \po-a.s.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This means that
\begin{equation}\label{il rho}
 \rho_T(Z,W)=e^{\textstyle \mathcal I_T(Z)-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T
  \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}  
\end{equation}
a.s. on the set $\{\chi_T(Z)=1\}$.

Now let us check that \eqref{il rho} holds a.s. also on the set 
$\{\chi_T(Z)=0\}$, or equivalently a.s. on the set 
$\{\int_0^T\gamma(s,Z)^2ds=\infty\}$. 
We analyze the left and right hand side of equality
\eqref{il rho}.
The r.h.s. of  \eqref{il rho} vanishes
a.s. on the set $\{\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds=\infty\}$. Indeed, 
by definition $\mathcal I^n_T(Z)=0 $ a.s. on $\{\chi_T(Z)=0\}$ and therefore 
$\mathcal I_T(Z)=0 $ a.s. on $\{\chi_T(Z)=0\}$. 
\\
On the other hand, the l.h.s.  of  \eqref{il rho} vanishes a.s. on the set 
$\{\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds=~\infty\}$. Indeed, on this set
$$
 \rho^n_T(Z,W)=     
e^{\textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) -\frac 12 n}, 
\qquad \po-a.s.
$$
Therefore   
\begin{multline}\label{piccolo}
 \rho^n_T (Z,W)\le e^{-\frac n4} \qquad \po-a.s. \\\;\text{ on } 
\{\textstyle\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds=\infty\}
\cap \{ \textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)\le \frac n4\}.
\end{multline}
Using Chebyshev inequality we get
\begin{equation}\label{cheb}
\begin{split}
\po\{\textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)>\frac n4\} 
&=
\frac 12 \po\{|\textstyle\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)|>\frac n4\}
\\
&\le \frac 12 
\frac{\mathbb E[\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds]}{(n/4)^2}
\\
&\le \frac 12 \frac n{(n/4)^2}
 \longrightarrow 0 \;\text{ as } n \to \infty.
\end{split}\end{equation}
Let $\chi^{W,n}$ be the indicator function of the set  
$\{\int_0^T \chi^n_s(Z) \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)\le \frac n4\}$.
According to \eqref{cheb} we have that 
\begin{equation}\label{0ins}
 \lim_{n \to \infty} \po\{\chi^{W,n}=0\}=0.
\end{equation}
We investigate the convergence of $\rho^n_T(Z,W)$ on the set
$\{\chi_T(Z)=0\}$:
for any $\varepsilon>0$ we have
\[\begin{split}
\po&\{\rho^n_T(Z,W)[1-\chi_T(Z)]>\varepsilon\}
\\&
=\po\{\rho^n_T(Z,W)>\varepsilon,\ \chi_T(Z)=0\}
\\&
= 
\po\{\rho^n_T(Z,W)>\varepsilon,\ \chi_T(Z)=0,\ \chi^{W,n}=0\}
+
\po\{\rho^n_T(Z,W)>\varepsilon,\ \chi_T(Z)=0,\ \chi^{W,n}=1\}
\\&
\le
\po\{\chi^{W,n}=0\}+
\po\{ e^{-\frac n4}>\varepsilon,\ \chi_T(Z)=0,\ \chi^{W,n}=1\} 
\quad\text{ by } \eqref{piccolo}
\\&
\le 
\po\{\chi^{W,n}=0\}+
\po\{ e^{-\frac n4}>\varepsilon\} 
\longrightarrow 0 \quad\text{  as } n \to \infty \text{ by } \eqref{0ins}.
\end{split}
\]
This implies that $\rho_T(Z,W)[1-\chi_T(Z)]=0$ a.s.;
hence,  $\rho_T(Z,W)=0$ a.s. on the set $\{\chi_T(Z)=0\}$.

We conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{insiemi}
 \rho_T(Z,W)=e^{\textstyle \mathcal I_T(Z)-\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^T
  \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds} \qquad \po-\text{ a.s. }
\end{equation}

Finally, denoting by $\po^*$ the limit of $\po^{*n}$, so that
$\mu^b(\Lambda)=\po^*\{Z\in \Lambda\}$, we have proved that
$\frac{d\po^*}{d\po\;}=\rho_T(Z,W)$.
As done in the proof of Theorem \ref{semplice}, 
we get \eqref{mu-b-a}.
\hfill$\Box$





\section{Equivalence of the laws}\label{s-equi}
As noticed in the previous section, if
$\po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds<\infty \}=1$,
then 
\begin{equation}\label{casoINT}
 \mathcal I_T(Z)=\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)
\end{equation}
and therefore $\dfrac{d\po^*}{d\po\;}=\rho_T(Z,W) $, where 
$$
 \rho_t(Z,W) 
 =e^{\textstyle \int_0^t \gamma(s,Z)dW(s) -\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
$$
is a strictly positive martingale.

