\section{Introduction} \label{sec:one}
Let $F = \{ f_1, f_2, \cdots , f_{|F|} \}$ be a set of facilities, each with capacity $l$. The facilities are located on a metric space $M$. An input sequence $I = \{ c_1, c_2, \cdots , c_n \}$ is a set of $n$ customers who arrive one at a time in an online manner, with $c_i$ corresponding to the location of customer $i$ on $M$.
The algorithms will assign the customer before the next customer appears. The objective is to minimize the total cost of all assignments. We call this problem the online facility assignment problem. This problem arises naturally in different practical applications, such handling online orders for a restaurant with multiple locations, and handling network packets in network with multiple routers. Consider a high performance computing machine which utilizes a set of interconnected processors to compute a large amount of jobs scheduled by the users of an organization. A natural way to speed up the processing time is to use parallel computing: dividing a job into small jobs and assign them into the set of processors. This problem can be modeled using the online facility assignment problem and a good assignment of jobs to processors will reduce the communication time and increase the performance of the overall system.

\subsection{Related Works}
Ahmed et al. \cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs} first introduced the problem and calculated the competitive ratio for facilities on a line graph and facilities on a connected unweighted graph.
The offline version of facility assignment problem can be modeled as transportation problem \cite{lawler76,hitchcock41,schrijver2002history,ford1956solving}. In this scenario all the location of facilities and customers are known beforehand. This can also be thought as a variant of \textit{facility location problem}.
The online facility assignment problem is related to the $k$-server problem proposed by Manasse et al. \cite{Manasse:1990:CAS:82747.82753}, which decides the scheduling pattern of a set of $k$ servers will process the request coming in an online pattern. The servers can move in the plane considering the limitations. There is a famous conjecture related to the $k$-server problem which has been proven for some special cases~\cite{Sleator:1985:AEL:2786.2793,Chrobak90newresults,Chrobak:1991:OOA:103123.103131}. In online facility assignment problem the facilities are static and customers arrive in an online manner. \par

A recently proposed facility location variant is the $r$-gathering problem. An $r$-gathering of a set of customers $C$ for a
set of facilities $F$ is an assignment of to open facilities $F$
such that at least $r$ customers are assigned to each open
facility. There is a cost for assigning a customer to a facility and the objective is to minimize the total assignment cost.
The $r$-gathering problem was independently introduced by Karger and Minkoff \cite{karger892329} and by Guha et al. \cite{guha2000hierarchical}(who called it load-balanced facility-location). \par
The facility assignment problem can be seen as a generalization of the matching problem\cite{schrijver2002history}. Here each facility has capacity $l \geq 1$. In the online matching problem the facilities correspond to the right side of a bipartite graph.

The customers appear in an online manner as vertices on the left side of the graph and each customer must be assigned to a facility before the next customer appears. This problem was first independently introduced by Khuller et al. \cite{KHULLER1994255} and Kalyanasundaram et al. \cite{KALYANASUNDARAM1993478}. \par

The previous results inspired the \textit{Facility Assignment Problem}. Facility assignment problem is discussed in detail at \cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs}. The static facilities are set in different embedding and the customers arrive in online manner. Assigning any customer to a facility has a cost. The cost is measured by the distance between the customer and the facility. The ultimate goal is to minimize the total assignment cost of all the customers. The customers can appear on a plane or on a connected unweighted graph. The competitive ratios proven in \cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs} holds firm whether the set of customers are well-distributed or not. At first the authors considered  the case where both the facilities $|F|$ and the customers $|C|$ are on a straight line. The proposed Algorithm Greedy has competitive ratio $4|F|$. Introducing randomization in Algorithm Greedy leads to an improved performance of $\frac{9}{2}$ for a special class of input instances. The authors then described Algorithm Optimal-Fill and show it has competitive ratio $|F|$.
Then the authors assumed the facilities and the customers are located on the vertices of an unweighted graph $G =(V, E)$. Algorithm Greedy for this scenario has competitive ratio $2|E(G)|$ and Algorithm Optimal-Fill has competitive ratio $\frac{|E(G)||F|}{r}$, where $r$ is the radius of $G$. Finally, They also briefly discussed on the case where a customer leaves after receiving service at a facility.

\subsection{Our contributions}
In this paper we first consider the case where the facilities are on a grid graph and show that Algorithm Greedy on grid graph has the competitive ratio of $r \times c + r + c$. We also show that the competitive ratio of Algorithm Optimal-Fill on grid graph is $O(r \times c)$.
The competitive ratio of Algorithm Optimal-Fill on arbitrary connected unweighted graph is $2|F|$. Our bound is tight and better than the previous result $\frac{|E||G||F|}{r}$, where $E$ is the set of edge of graph $G$, $F$ is the set of facilities and $r$ is the radius of the graph. \par

We then turn to a more generalized form and assume the facilities are situated arbitrarily on a plane. We use Voronoi diagram to distribute the plane to existing facilities and assign the customers according to their capacity. The algorithm has a competitive ratio of $(2n-1)$ on the plane. \par

We then consider a straight line metric space. We show that no algorithm for the online facility assignment problem has competitive ratio less than $9.001$. To do this we establish that the cow path problem and the facility assignment on a line problem from \cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs} are bijectional. \par

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:preliminaries} we give some defintions and terminologies. In Section \ref{sec:two} we study facility assignment on a grid graph. In Section \ref{sec:three} we study facility assignment on a connected unweighted graph. In Section \ref{sec:four} we study facility assignment on a plane. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:five} we analyze the hardness result for facility assignment on a line using cow-path problem.

\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
\label{Preliminaries}
A graph $G=(V, E)$  consists of a finite set $V$ of vertices and a finite set $E$ of edges; each edge is an unordered pair of vertices. We often denote the set of vertices $G$ by $V(G)$ and the set of edges by $E(G)$.
A $r \times c$-grid graph is a graph whose vertices correspond to the grid points of a $r \times c$-grid in the plane and edges correspond to the grid lines between two consecutive grid points.
We say $G$ is \textit{unweighted} if every edge of $G$ has equal weight. Let $u$ and $v$ be two vertices of $G$. If $G$ has a $u,v$-path, then the distance from $u$ to $v$ is the length of a shortest $u,v$-path, denoted by $d_G(u,v)$ or simply by $d(u, v)$. If $G$ has no $u, v$-path then $d(u, v) =\infty$. The \textit{eccentricity} of a vertex $u$ in $G$ is $max_{v \in V(G)} d(u, v)$ and denoted by $\epsilon(u)$. The \textit{radius} $r$ of $G$ is $min_{u \in V(G)} \epsilon(u)$ and the \textit{diameter} of $G$ is $max_{u \in V(G)} \epsilon(u)$. The \textit{center} of $G$ is the subgraph of $G$ induced by vertices of minimum eccentricity.