From this, we have a result on how to use Girsanov transform under
very weak assumptions (basically, avoiding Novikov condition or
similar conditions involving the expectation of the exponential of a
random variable related to the integral of $\gamma(s,Z)$;
see \cite{nov}, \cite{Ka}, \cite{K}).
\begin{theorem}\label{p1}
Assume {\bf [A1]}, {\bf [A2]} and that  equation \eqref{equX}
has a weak solution 
$ \big(X, \ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big) $.
Denote by $Z$ the unique solution of equation \eqref{equZ} 
with respect to the same stochastic basis and  Wiener process.\\
If
\begin{equation}\label{primo-u}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds<\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{primo-z}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds<\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
then\\
i) the process $\rho=\rho(Z,W)$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{dens}
\rho_t=
e^{\textstyle\int_0^t\gamma(s,Z)dW(s)
 -\frac 12 \textstyle\int_0^t \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}, \quad
0\le t \le T, 
\end{equation}
is a positive  $\{\Ff_t\}$-martingale; 
in particular
\begin{equation}\label{mart}
 \mathbb E [\rho_t(Z,W)] = 1  \;\text{ for any } t \in [0,T].
\end{equation}
ii)
\begin{equation}\label{w.star}
W^*(t)=W(t)-\int_0^t  \gamma(s,Z)\ ds \ , \qquad t \in [0,T],
\end{equation}
is a Wiener process with respect to
$\po^*$,
where
the probability measure $\po^*$ is defined on $(\Omega,\Ff_T)$ by 
\begin{equation}\label{lap*}
 d\po^* = \rho_T(Z,W) \  d\po.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\proof 
$i)$
Notice that the exponential process
 $\rho(Z,W)$ is a positive local martingale and then, by Fatou lemma, 
a supermartingale. Since $\rho_0(Z,W)=1$, it is enough
to have $\mathbb E [\rho_T(Z,W)]=1$ 
 in order to prove that it is a martingale. But, $\rho_T(Z,W)$  is the
$L^1(\po)$-limit of $\rho^n_T(Z,W)$; since  
we already know from the proof of Proposition \ref{unici} that
$$
\mathbb E [\rho^n_T(Z,W)]=1 \quad \text{
  for any } n=1,2,\dots 
$$
we get that $\mathbb E [\rho_T(Z,W)]=1$.

$ii)$  Given $i)$, this is Girsanov theorem
(see, e.g., \cite{gir}).
\hfill$\Box$

\smallskip

Now we state our main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{main}
Assume {\bf [A1]}, {\bf [A2]} and that  equation \eqref{equX}
has a weak solution \\
$ \big(X, \ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big) $.
Denote by $Z$ the unique solution of equation \eqref{equZ} 
with respect to the same stochastic basis and  Wiener process.\\
If \eqref{primo-u}-\eqref{primo-z} hold,
then the law of the solution of equation \eqref{equX} is unique.
Moreover, $\mu^b \sim \mu^a$. In particular, 
\begin{alignat}{1}
\frac{d\mu^b}{d\mu^a}(Z)=
  \mathbb E
  \left[ e^{+\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)-\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
   \big|\Ff_T(Z)\right]  \qquad\quad 
 &\po-a.s. \label{roz}  \\
\frac{d\mu^a}{d\mu^b}(Z)=
 \mathbb E
 \left[e^{-\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)+\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds} |\Ff_T(Z)\right]
 \qquad\quad&\po-a.s.  \label{leggi5} \\
\frac{d\mu^a}{d\mu^b}(Z)=
 \mathbb E^*
 \left[e^{-\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW^*(s)
       -\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds} |\Ff_T(Z)\right]
 \quad\quad&\po^*-a.s. \label{densitaleggi2}\\
\frac{d\mu^a}{d\mu^b}(X)=
  \mathbb E
  \left[ e^{-\int_0^T \gamma(s,X)dW(s)-\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds}
   \big|\Ff_T(X)\right]  \quad\quad 
  &\po-a.s. \label{densX} 
\end{alignat}
where $\po^*, W^*$ are defined by \eqref{lap*}, \eqref{w.star}
respectively.
\end{theorem}
\proof 
Uniqueness in law comes from Proposition \ref{unici}, $\mu_b\prec \mu_a$
from Proposition \ref{4.1} and \eqref{roz}
from \eqref{mu-b-a}, \eqref{casoINT} with the assumption \eqref{primo-z}.

Moreover,  \eqref{primo-z} implies that 
$\po\{\rho_T(Z,W)=0\}=0$. Then $\po\prec \po^*$
with 
$$
 \frac{d\po\;}{d\po^*}= \frac 1{\rho_T(Z,W)}, \qquad \po^*-a.s.
$$
(see Lemma 6.8 in \cite{LS}).
From $\po \prec \po^*$ follows $\mu^a \prec \mu^b$. 