In the online facility assignment problem, we are given a set of facilities $F=\{f_1,f_2,$ $\cdots,f_{|F|}\}$ of equal capacity $l$  in a metric space, and an input sequence of customers $I=\{c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_n\}$ which is a set of $n$ customers who arrive one at a time in an online manner, with $c_i$ corresponding to the location of customer $i$ in the given space. We say an input $I$ is \textit{well distributed} if there is at least one customer between any two adjacent facilities. The capacity of a facility is reduced by one when a customer is assigned to it. We denote the current capacity of facility $f_i$ by $capacity_i$. A facility $f_i$ is called \textit{free} if $capacity_i>0$.  Any algorithm ALG for this problem must assign a customer $c_i$ to a free facility $f_j$ before a new customer $c_{i+1}$ arrives. The cost of this assignment is the distance between $c_i$ and $f_j$, which is denoted by $distance(f_j,c_i)$.
We now define the \textit{cover area} of a facility situated on a line. Consider a facility $f_i$ with two adjacent free facilities $f_j$ and $f_k$. Let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be the mid-points of  $(f_i, f_j)$ and $(f_i,f_k)$ respectively. The cover area of $f_i$ is then the line segment $p_1$ to $p_2$. The total number of customers is, at most, $|F|l$ (where $l$ is the capacity of a facility) and each customer must be assigned to a facility. For any input sequence of customers $I$, Cost\_ALG($I$) is defined as the total cost of all assignments made by ALG. The objective is to minimize Cost\_ALG($I$).

We say an algorithm is \textit{optimal} if, for any input sequence of customers, the total cost of the assignment it provides is the minimum possible. We denote an optimal algorithm by OPT and the cost of that algorithm by $\text{Cost\_OPT}$. An online algorithm ALG is $c$-competitive if there is a constant $\alpha$ such that, for all finite input sequences $I$, \[\text{Cost\_ALG}(I) \le c.\text{Cost\_OPT}(I) + \alpha.\]
The factor $c$ is called the {\em competitive ratio} of ALG.
When the \textit{additive constant} $\alpha$ is less than or equal to zero (i.e., $\text{Cost\_ALG}(I) \le c.\text{Cost\_OPT}(I)$), we may say, for emphasis, that ALG is \textit{strictly} $c$-competitive. An algorithm is called \textit{competitive} if it attains a constant competitive ratio $c$. Although $c$ may be a function of the problem parameters, it must be independent of the input $I$. The infimum over the set of all values $c$ such that ALG is $c$-competitive is called \textit{the competitive ratio} of ALG and is denoted by $\mathcal{R}(\text{ALG})$. \par

 We can analyze the online algorithm in the context of a game between an online player and a malicious adversary. The online player runs the online algorithm on an input created by the adversary. The adversary, based on the knowledge of the online algorithm, constructs the worst possible input (i.e., one that maximizes the competitive ratio). The adversary strategy of designing an instance very costly for the target algorithm but, at the same time, inexpensive for the optimal output. \par

 \section{Facility Assignment on a Grid} \label{sec:two}
In this section we assume that the facilities $F=\{ F_1, F_2, F_3, \cdots, F_{|F|} \}$ are situated on a grid graph and the customers $C = \{ c_1, c_2, c_3, \cdots, c_n \}$ arrive on the vertices of the graph in an online manner. We assign each customer to a facility before the next customer arrives. In Section \ref{sec:three_one}
we compute the competitive ratio of Algorithm Greedy on a grid graph and in Section \ref{sec:three_Two} we compute that of Optimal-Fill on a grid graph.

\subsection{Greedy Approach} \label{sec:three_one}
Algorithm Greedy assigns the current customer to its nearest unassigned facility. This process continues until all the facilities are filled up. We now prove the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:greedy_grid}
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a grid graph of size $r \times c$. Then $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Greedy}) < r \times c + r + c$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The input sequence can be either well distributed or not well distributed. We consider these two cases separately. For both cases, assume now that the facilities have unit capacity. Later we will also deal with the case for capacity $l$, where $l > 1$.

We first consider that the input sequence is well distributed.
We illustrate a worst case scenario in Figure~\ref{figure:greedy_grid_tight}. There is a facility on every vertex of the graph except $v_2$. The first customer appears on $v_2$. Without loss of generality we assume that Algorithm Greedy assigns this customer to the facility on $v_3$. The adversary places the next customer on $v_3$. Since, the facility on $v_3$ is already assigned for the customer on $v_2$, Algorithm Greedy assigns the customer on $v_3$ to the facility on $v_4$. The adversary continues this process. The last customer appears on $v_{15}$. Algorithm Greedy assigns that customer to the facility on $v_1$. Hence, the assignment cost of the last customer is equal to $(r+c)$. In the optimal assignment, the customer on $v_2$ is assigned to the facility on $v_1$ and the remaining customers are assigned to facilities situated on the same vertex. Hence, the optimal assignment cost is equal to one. Hence, $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Greedy}) < r \times c + r + c$.

Note that in the example of Figure~\ref{figure:greedy_grid_tight}, we assume that Algorithm Greedy always makes the worst case assignment. For example, the customer on $v_6$ has two nearest facility: the facilities on $v_1$ and $v_7$. Algorithm Greedy could assign the customer to the facility on $v_1$ too. However, we assumed that it assigns the customer to the facility on $v_7$ to illustrate a worst case scenario. In fact the assumption is not invalid since both facilities have the same distance. However, it is possible to generate a similar scenario where such an assumption is not necessary. For example, consider the scenario illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:another_greedy_grid}. The analysis is not tight in this case. However it is easy to show that $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Greedy}) \leq O(r\times c)$.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{images/greedy_grid_tight.png}
\end{center}\caption{The worst case scenario of Algorithm Greedy}
\label{figure:greedy_grid_tight}
\end{figure}

In the second case, the input sequence is not well distributed. It is very simple to show that the ratio between $\text{Cost\_Algorithm\_Greedy}(I)$ and $\text{Cost\_OPT}(I)$ will not be greater than the ratio in the first case. The customers are concentrated in some small areas and the effect of different assignments is limited to only these spanning areas.  If the spanning areas are very small, no algorithm can save that much. In extreme case, when all customers are placed in the same location, all assignments are same.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{images/greedy_grid.png}
\end{center}\caption{Another configuration where Algorithm Greedy shows poor performance}
\label{figure:another_greedy_grid}
\end{figure}

In the analysis above we assumed unit capacity; now  let each facility have capacity $l$, where $l > 1$. Suppose that there exists an input sequence of customers $I$ for which the ratio is greater than $r \times c + r + c$. We can partition $I$ into $I_1, I_2, \cdots, I_l$ in such a way that the following conditions hold:

\begin{itemize}
\item $I_i \cap I_j = \emptyset$ for $1 \leq i,j \leq l$ and $i \neq j$.
\item $I_1 \cup I_2 \cup \cdots \cup I_l = I$.
\item Exactly one customer from $I_i$ is assigned to a facility $f_j$ for $1 \leq i \leq l$ and $1 \leq j \leq |F|$.
\end{itemize}

Then there exists a set $I_{max} \in \{I_1 , I_2 , \cdots , I_l\}$ such that the ratio of the corresponding cost of Algorithm Greedy to the cost of OPT is greater than $r \times c + r + c$. If we take a set of facilities with unit capacities and place the customers of $I_{max}$ in the same order as they appear in $I$, the ratio would be greater than $r \times c + r + c$ which is a contradiction to the bound of unit capacity.

\end{proof}

\subsection{Optimal-Fill Approach} \label{sec:three_Two}

In the previous section we provided the analysis of Algorithm Greedy on a grid graph. We now provide the analysis of Algorithm Optimal-Fill~\cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs} on a grid graph. The idea behind this approach is that when a new customer $c_i$ arrives, it finds out the new facility $f_j$ that would be selected by an optimal assignment of all the customers $c_1, c_2, \cdots c_i$. Algorithm Optimal-Fill then assigns $c_i$ to $f_j$. In other words, consider the $i$th step of the algorithm, customer $c_i$ just appeared and the Algorithm Optimal-Fill has not assigned $c_i$ to any facility yet. Now, there are $i$ customers, $i-1$ of them are already assigned by the algorithm, let the set of facilities assigned for these customers is $F_{\text{Optimal-Fill}}$. Algorithm Optimal-Fill will find the optimal assignment of the $i$ customers. Suppose the set of facilities assigned by the optimal algorithm is $F_{\text{OPT}}$. For simplicity assume that each facility has unit capacity. Since, the optimal assignment considered $i$ customers and Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigned $i-1$ customers, $|F_{\text{OPT}}|-|F_{\text{Optimal-Fill}}|=1$. Algorithm Optimal-Fill selects the facility in $F_{\text{OPT}} \setminus F_{\text{Optimal-Fill}}$ and assign $c_i$ to that facility. The motivation behind this algorithm is if an algorithm follows the optimal assignment, then it can get rid of some traps that the adversary may set up like shown in Figure~\ref{figure:another_greedy_grid}. For example, when the adversary places the third customer on $v_5$, if we check the optimal assignment of three customers, then a natural action is to assign the customer on $v_5$ to the facility on $v_1$. Ahmed et al.~\cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs} provided the analysis of Algorithm Optimal-Fill when the metric space is a line. Here, we consider the problem on a grid which is a more general metric space.

\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a $n\times n$ grid graph where $n>1$. Let $c$ be the center of the graph. Let $V'$ be a set of vertices such that every vertex in $V'$ has equal distance from $c$. Then the size of $V'$ is at most $2n-2$.
\label{lemma:opt_fill_max_vertices}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a $n\times n$ grid graph. Let $c$ be the center of the graph. Let $V'$ be the set of vertices such that every vertex in $V'$ has distance equal to $r$ from $c$ where $r>0$. Then the size of $V'$ is at most $4r$.
\label{lemma:equal_distance_from_center}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a $n\times n$ grid graph. Let $c$ be the center of the graph. Let $V'$ be the set of vertices such that every vertex in $V'$ has distance equal to $r$ from $c$ where $r>0$. Every vertex $v$ in $V'$ has a facility situated on top of it. Then total assignment cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill is $O(r^2)$.
\label{lemma:optimal_fill_total_cost}
\end{lemma}

The proofs of above lemmas are deferred to Appendix~\ref{apdx:opt_fill_max_vertices}, \ref{apdx:equal_distance_from_center}, and \ref{apdx:optimal_fill_total_cost}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:optimal_grid}
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be  a  grid of size $r \times c$. Then $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Optimal-Fill}) \leq O(r \times c)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We only assume the case where the input is well-distributed and every facility has unit capacity. The analysis of other cases is similar to Algorithm Greedy. In the worst case, there is a facility on every vertex except the center of the grid. The adversary places the first customer to the center vertex. Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigns that customer to the closest facility $f_1$. Then the adversary places the next customer exactly on $f_1$. However, Algorithm Optimal-Fill can not assign the new customer to $f_1$, since $f_1$ is already assigned to another customer. Suppose, Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigns the new customer to facility $f_2$. The adversary places the next customer on $f_2$ and continues this process. The situation is similar to Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_r_grid}.
For simplicity we assume that $r=c=n$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:opt_fill_max_vertices} we know that there are $O(n)$ vertices in a set of vertices such that each has the same distance from the center. Since there are $O(n^2)$ vertices in total we can have $O(n)$ such set. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:optimal_fill_total_cost}, we know that the cost of total assignment cost corresponding to the set of vertices having an equal length from the center is $O(n^2)$. Since the graph is a grid, the radius of the graph is $O(n)$. Hence, in total the cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill is $O(n^3)$. The optimal algorithm assigns the customer placed on the center vertex with cost $O(n)$ and the remaining customers do not have a significant assignment cost. Hence, the ratio of the cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill to the optimal algorithm is $O(n^2)$.