As done in the proof of Theorem \ref{semplice}, 
from $\frac{d\po\;}{d\po^*}=\big(\rho_T(Z,W)\big)^{-1}$ we get \eqref{leggi5}.
Moreover, using \eqref{w.star} we get
$$
 \frac{d\po\;}{d\po^*}=
 e^{-\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)+\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds}
 =e^{-\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW^*(s)-\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds};
$$
in the same way, this gives \eqref{densitaleggi2}.
In particular, 
\begin{equation}
 \mathbb E^*
 \Big[e^{\textstyle-\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW^*(s)
       -\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds} \Big]=1.
\end{equation}
This is written for the solution 
$ \big(Z, \ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po^*), \ W^*\big)$ 
of equation \eqref{equX}. Since there is uniqueness in law for
equation \eqref{equX}, if we consider the same relationship for
the solution $ \big(X, \ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$
we get 
\begin{equation}\label{1X}
 \mathbb E \Big[e^{\textstyle-\int_0^T \gamma(s,X)dW(s)
       -\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds} \Big]=1.
\end{equation}
Now, let us start from equation \eqref{equX} and 
consider equation \eqref{equZ} as a modification of equation
\eqref{equX} by a change of drift.
Thanks to \eqref{1X}, we can use Girsanov theorem.
Similarly to what we have done in Theorem \ref{semplice} and Remark
\ref{ledensi} ii),
we get \eqref{densX}. 
\hfill$\Box$



\section{Conclusions} \label{conclu}
We compare our results with whose of Liptser and Shiryaev.
Let us begin reminding a result of \cite{LS}: there Theorem 7.18
states that if we assume {\bf [A1]}, {\bf [A2]}, 
that equation \eqref{equX} has a
weak solution $\big(X,\ (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W \big)$
satisfying \eqref{primo-u} and
\begin{equation}\label{novk}
\mathbb E\Big[e^{\textstyle -\int_0^T \gamma(s,X)dW(s)
   -\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds} \Big]=1,
\end{equation}
then $\mu^b \sim \mu^a$ and 
$$
 \frac{d\mu^a}{d\mu^b}(X)=
  \mathbb E\Big[  e^{\textstyle -\int_0^T \gamma(s,X)dW(s)
   -\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds}
  \big|\Ff_T(X)\Big], \qquad
 \po-a.s.
$$
The crucial issue is how to get \eqref{novk} without assuming the 
quite strong Novikov condition (see \cite{nov}) 
$$
 \mathbb E\Big[e^{\textstyle \frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,X)^2 ds} \Big]<\infty
$$
or other conditions 
involving the expectation of the exponential of a
random variable related to the integral of $\gamma(s,X)$
(see \cite{Ka}, \cite{K}). This is done in our Theorem \ref{main} with
the ''$\po$-a.s.'' conditions \eqref{primo-u}-\eqref{primo-z}.

However, Liptser and Shiryaev present another result, more operative
than Theorem 7.18. This is 
Theorem 7.19 of \cite{LS} providing $\mu^b \sim \mu^a$
with the same assumptions of Theorem 7.18 except \eqref{novk},
which is replaced by
\begin{equation}\label{loro}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma_a(s,X)^2  ds <\infty \}=
       \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma_b(s,X)^2 ds <\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{loro2}
\po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma_a(s,Z)^2  ds <\infty \}=
   \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \gamma_b(s,Z)^2 ds <\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
where 
$$ 
 \gamma_a(s,X)= \sigma^+(s,X) a(s,X), \qquad
 \gamma_b(s,X)=\sigma^+(s,X) b(s,X).
$$
Because of $\gamma=\gamma_b-\gamma_a$, assumptions
\eqref{loro}-\eqref{loro2} are stronger than \eqref{primo-u}-\eqref{primo-z}.


Therefore, we can see our Theorem \ref{main} as an intermediate result  
between the two theorems of \cite{LS}. We have the same result as
Theorem 7.18, but saying concretely how  to get \eqref{novk} with
''$\po$-a.s.'' conditions. This is
in the same spirit as Theorem 7.19. However, our
conditions \eqref{primo-u}-\eqref{primo-z} 
involve only the difference $b-a$ of the  drift terms, whereas 
conditions \eqref{loro}-\eqref{loro2} involve  both the
drift terms $b$ and $a$.


We point out that our results on the absolute continuity 
of the laws are identical to \cite{LS}, but the expressions of 
the Radon-Nikodym derivatives are different
from those of  Liptser and Shiryaev.
In fact, under \eqref{loro}-\eqref{loro2}
Theorem 7.19 gives
\begin{equation}\label{noW}
 \frac{d\mu^b}{d\mu^a}(Z)=
 e^{\int_0^T \sigma^+(s,Z)^2[b(s,Z)-a(s,Z)]\ dZ(s)
-\frac 12 \int_0^T \sigma^+(s,Z)^2[b(s,Z)^2-a(s,Z)^2]\ ds} 
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{noW2}
 \frac{d\mu^a}{d\mu^b}(X)=
 e^{-\int_0^T \sigma^+(s,X)^2[b(s,X)-a(s,X)] dX(s)
+\frac 12 \int_0^T \sigma^+(s,X)^2[b(s,X)^2-a(s,X)^2] ds} 
\end{equation}
($\po$-a.s.). Let us show that \eqref{noW} can be obtained from
\eqref{roz};
similarly, for \eqref{noW2} from \eqref{densX}.
If this is true, then we conclude that 
with our proofs we get the same result as Liptser and Shiryaev.
However, our proofs  are different from  \cite{LS}
basically in one point: Liptser and Shiryaev analyze the equation
satisfied by the Radon-Nikodym derivative,  whereas we analyze the 
Radon-Nikodym derivative as the limit of the sequence $\frac{d\po^{*n}}{d\po}$.
This makes our proofs shorter.

Let us come back to the expression of the Radon-Nikodym derivative 
$\frac{d\mu^b}{d\mu^a}(Z)$. Now, we assume
\eqref{loro}-\eqref{loro2};
of course our results hold true. Therefore $\frac{d\mu^b}{d\mu^a}(Z)$
is given by \eqref{roz}.
From \eqref{equZ} we have $W$ depending on $Z$: 
$dW(t)=\sigma^+(t,Z)[dZ(t)-  a(t,Z)\ dt]$.
Then  
$$
\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)-\frac 12 \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 ds 
$$
becomes (formally)
\begin{equation}\label{LSden}
 \int_0^T \sigma^+(s,Z)^2[b(s,Z)-a(s,Z)] dZ(s)
  -\frac 12 \int_0^T \sigma^+(s,Z)^2[b(s,Z)^2-a(s,Z)^2] ds.
\end{equation}
Since
\[
 \int_0^T |\sigma^+(s,Z)^2[b(s,Z)-a(s,Z)]|^2 \sigma(s,Z)^2 \ ds 
\le \int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)^2 \ ds ,
\]
the stochastic integral  in \eqref{LSden} 
is well defined if \eqref{primo-z} holds, whereas
the deterministic integral requires \eqref{loro2}.
Then, \eqref{LSden} is  in fact well
defined with assumption \eqref{loro2} and it  
depends only on $Z$ and not also on $W$. 
From \eqref{roz} and \eqref{LSden}, we get \eqref{noW}.








\section{Bigger dimensions}\label{bigd}
Let $d, m \in \mathbb N$ with $dm>1$. 
The solution processes $X$ and $Z$ 
have paths in $C([0,T];\mathbb R^d)$, 
the 
initial data $x\in \mathbb R^d$ and $W$ is an $m$-dimensional Wiener
process. Any  vector $v$ is a  column vector, whose transposed is the
row vector $v^T$. We set
$\|X\|^2=\sum_{i=1}^dX_i^2$.

Let $\mathcal B_t$ be the $\sigma$-algebra of Borelian subsets of
$C([0,t];\mathbb R^d )$, for $0<t\le T$.
The drift terms  $a$ and $b$ are $\mathbb R^d$-valued non 
anticipative measurable functionals, that is
$$
 a, b: [0,T]\times C([0,T];\mathbb R^d)\to \mathbb R^d, 
$$
are measurable and, for each $t \in [0,T]$,  $a(t,\cdot), b(t,\cdot)$ 
are  $\mathcal B_{t}$-measurable.
Similarly, 
the diffusion term  
$\sigma:[0,T]\times C([0,T];\mathbb R^d)\to \mathbb R^d\times \mathbb R^m$
is a non anticipative measurable functional;
in particular
$(\sigma W)_i=\sum_{k=1}^m\sigma_{ik} W_k$ for $i=1,\ldots, d$.
The entries satisfy
the previous conditions;
the two main assumptions  become
\[
\hspace{-4mm}{\mathbf{ [A1]}}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\; \exists \text{ constants } L_1,L_2 \text{ and a function }
K \text{ non decreasing and right continuous,}\\
\text{ with }0 \le K(s)\le 1, 
\text{ such that all the components  }
a_i, b_{ik} \text{ satisfy }
\\[2mm]
 a_i(t,Y)^2+\sigma_{ik}(t,Y)^2 
\le L_1 \int_0^t [1+\|Y(s)\|^2] dK(s)+L_2[1+\|Y(t)\|^2]
  \\\hspace*{66mm} \forall t \in [0,T], Y \in C([0,T];\mathbb R^d)
\\\text{ and } \\
 |a_i(t,Y_1)-a_i(t,Y_2)|^2+|\sigma_{ik}(t,Y_1)-\sigma_{ik}(t,Y_2)|^2
\\
\hspace*{30mm}
\le L_1\int_0^t \|Y_1(s)-Y_2(s)\|^2dK(s)+L_2 \|Y_1(t)-Y_2(t)\|^2 
 \\\hspace*{66mm} \forall t \in [0,T], Y_1,Y_2 \in C([0,T];\mathbb R^d)
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\[
\hspace{-8mm}{\mathbf{ [A2]}}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\; \exists \gamma \text{ finite and } \mathbb R^m\text{-valued 
non anticipative measurable functional: }\\ 
\quad\sigma(s,Y)\gamma(s,Y)=b(s,Y)-a(s,Y)\qquad
\forall s\in [0,T], Y \in C([0,T];\mathbb R^d).
\end{array}
\right.
\]
In Remark \ref{sol:deb}, the solution mapping 
is 
$$
[0,T]\times \mathbb R^d\times C_0([0,T];\mathbb R^m ) \ni
(s,y,W) \mapsto \psi^{s}(y,W) \in C([s,T];\mathbb R^d )
$$
and the linear equation in the example has solution
still given by \eqref{caso-lin},
where $c:[0,T]\to\mathbb R^d\times \mathbb R^d$ is measurable and bounded.