We now consider the case where $r \neq c$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $r>c$. The equivalent result corresponding to Lemma~\ref{lemma:opt_fill_max_vertices} is the size of $V'$ is at most $O(c)$ where $V'$ is a set of vertices such that every vertex in $V'$ has equal distance from a center vertex. Consider the distance of a vertex in $V'$ from the center is $d$. If $d \leq c$, then it is trivial to show that the size of $V'$ is at most $O(c)$. Now, if $d>c$, then there are $O(d-c)$ rows for which there are no corresponding vertices in $V'$. Hence, the size of $V'$ is at most $O(c)$. Using a similar argument for the scenario $r=c$, we can show that the ratio of the cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill to the optimal algorithm is $O(r\times c)$.

\begin{comment}
In the worst case, the first customer is placed at the center of the grid, see Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_worst_case}. Without loss of generality we assume that Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigns it to $f_1$. Then the adversary will place the next customer exactly on $f_1$. Algorithm Greedy will assign the current customer to $f_2$ as it can not assign it to $f_1$ (the customer $c_1$ is already assigned to $f_1$). The adversary will continue to assign the next customer exactly on the facility that has been assigned for the current customer.

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm,trim={5cm 11cm 0 0},clip]{images/opt_fill_grid.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The configurations of Algorithm Optimal-Fill and OPT}
\label{figure:opt_fill_worst_case}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{images/test.png}
\caption{The pattern of the assignment of Algorithm Optimal-Fill in worst case}
\label{figure:opt_fill_pattern}
\end{figure}

We can sort the vertices of the grid according to the distance from the center of the grid. Assume that the coordinate of the center is $(x,y)$. Then the nearest points from the center are $(x-1,y), (x,y+1), (x+1,y), (x,y-1)$. The second nearest points are $(x-1, y-1), (x-1,y+1), (x+1,y+1), (x+1,y-1)$ and so on and so forth. Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigns the customer in the same order. Hence, the assignment forms a circular pattern as shown in  Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_pattern}.

\begin{figure}[H]
\end{figure}

The total assignment cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill is the length of this circular pattern. The optimal assignment of the customers is to assign all but the first customer to the facilities on which they appeared and assign the first customer to the facility which is in one corner of the grid. It is trivial to show that the ratio of the assignment cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill and the optimal assignment cost is $r \times c$ for small $r$ and $c$. If we now increase $r$ to $r+1$, then the assignment cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill increases $O(c^2)$ and the ratio is no more than $(r+1) \times c$.
\end{comment}

\end{proof}

\section{Facility Assignment on Connected Unweighted Graphs}\label{sec:three}

In this section we analyze the competitive ratio of Algorithm Optimal-Fill on a connected unweighted graph. It is known from \cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs}  that the optimal fill approach has the competitive ratio of $\frac{|E||F|}{r}$, where $|E|$ is the number of edges, $|F|$ is the number of facilities and $r$ is the radius of the given graph. In this section we provide a tighter bound equal to $2|F|$. Before providing the main theorem, we first prove a useful lemma.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:optimal_lower_bound}
Assume that Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigned a customer on vertex $v_c$ to a facility on vertex $v_f$. Let the distance between $v_c$ and $v_f$ be equal to $x$. Let the closest facility from $v_c$ along the path from $v_c$ to $v_f$ be situated on vertex $v_{f'}$. Let the distance between $v_f$ to $v_{f'}$ be $x'$. Note that, $x\geq x'$. Then the cost of the optimal algorithm is at least $\frac{x'}{2}$.
\end{lemma}

The proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{apdx:optimal_lower_bound}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:optimal_graph}
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a connected unweighted graph and let a set of facilities $F$ be placed on the vertices of $\mathcal{M}$. Then $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Optimal-Fill}) \leq 2|F|$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We assume that the facilities have unit capacity since the analysis is similar to Theorem~\ref{theorem:greedy_grid} for capacity $l$, where $l > 1$. Two facilities $f_i$ and $f_j$ are \textit{adjacent} if there exists a path $P$ from $f_i$ to $f_j$ such that no other facilities are situated on $P$.
Recall the definition of a well distributed input sequence: an input $I$ is \textit{well distributed} if there is at least one customer between any two adjacent facilities.
We first prove the claim for an input $I$ which is well distributed. Then we show how to transform $I$ to $I'$ such that $I'$ is not well distributed and show that the competitive ratios of $I$ and $I'$ are the same.

We consider two cases; $\mathcal{M}$ has no cycle and $\mathcal{M}$ contains at least one cycle. If $\mathcal{M}$ does not have any cycle, there is only one path between two vertices. Consider the scenario shown in Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_path_cycle}, while assigning the last customer, Algorithm Optimal-Fill has to traverse the whole path. A square box represents a facility and the input customers are shown by their sequence numbers.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{images/opt_fill_path_cycle.png}
\end{center}\caption{The configurations of Algorithm Optimal-Fill and OPT for a path and a cycle.}
\label{figure:opt_fill_path_cycle}
\end{figure}

If $\mathcal{M}$ contains a cycle, $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm Optimal-Fill})$ does not increase. Consider a set of facilities $F$ are situated on a cycle. The scenario is almost same as before except one extra edge present in the graph due to the fact that it is a cycle. This extra edge may provide a shorter path to assign the last customer to a free facility as shown in Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_path_cycle}. Hence, in this case the ratio between $\text{Cost\_Optimal\_Fill}(I)$ and $\text{Cost\_OPT}(I)$ is less than the previous case.

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{images/opt_fill_graph.png}
\end{center}\caption{The worst case scenario of Algorithm Optimal-Fill and OPT for graphs.}
\label{figure:opt_fill_graph_worst_case}
\end{figure}