All the results of the previous sections hold true with the suitable
change of notations. Mainly, $\gamma^2$ becomes 
$\|\gamma\|^2= \sum_{k=1}^m\gamma_k^2$ and
$\sigma^+$ is the pseudo-inverse matrix of $\sigma$ (see, e.g.,
\cite{matrici}, \cite{LS2}); $\sigma^+$ is an $m\times d$-matrix, 
uniquely defined.


However, let us investigate this multidimensional problem in details.
Assumption {\bf [A2]} refers to the linear system of 
$d$ equations in $m$ unknowns
\begin{equation}\label{sg}
\sigma(s,Y)\gamma(s,Y)=b(s,Y)-a(s,Y)
\end{equation} 
and is a consistency condition involving $\sigma$ and $b-a$ 
(see, e.g., \cite{matrici} for all the results on linear systems and 
matrices). Moreover, 
if a solution $\gamma$ exists and
 $\operatorname{rank} \sigma=m$  
then the solution  of \eqref{sg} is unique and is given by 
\begin{equation} \label{Gamma} 
\gamma(s,Y)=\sigma^+(s,Y)[b(s,Y)-a(s,Y)].
\end{equation}
In particular, if $\sigma$ has maximal rank we have
\begin{equation}\label{s+}
 \sigma^+= \sigma^T(\sigma\sigma^T)^{-1} 
   \qquad \text{ or }\;
 \sigma^+= (\sigma^T \sigma)^{-1} \sigma^T.
\end{equation}
(Notice that if the rank of $\sigma$ is maximal, then 
also the square matrices $\sigma \sigma^T$ and $\sigma^T\sigma$
have maximal rank and therefore are invertible.)
And if the matrix $\sigma$ vanishes, then also $\sigma^+$ has all the
entries equal to 0.
\\
Otherwise, there are infinite solutions of \eqref{sg}, 
one of them being given by 
\eqref{Gamma}. This is the case of dimensions $d \ge m$ with rank of 
$\sigma$ not maximal ($ <m$), or of dimensions
$m>d$. To handle these cases,
let us
recall the singular value decomposition of the 
$d\times m$-matrix $\sigma$
with $\operatorname{rank} \sigma=r$, $r\le \min(d,m)$:
$$
 \sigma=\lambda^{(1)}  u^{(1)} (v^{(1)})^T+\lambda^{(2)}   u^{(2)} (v^{(2)})^T
   +\ldots  +\lambda^{(r)}  u^{(r)} (v^{(r)})^T,
$$
where $\lambda^{(1)}\ge \lambda^{(2)}\ge \ldots \lambda^{(r)}>0$,
$\{u^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^r$ is an orthonormal set of $d$-dimensional vectors 
and $\{v^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^r$  is an orthonormal set of $m$-dimensional
vectors. Moreover
$$
 \sigma^+=\frac 1{\lambda^{(1)}} v^{(1)} (u^{(1)})^T
         +\frac 1{\lambda^{(2)}} v^{(2)} (u^{(2)})^T
   +\ldots  +\frac 1{\lambda^{(r)}}  v^{(r)} (u^{(r)})^T.
$$
Then the $d$-dimensional vector $\sigma(t,X) dW(t)$
can be written as
$$
 \lambda^{(1)}(t,X) u^{(1)}(t,X) v^{(1)}(t,X)^TdW(t) 
 +\ldots    
 +\lambda^{(r)}(t,X) u^{(r)}(t,X) v^{(r)}(t,X)^T dW(t).
$$
This means that  
$$
\sigma(t,X) dW(t)=  
\tilde \sigma(t,X) d\tilde W^X(t)  
$$
with
$\tilde \sigma(t,X)$ the $d\times r$-matrix  and $\tilde W^X(t)$ the $r$-vector
defined by
\[\begin{split}
 &\tilde \sigma_{ij}(t,X)=\lambda^{(j)}(t,X) u^{(j)}_i(t,X), \\ 
 & \tilde W^X_i(t)= \int_0^t v^{(i)}(s,X)^T dW(s)
  \equiv \sum_{k=1}^m \int_0^t v_k^{(i)}(s,X) dW_k(s).
\end{split}\]
The matrix $\tilde \sigma(t,X)$ has maximal rank ($= r$), since 
the vectors $u^{(j)}$ are orthogonal to each other. 
Moreover, 
$\tilde W^X$ is an $r$-dimensional Wiener
process. Indeed, the components of this vectors are one dimensional
independent Wiener processes, thanks to the fact that
$\{v^{(i)}(s,X)\}_{i=1}^r$  is an orthonormal set of $m$-dimensional
vectors.

Now, let us read  equation
\eqref{equX} 
with $\tilde \sigma(t,X) d\tilde W^X(t)$ 
instead of $\sigma(t,X) dW(t)$; similarly for equation \eqref{equZ}. 
Then, according to the previous considerations
for the $d\times r$-diffusion matrix $\tilde \sigma$
with $r<d$ and   maximal rank ($=r$),  
we get that the system
$$
 \tilde \sigma(s,Y)\tilde \gamma(s,Y)=  b(s,Y)- a(s,Y) ;  
$$
has at most one solution, given by
$$
 \tilde \gamma(s,Y)=\tilde \sigma^{+}(s,Y)[b(s,Y)- a(s,Y)]  
$$
with
$ \tilde \sigma^{+}=(\tilde \sigma^T \tilde \sigma)^{-1} \tilde \sigma^T$.
Actually, $\tilde \sigma$ has $r$ columns given by the vectors
$\lambda^{(i)} u^{(i)}$ and 
$\tilde \sigma^+$ has $r$ rows given by the vectors 
$(\frac 1{\lambda^{(i)}} u^{(i)})^T$.

A tedious but easy computation provides
$$
 \|\sigma^{+}(b-a)\|^2 
 = \sum_{i=1}^r\left|\frac {{u^{(i)}}^T(b-a)}{\lambda^{(i)}}\right|^2
 =\| \tilde  \sigma^+(b-a)\|^2.
$$
Since the latter
quantity is uniquely defined, also the first is unique.
Therefore 
$$\int_0^T\|\gamma(s,Y)\|^2 ds=\int_0^T\|\tilde
\gamma(s,Y)\|^2ds \quad \text{ for } Y \in C([0,T];\mathbb R^d),
$$ 
where
$$
 \gamma(s,Y)= \sigma^{+}(s,Y)[b(s,Y)- a(s,Y)]. 
$$
This expression of $\gamma$ provides 
the  unique relevant solution of \eqref{sg}
 in the Girsanov transform, even when the solution of \eqref{sg} 
is not unique. In particular, we have
$$
\frac{d\mu^b}{d\mu^a}(Z)=  
 \mathbb E
 \Big[ e^{\textstyle +\int_0^T \gamma(s,Z)dW(s)-\frac 12 \int_0^T \|\gamma(s,Z)\|^2 ds}
  \Big|\Ff_T(Z)\Big] , 
$$
$$
\frac{d\mu^a}{d\mu^b}(X)=  
 \mathbb E 
 \Big[e^{\textstyle 
 -\int_0^T\gamma(s,X)dW(s)-\frac 12 \int_0^T \|\gamma(s,X)\|^2 ds}
 \Big|\Ff_T(X)\Big],
$$ 
a.s., when we assume
$$
\po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \|\gamma(s,X)\|^2 ds<\infty \}=1,\quad
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \|\gamma(s,Z)\|^2 ds<\infty \}=1,
$$
instead of \eqref{primo-u}-\eqref{primo-z}.

  

We therefore conclude that we get all our previous results, included the
uniqueness result. Let us emphasize  that the
uniqueness question is not investigated in \cite{LS} 
for $dm>1$ when equation \eqref{sg} has more than
one solution.
However, even if not stated, it appears clear from the results of
\cite{LS}  in the one
dimensional case  that there is uniqueness in law for equation
\eqref{equX},
because of the uniqueness of $\gamma$ (see also the beginning of
Section \ref{coro}).




\section{Applications}\label{sAPP}
Let us consider the case of 
 $b=a+f$, that is we deal
with
\begin{align*}
&dX(t)=a(t,X)\  dt+f(t,X)\  dt+\sigma(t,X)\ dW(t), 
 \quad  &X(0)=x\\
&dZ(t)=a(t,Z)\ dt+\sigma(t,Z)\ dW(t), \quad  &Z(0)=x
\end{align*}
To apply the results of \cite{LS}, besides {\bf [A1]} and {\bf [A2]}
we have to check
conditions on $a$ and $a+f$, whereas our results require only a
condition on $f$.  
Let us see how to use our results; first, in the one
dimensional problem, then in the infinite dimensional one.
\\[3mm]
{\bf One dimensional stochastic differential equations}
\nopagebreak

We consider conditions involving the process $X$; of course, 
the same holds true
for those involving $Z$.