According to the above argument, the worst case scenario arise when $\mathcal{M}$ is a tree. The worst case scenario is shown in Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_graph_worst_case}. We will formally prove it later by providing a tight competitive ratio. Let $x$ be a vertex in the center of $\mathcal{M}$ which is not a facility. The first customer $c_1$ is placed on $x$. Algorithm Optimal-Fill pays a cost equal to the distance between $c_1$ and the closest free facility.
For a customer $c_i$ ($i > 1$), let $f_{i-1}$ be the facility which has been assigned to $c_{i-1}$ by Algorithm Optimal-Fill when $c_{i-1}$ arrives. Let $f_i$ be the new facility used by OPT for assigning the customers $c_1, c_2, \cdots c_n$.
Algorithm Optimal-Fill pays a cost equal to the distance between two facilities $f_{i-1}$ and $f_i$ for each customer $c_i$, except the first one (see Figure~\ref{figure:opt_fill_graph_worst_case}). The adversary pays a cost which is no more than radius only for the first customer.
The assignment costs for each customer by Algorithm Optimal-Fill is no more than $2|F|r$, where $r$ is the radius of $\mathcal{M}$. The optimal algorithm only pays $r$ for the first customer. Hence, R(Algorithm Optimal-Fill) is at most $2|F|$.
Let $f$ be the closest facility from a leaf $b$ of $\mathcal{M}$. Consider a customer $c$ who appears between $b$ and $f$. The distance between $c$ and $f$ is $distance ( f , c )$.
Both $\text{Cost\_Algorithm\_Optimal\_Fill} ( I )$ and $\text{Cost\_OPT} ( I )$ must pay the amount $distance ( f , c )$. The ratio of $\text{Cost\_Algorithm\_Optimal\_Fill} ( I )$ to $\text{Cost\_OPT} ( I )$ increases when $distance ( f , c )$ decreases.
Hence, we can assume that there is a facility in every leaf of $\mathcal{M}$.
We now prove that for any input sequence, the ratio between the cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill and the cost of OPT is no more than $2|F|$.

An assignment cost of a customer can be at most $2r$. Hence, the total assignment cost of Algorithm Optimal-Fill is at most $2r|F|$. Then by pigeonhole principle at least one customer $c$ has cost at least $2r$. Let the customer is situated on vertex $v_c$. Assume that Algorithm Optimal-Fill assigned $c$ to a facility on vertex $v_f$. Note that, both $v_c$ and $v_f$ are two leaves since the distance between them is $2r$. This means there is also a facility on $v_c$ since we assumed that there is a facility on each leaf. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:optimal_lower_bound}, the cost of the optimal algorithm is at least $r$. Hence, the ratio of $\text{Cost\_Algorithm\_Optimal\_Fill} ( I )$ to $\text{Cost\_OPT} ( I )$ is no more than $2|F|$.

We now specifically present the gap between the analysis of Ahmed et al.~\cite{online_facility_assignment_tcs}. They have shown that the competitive ratio of Algorithm Optimal-Fill is $\frac{|E||F|}{r}$, where $E$ is the set of edges of graph $G$, $F$ is the set of facilities and $r$ is the radius of the graph. However, their analysis is not tight. In their argument, they mentioned that every edge will be counted at most $|F|$ times since there are $|F|$ customers in the unit capacity setting. Hence, the total assignment cost is $|E||G|$. This counting bound is not tight, since each assignment cost can be no more than $2r$. Hence, the total assignment cost is at most $2r|F|$.

Now suppose the input sequence $I$ is not well distributed. Let $\mathcal{M}'$ be the minimum subgraph of $\mathcal{M}$ so that all customers are situated
on $\mathcal{M}'$. Consider the set of facilities $F'$ situated on $\mathcal{M}'$. In the worst case the customers assigned to those facilities by Algorithm Optimal-Fill incur total cost less than $|F'|$ and OPT incurs only $r'$, where $r'$ is the radius of $\mathcal{M}'$. If OPT incurs cost $x$ to assign a customer to a remaining facility, then Algorithm Greedy incurs at most $x+|E(\mathcal{M}')|$ cost to assign a customer to that facility. Hence, $\text{Cost\_Optimal\_Fill} ( I ) \le \text{Cost\_OPT} ( I ) - r' + | E(\mathcal{M}') | (|E(\mathcal{M}) | - | E(\mathcal{M}') | ) + 2|F'| $. It follows that if $|E(\mathcal{M}')|$ is small then Algorithm Optimal-Fill will perform similar to OPT. The larger the value of $|E(\mathcal{M}')|$ the more well distributed the input $I$ becomes. Hence $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Optimal-Fill}) \leq 2|F|$.
\end{proof}

\section{Facility assignment on a plane} \label{sec:four}

A Voronoi diagram is a partition of a plane into regions close to each of a given set of objects. In the simplest case, these objects are just finitely many points in the plane (called seeds, sites, or generators). For each seed there is a corresponding region consisting of all points of the plane closer to that seed than to any other. These regions are called Voronoi cells.

Let $P = \{ p_1, p_2, \cdots , p_n \} $ be a set of $n$ distinct points in the plane; these points are the sites.
We define the Voronoi diagram of $P$ as the subdivision of the plane
into $n$ cells, one for each site in $P$, with the property that a point $q$ lies in the
cell corresponding to a site $p_i$ if and only if $dist(q, p_i) < dist(q, p_j)$ for each
$p_j \in P$ with $j \leq i$. Here $dist(x,y)$ defines the euclidean distance between two points $x$ and $y$.

A weighted Voronoi diagram is a special case of a Voronoi diagram. The Voronoi cells in a weighted Voronoi diagram are defined in terms of a distance function. The distance function may specify the usual Euclidean distance, or may be some other, special distance function. Usually, the distance function is a function of the generator point's weights.
We divide the plane into $n$ cells and assign them to the nearest facilities. Each cell is assigned to a facility and we call each cell the \textit{area of influence} of the facility.

When a customer appears, we locate the area of influence where the customer is located. We assign the customer to the corresponding facility of that area of influence. The voronoi diagram is redrawn after adjusting the new weights(capacities) of the facilities. The process continues until all the facilities are filled up. We provide the algorithm in Appendix~\ref{apdx:Voronoi}.

\begin{theorem}
Let $F = \{ f_1, f_2, \cdots , f_n \}$ be a set of facilities situated on a $2D$ plane, then $\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm}$ $ \text{Capacity sensitive voronoi}) \leq 2n-1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}