Our condition \eqref{primo-u} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{pprr}
  \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2f(t,X)^2\ dt <\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
whereas \eqref{loro} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{somma2}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2
 \big(a(t,X)^2+[a(t,X)+f(t,X)]^2\big)\ dt <\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
that is 
\begin{multline*}
\po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2 a(t,X)^2 \ dt<\infty\}
\\=1=
\po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2[2a(t,X)f(t,X)+f(t,X)^2]\ dt
<\infty \}.
\end{multline*}
If $af\ge 0$ this is equivalent to 
\begin{equation}\label{rrpp}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2a(t,X)^2\ dt <\infty\}=
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2f(t,X)^2\ dt <\infty \}=1,
\end{equation}
In general, the latter implies \eqref{somma2}.

This condition \eqref{rrpp}  is stronger than \eqref{pprr},
{\it unless}  $\sigma$ is constant. In fact, if $\sigma$ is a constant
$\neq 0$, 
then $\po\{\int_0^T \sigma^+(t,X)^2 a(t,X)^2 \ dt<\infty\}=1$
becomes
\begin{equation}\label{solo-a}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T a(t,X)^2 \ dt < \infty \}=1
\end{equation}
which is trivially fulfilled thanks to the growth condition on $a$ included
in {\bf [A1]}. Then we only have to check if
$$\po\{\textstyle \int_0^T f(t,X)^2\ dt <\infty \}=1,$$
that is \eqref{pprr} and \eqref{rrpp} are equivalent.

Otherwise, for general $\sigma$, condition \eqref{rrpp} is stronger than 
our condition \eqref{pprr}. 
\\[3mm]
{\bf Infinite dimensional stochastic differential equations}

To have  weaker assumption is even more important 
in the infinite dimensional setting. In fact,
{\it even if} $\sigma$ is constant, 
the conditions of Liptser and Shiryaev 
\begin{equation}\label{nonv}
\begin{split}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \|\sigma^+(s,X)a(s,X)\|^2\ ds <\infty\}=1\\
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \|\sigma^+(s,Z)a(s,Z)\|^2\ ds <\infty\}=1
\end{split}
\end{equation}
may be cumbersome (see next Remark \ref{oss}). This is different from
the finite dimensional framework. Indeed, the coefficients
 $\sigma$ and $a$ are now operators in some infinite dimensional
spaces.
Our results allow to obtain uniqueness in law and absolute continuity
of the laws getting rid of \eqref{nonv}.

First, we fix the Hilbert spaces to work in and we make precise the
norm to consider in \eqref{nonv}.
We are given  separable Hilbert spaces 
$E\subseteq E_1\subseteq H$ with continuous and dense embeddings.
The space $E$ will ''replace'' the state space $\mathbb R^d$.
We denote by $\|\cdot \|_H$ the norm in $H$
and
by $\!_H\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_H$ the scalar
product in $H$.

For simplicity, let us consider the very simple but interesting case
of constant diffusion and drift independent of the first variable $t$
and linear in the second variable $X$. 
Equation \eqref{equZ} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{ou}
 dZ(t)=AZ(t)\ dt+\sqrt Q \ dW(t), \qquad Z(0)=x
\end{equation}
where $W$ is 
 a cylindrical Wiener process in $H$,
defined on the probability space 
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po)$.
This means that, if $\{e_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is a complete
orthonormal system of $H$, then we represent $W(t)=\sum_j
\beta_j(t) e_j$ with $\{\beta_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$  
a sequence of  i.i.d. one dimensional Wiener processes defined on
$(\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po)$, .
The operators $A$ and $Q$ are linear operators in $H$ and $x \in E$.
Therefore equation \eqref{ou} is a linear stochastic equation; this is
the simplest infinite dimensional equation to deal with, for which 
it is easy to get existence and uniqueness of solutions and of invariant
measures (see, e.g., \cite{dpz}, \cite{dpz2}). More general equations
can be deal with in a similar way; but \eqref{ou} allows us already to cover
interesting examples.

Instead of \eqref{equX}, consider the semilinear stochastic equation
\begin{equation}\label{seml}
 dX(t)=[AX(t)+F(X(t))]\ dt+\sqrt Q dW(t), \qquad X(0)=x
\end{equation}
where $F:E\to E_1$ is measurable.

According to Remark \ref{sol:deb}, we assume 
\[
{\mathbf{ [A3]}}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\text{for 
 any initial data $x \in E$ and on any  time interval }
 [t_0,T]\subseteq [0,T]\\
\text{equation \eqref{ou}
has a unique strong solution } Z, 
 \text{ whose paths are in }\\
C([t_0,T];E) \text{ a.s.} 
\end{array}
\right.
\]
General conditions on $A$ and $Q$ to get it, can be found, e.g., in
\cite{dpz}, whereas examples are in \cite{dpz} and \cite{cosa}.
\\
Moreover \medskip

$
{\mathbf{ [A4]}}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
Ran(F)\subseteq Ran(\sqrt Q) \\ \exists\  (\sqrt Q)^{-1}
\end{array}
\right.
$
\\
We set
$$
 \Gamma(Y)=(\sqrt Q)^{-1} F(Y) \qquad \forall Y\in E.
$$
We have that $\Gamma:E\to H$   is measurable.

Here is our  result of uniqueness in law of Section \ref{coro}, 
stated in the infinite dimensional setting.
\begin{proposition}
Assume {\bf [A3]} and {\bf [A4]}.\\
If there exist two weak solutions
$\big(X, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$ and 
$\big(X^\prime, (\Omega^\prime, \Ff^\prime,\{\Ff^\prime_t\},\po^\prime), 
\ W^\prime\big)$ to equation \eqref{seml}  
 with the same initial data $x \in E$ and  with paths in 
$C([0,T];E)$ $\po$-a.s., 
such that
\begin{equation}
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T \|\Gamma(X(s))\|_H^2 ds<\infty
 \}=
 \po^\prime\{\textstyle \int_0^T \|\Gamma(X^\prime(s))\|_H^2 ds<\infty
 \}=1,
\end{equation}
 then the laws of $X$ and $X^\prime$ are the same.
\end{proposition}


For the equivalence of the laws we have
\begin{theorem}\label{infEquiv}
Assume  {\bf [A3]} and {\bf [A4]}. \\
Given $x \in E$, if there exists  a weak solution 
$\big(X, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$
to equation \eqref{seml} with paths in 
$C([0,T];E)$ $\po$-a.s., and satisfying 
\[
 \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T\|\Gamma(X(s))\|_H^2 ds<\infty \}=1,
\]
then there is uniqueness in law for equation \eqref{seml} and 
$\mu^{A+F}\prec \mu^A$. Further, if the strong solution
$\big(Z, (\Omega, \Ff,\{\Ff_t\},\po), \ W\big)$ to equation \eqref{ou}
satisfies
\[
  \po\{\textstyle \int_0^T\|\Gamma(Z(s))\|_H^2 ds<\infty \}=1,
\]
then $\mu^{A+F}\sim \mu^A$; in particular
\[
 \frac{d\mu^{A+F}}{d\mu^A\;}(Z)=
\mathbb E\Big[ e^{\textstyle 
   + \int_0^T \!\!\!_H\langle  \Gamma(Z(s)),dW(s)\rangle_H
   -\frac 12 \int_0^T
  \|\Gamma(Z(s)\|_H^2ds} \big|\Ff_T(Z)\Big], 
\]
\[
 \frac{d\mu^{A}\;}{d\mu^{A+F}}(X)=
\mathbb E\Big[ e^{\textstyle 
   - \int_0^T \!\!\!_H\langle  \Gamma(X(s)),dW(s)\rangle_H
   -\frac 12 \int_0^T
  \|\Gamma(X(s)\|_H^2ds} \big|\Ff_T(X)\Big],
\]
$\po$-a.s.
\end{theorem}



\begin{remark}\label{oss}
Conditions \eqref{nonv} become
\[
\po\{\textstyle\int_0^T \|(\sqrt Q )^{-1}AX(s)\|_H^2 \ ds<\infty\}=1
\]
\[
\po\{\textstyle\int_0^T \|(\sqrt Q )^{-1}AZ(s)\|_H^2 \ ds<\infty\}=1.
\]
We point out that they are
not satisfied  in  the example of Section 4 in \cite{cosa}.
\end{remark}

\medskip 
We conclude analyzing a consequence  of the equivalence of the laws.
If $\mu^{A+F}\sim \mu^A$, then for any fixed $t\in [0,T]$
  the law of $X(t)$ 
is equivalent to the law of $Z(t)$.
If we know properties of the law of $Z(t)$, then they hold a.s. also
for $X(t)$. 
Usually,  properties of the solutions of the linear equation \eqref{ou}
are easier to obtain than for the non linear equation \eqref{seml}.
The Girsanov transform allows to link these results.
An important application is in the  study of the
asymptotic behaviour, as $t \to \infty$,  of equation \eqref{seml}
in an infinite dimensional space (see, e.g., \cite{dpz2} for the  general
theory and examples, and  \cite{cosa} for examples) when our
results hold on any finite time interval $[0,T]$, that is for any $T>0$.






\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