For this proof we consider $n$ number of facilities inside a regular polygon with $n$ vertices. We can divide the the polygon into $n$ triangles. The facilities are situated in the centroid of the triangles.
At first we assume each facility has unit capacity and they are well-distributed throughout the plane. Once a customer is assigned, the customer can not leave or interchange position with any other customer. Suppose the length of the side of the outermost square is $d$.
Let \textbf{cost(ALG)} be the measured cost of our algorithm and \textbf{cost(OPT)} be the  measured cost of optimal algorithm where the sequence was known beforehand. In the worst case scenario, first customer arrives at the middle of the connecting lines of two facilities. The adversary sets the next customers on top of the facilities which are recently filled up.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{images/capacity_sensitive_voronoi.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Facility Assignment on a Plane}
\label{figure:facility_on_plane}
\end{figure}
Suppose that there are four customers on a plane just like in Figure \ref{figure:facility_on_plane}. Here the first customer $c_1$ will be assigned to the facility to the right. Then the following customer $c_2$ will appear on the facility where the first customer is assigned. the second customer will be assigned to the facility to the right as it is in the figure.
The total cost of assigning four customers will be
$$cost(ALG) = \frac{d}{3\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\sqrt{2}d}{3}+\frac{\sqrt{2}d}{3}+\frac{\sqrt{2}d}{3} = \frac{7}{3\sqrt{2}}d.$$

In this case optimal algorithm would place the first customer to the facility in the left and the total cost would be

$$cost(ALG) = \frac{d}{3\sqrt{2}}+0+0+0 = \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}d.$$

Then the competitive ratio would be
$$\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm Capacity sensitive voronoi}) = \frac{cost(ALG)}{cost(OPT)} = \frac{7d/3\sqrt{2}}{d/3\sqrt{2}} = 7.$$

We can generalize this approach for $n$ facilities with unit capacity. Suppose there are $n$ facilities with unit capacity which are equally distributed inside the polygon and $n \geq 3$. Let $d$ be the radius of the side length of the polygon and the distance between two adjacent facility is $p$. It is trivial to show that $p = f(d)$. \newline
If the first customer arrives strictly interior to a voronoi edge that does not belong to the convex hull. Our algorithm assigns it to the closest facility, then the next customer arrives on the top of the facility which is occupied by the first customer. So the customer is assigned to the facility right-adjacent to the position of the customer. This process goes on until all the customers arrive and get assigned. The cost of the algorithm is
$$cost(ALG) = \frac{p}{2}+ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}p = \frac{2n-1}{2}p.$$
But if the sequence is known to us beforehand, just like an offline algorithm , the optimal assignment would be to choose the alternate facility for the first customer and other customers will have zero cost when assigning the them to the facilities. The cost of OPT would be
$$cost(OPT) =  \frac{p}{2} + 0+0+\dots = \frac{p}{2}.$$

Then the competitive ratio would be
$$\mathcal{R}(\text{Algorithm Capacity sensitive voronoi}) = \frac{cost(ALG)}{cost(OPT)} = \frac{(2n-1)p/2}{p/2} = 2n-1.$$

We now assume the input sequence is not well distributed. The argument is similar to \ref{theorem:greedy_grid}. Whether the spanning area is small or all customers are placed in the same location, the cost does not improve in any case.

\begin{comment}
Up until now we assumed the facilities have unit capacity; now let each facility have capacity $l$, where $l > 1$. Suppose that there exists an input sequence of customers $I$ for which the ratio is greater than $2n-1$. We can partition $I$ into $I_1, I_2, \cdots, I_l$ in such a way that the following conditions hold:

\begin{itemize}
\item $I_i \cap I_j = \emptyset$ for $1 \leq i,j \leq l$ and $i \neq j$.
\item $I_1 \cup I_2 \cup \cdots \cup I_l = I$.
\item Exactly one customer from $I_i$ is assigned to a facility $f_j$ for $1 \leq i \leq l$ and $1 \leq j \leq |F|$.
\end{itemize}

Then there exists a set $I_{max} \in \{I_1 , I_2 , \cdots , I_l\}$ such that the ratio of the corresponding cost of Algorithm capacity sensitive voronoi to the cost of optimal algorithm is greater than $(2n-1)$. If we take a set of facilities with unit capacities and place the customers of $I_{max}$ in the same order as they appear in $I$, the ratio would be greater than $(2n-1)$ which is a contradiction to the bound of unit capacity.
\end{comment}

\end{proof}

\section{Hardness result} \label{sec:five}
The online facility assignment problem is related to the cow path problem where a cow is searching for the bridge in order to cross a river. We can represent the river by a straight line, where the initial position of the cow is at the center of the line. With out loss of generality we can assume that the cow starts to move $d_1$ steps left from the origin, turn right and moves $d_2$ steps right to the origin, turn again to left and moves $d_3$ steps from the origin ($d_3>d_1$). The cow continues this process until it finds the bridge. We say a cow path is $c$-competitive if the summation of the total steps to left and right is no more than $c$-times than the minimum number of steps.

We can simulate the cow path problem in an instance of thie online facility assignment problem by generating the input sequence of customers in a special way. We consider an instance where the capacity of each facility is equal to one. Hence, only one customer can be assigned to each facility. We assume that the facilities are located on the integer points of the straight line and the customers appear on the integer points in an online manner. Suppose ALG is a $c$-competitive algorithm for the assignment problem. When a customer $c_i$ appears, it is assigned to either the closest free facility $f_l$ at left of $c_i$ or to the closest free facility $f_r$ at right of $c_i$ by algorithm ALG. Note that, if we consider a facility $f'_l$ which is further left of $c_i$ compared to $f_l$ and later another customer $c_j$ is assigned to $f_l$, then the overall assignment cost is never going to decrease. Hence, any algorithm that is trying to minimize the total assignment cost may only consider the closest left and right free facility only.

Now consider the first two customers are placed on the middle facility $f_m$ (center of the straight line). With out loss of generality, we assume that the second customer is assigned to $f_{m-1}$ by ALG. Now the third customer $c_3$ is placed exactly on $f_{m-1}$ and suppose ALG assigns it to $f_{m-2}$. The adversary places the next customer $c_4$ exactly on $f_{m-2}$. This process continues and at some point ALG has to assign the new customer to $f_{m+1}$. Otherwise ALG can not be a $c$-competitive algorithm and later at some point ALG has to switch to left again. Hence, the assignment direction switches left and right similar to a cow path. We show the relationship between an assignment and cow path is the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{theorem:ofa_cow_path}
Any $c$-competitive algorithm for online facility assignment on a line yields a $c$-competitive algorithm for the cow path problem.
\end{lemma}

The proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{apdx:ofa_cow_path}. If we set the capacity of each facility equal to one, then the problem is called the online matching problem. Hence, the online facility assignment problem is a generalized version of the online matching problem. Due to the relationship between the cow path problem and the online matching problem it has been conjectured that there exists a $9$-competitive algorithm for the online matching problem similar to the cow path problem~\cite{Kalyanasundaram1998}. However, Fuchs et al. ~\cite{FUCHS2005251} have shown that no algorithm for the online matching problem has competitive ratio less than $9.001$, which immediately yields the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{theorem:hardness}
Let ALG be an algorithm for online facility assignment on a line. Then $\mathcal{R}(ALG) \geq 9.001$.
\end{corollary}

\section{Conclusion}
We first computed that Algorithm Greedy on grid graph has the competitive ratio of $r \times c + r + c$. We also showed that the competitive ratio of Algorithm Optimal-Fill on grid graph is $O(r \times c)$.
The competitive ratio of Algorithm Optimal-Fill for arbitrary connected unweighted graph is $2|F|$ which is tight and better than the previous result $\frac{|E||F|}{r}$, where $E$ is the set of edge of graph $G$, $F$ is the set of facilities and $r$ is the radius of the graph. \par

Then we provide an algorithm to compute assignment on a plane that has competitive ratio of $(2n-1)$. Finally, we show that no algorithm which assigns facilities on a line has competitive ratio less than $9.001$. The algorithm we studied in this paper has a linear competitive ratio in terms of the number of vertices or facilities. The development of algorithms that has a sublinear or constant competitive ratio remains an interesting open problem.\par

\section{Introduction}

\begin{frame}{Introduction}
\begin{itemize}
    \item Consider the $k$-server problem
    \item We have $k$ servers
    \item Requests appear in an online manner
    \item One server reaches to the location of request
    \item Total cost is the sum of total distance
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Introduction}
\begin{itemize}
    \item In online matching problem one server can serve at most once
    \item Let ALG is an algorithm for this problem
    \item Let $L$ be the cost of ALG
    \item Then ALG is $\rho$-competitive if $L$ is at most $\rho$ times the optimal cost
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Introduction}
\begin{itemize}
    \item For notational convenience assume there is a server on each integer
    \item The lower bound of $\rho$ can be extended to the finite case
    \item In the finite case, $s \in [-N, N]$
    \item requests $r_1, r_2, \cdots r_k \in \mathbb{R}, k \leq 2N+1$
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Introduction}
\begin{itemize}
    \item An online matching is a simulation of the cow path problem
    \item The competitive ratio of the cow path problem is $9$
    \item In this paper, a new proof has been provided
    \item The result has been extended to show that $9+\epsilon$ is a lower bound of online matching, $\epsilon = .001$
    \item The also discussed about generalized work function algorithms
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}

It is well known that the evolution of the early universe can be described by
 the standard hot bing bang model, however this hot model
presents some cosmological problems that  the inflationary stage or inflation  solves
through  an accelerated  expansion previous to radiation era
 \cite{R1,R102,R103,Rin}. Nevertheless, the importance of  inflation is that this scenario
 gives account of    the Large-Scale
Structure (LSS) \cite{R2,R203} and it  also  provides
 a causal description
of the anisotropies observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background
(CMB) radiation \cite{astro,Hinshaw:2012aka,Ade:2013zuv,Planck2015,Ob2,DiValentino:2016foa}.

In the literature, we can find
 different models that give account of   the
inflationary  evolution of the early universe. In this context, we  can distinguish
the inflationary models where inflation is driven for  a canonical or non-canonical scalar field, see e.g.,
\cite{Ho,Kobayashi:2011nu,DeFelice:2013ar}.
 In this sense,
we can stand out the k-essence inflationary model, where the description of k-essence  is  through
an action or Lagrangian density that  includes non standard higher order kinetic
term associated to scalar field\cite{P1,P2}. An important consideration to take into account
of the k-essence models is the fact that the  speed gravitational  waves
  is equal to the speed of
light, coinciding with the speed obtained from
 the detection of   gravitational waves by
GW170817 and  the $\gamma-$ray burst
\cite{TheLIGOScientific:2017qsa,Monitor:2017mdv,GBM:2017lvd}. Additionally, the k-essence models
give  the possibility that the value of the speed of sound of the scalar perturbations
is smaller than one or equal to one\cite{P1}.
 In this form, the
  k-essence model  is consistent with these observational data,
  since the speed gravitational  waves
  is equal to the speed of
light and  we can also have the possibility that the speed of sound associated to scalar perturbations
could  be less
than or equal to one, depending of the Lagrangian density associated to the
k-essence. Thus,
 the   k-essence model can be considered to study the early (inflation) and current (dark energy)
 \cite{Melchiorri:2002ux}
 universe. In particular,
  in the
  context of inflation, different effective potentials associated to a scalar field
   have been studied  under
  the slow roll approximation \cite{Joyce:2014kja,DeSantiago:2012nk,Bose:2008ew}.

On the other hand,  the reconstruction of the
background   variables such as; effective potential, coupling functions, scale
factor associated to the
  inflationary models, from the
observational parameters such as; the scalar spectrum,  scalar
spectral index  and the tensor to scalar ratio,   have
been analyzed   by several
authors\cite{H1,H2,H3,H4,M,Chiba:2015zpa,H5}.
 In this sense,  a possible methodology to the
reconstruction of
inflation  under
 the slow roll approximation, can be developed by means of
 the parametrization of these cosmological parameters
  or  attractors, in terms of the number of $e-$foldings $N$.

As example, of  this methodology we have that the
scalar spectral index  $n_S$,
 is well corroborated by Planck data \cite{Planck2018} with
 the simple  parametrization or attractor $n_S(N)= 1-2/N$,
when the number of $e-$foldings $N\simeq$ 50 $\sim$ 60  and it corresponds to the comoving scale
$k$ crossed the Hubble radius i.e., $k=aH$ during the inflationary epoch.

In the framework of
  the General Relativity (GR), the reconstruction of inflation under this procedure gives origin to
  different models according to the
   attractor for large $N$ of the scalar spectral index,   $n_S(N)= 1-2/N$
during the slow roll scenario. In this way,
 we can  have; the hyperbolic tangent model or
T-model \cite{T},
 E-model\cite{E},
$R^2$-model\cite{R102}, the chaotic inflationary model\cite{R103}, the study of
 Higgs inflation \cite{Higgs,Higgs2}, etc. In the reconstruction of two
 background
 variables as the case of
  warm inflation,  was necessary to consider
 the attractors $n_S(N)$ and $r(N)$,
 to rebuild  the
 effective potential and the dissipation coefficient  as a function of the scalar
 field, respectively
  \cite{Herrera:2018cgi}. Similarly, for the reconstruction of $G-$inflation, was
  required the spectral index $n_S(N)$ together with the tensor to scalar ratio
  $r(N)$, in order to reconstruct the potential and the coupling parameter in terms of the inflaton field,
  see ref.\cite{Herrera:2018mvo}.

Additionally, we mention that in the literature is possible to find
another methodologies
to rebuild  the variables as  the scalar potential, scalar spectral index
and the tensor to scalar ratio under the slow roll approximation.
For example, we have the parametrization of  the slow-roll
parameter $\epsilon(N)$, in terms of the  number of $e$-folds $N$
\cite{Huang:2007qz,M,Gao:2017owg}.  Similarly, the reconstruction of the scalar potential and spectral index
from
 two slow-roll parameters $\epsilon(N)$ and $\eta(N)$,
was studied
in ref.\cite{Roest:2013fha}. Also , the reconstruction of the scalar potential, considering as
ansatz the velocity of the scalar field as a function of the number $N$, in
 a model of
 $k-$essence inflation for a specific
action was developed in ref.\cite{Sebastiani:2017cey}.
For other reconstruction methodologies in the context of inflation, see  refs.\cite{N1,
N2,yo8}.

On the other hand, in the context of the theoretical foundations
 of  the
early and present  universe from an effective field theory, there are some criteria or conjectures that have emerged
 recently in the literature.  These criteria are
  related  with  the consistency between the
 effective field theory and superstring theory, in order to describe the universe from
 one
 or various scalar  fields.
 In this sense, we have
 the Swampland Criteria or Conjectures  (SC)\cite{Sw1,Sw2} and are related to the
 conditions
on the range of inflaton field during its dynamic evolution and  also on  the effective potential
(derivatives) associated
to inflaton field, in order to permit  an
embedding in the framework of superstring theory\cite{Sw1}.
This first criterion establishes that the range of inflaton field values $\Delta\phi$ is smaller than
 the
 Planckian scale during the dynamic of the inflationary epoch. This
 first conjecture  supposes that
  the effective field theory  is consistent  with
 the string theory, if  the  range of inflaton field values satisfies  $\Delta\phi<\Delta\, M_p$,
 where $\Delta$ denotes  a
 constant of the order $\mathcal{O}(1)$ and $M_p$ denotes the Planck mass\cite{Sw1}.
 In relation to the condition on the effective potential and its derivatives, we have that the slope
 of the potential has to be larger to explain that the  fields   coming from the frame
 of string theory, see refs.\cite{Sw1,Sw2}. Thus,
  the condition on the slope of the effective potential $V(\phi)$
 (called the second swampland conjecture) can be
 written as $V_{\phi}/V>c/M_p$, where $V_\phi=\partial V/\partial \phi$ and $c$
denotes another constant of the order one as $\Delta$. Additionally, we can
 have  that the above condition can not be satisfied when the fields are around
 of the maximum (local) of  the potential, with which we can also consider that
 $V_{\phi\phi}/V<-c_1/M_p^2$, in which  $c_1$ denotes another constant
 of the order one\cite{Sw3}. However, we mention that  recently was shown that these constants
 may be somewhat less than unity, see e.g., ref.\cite{Sw4}.
 In this sense, under  the theoretical description of inflation in the framework of GR,
 we can find a direct tension
 from the second SC and the utilization of
 the slow-roll approximation, since the slow roll parameter
 $\epsilon\propto (V_\phi /V)^2$   must be smaller than one  during
 inflation i.e., $\epsilon\ll 1$.
In this way, the imposed conditions by the SC have questioned   whether slow-roll inflation
described by an effective field  theory.

 In this respect, we mention that the SC do not exclude all inflationary models
 in the context of the slow roll approximation. In order to describe inflation
 under the slow-roll
 approximation,
 we have  some  models that can survive to the  requirements
 of the SC.  In particular, we can mention that for the case of a single scalar
 field, the model of warm inflation satisfies the criteria imposed by
 SC\cite{SW6}, see
 also ref.\cite{SW7}.  Also, the SC for a  single field with a
 chaotic potential in the framework of brane inflation was developed in ref.\cite{SW8},
 and this model showed to be  compatible with
  the SC, see also ref.\cite{SW9} for another potentials.
In the case of quintessential brane inflation and its compatibility with the SC
introducing  deviations from the Bunch-Davies initial state
was studied in \cite{SW10}.  A curvaton like mechanism is another possibility
used  in order to conciliate the SC from a single field\cite{SW11} and for multi-field models
and its compatibly with the
SC was analyzed in ref.\cite{SW12}.

 Additionally, we comment that  another
conjecture studied in the literature  is known as
the Trans Planckian Censorship Conjecture (TCC)\cite{Tp},
see also ref.\cite{Tp1}. The TCC  is established
 on the concept that in a suitable
 quantum theory of gravity  the sub-Planckian quantum
 fluctuations should persist on a  quantum scale and never become larger
 than the Hubble horizon and then these fluctuations never become
   freeze during the expansion of the  universe, see also refs.\cite{Tp2,Tp3}.

The goal of this investigation is to reconstruct the k-essence inflationary  model,
considering  the unification between  the attractor or parametrization of
 the scalar spectral index and the slow roll parameter as a  function of the e-foldings together with the
 SC.
In this
context, we investigate  how the k-essence  inflationary  model in which the
Lagrangian density
 ${\cal{L}}(\phi,X)$ introduces a new term
 given by
$L(\phi)\,X$,
 modifies  the
reconstructions of the background variables such as;
 the scalar potential $V(\phi)$ and
 the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ and simultaneously satisfy the SC.
 In this sense, we will determine  the structure of
the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ and of the effective potential $V(\phi)$, in order to
satisfy the swampland criteria and  also the attractor  point associated to the
scalar spectral index
  $n_S$ from the observations.

In order to satisfy the observational data and the swampland criteria, we consider
  a general formalism  to rebuild  the effective potential $V$ and the coupling
  parameter $L$,
   from the parametrization of the cosmological
attractor $n_S(N)$ and the slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$,
 under   the slow roll approximation.

As an application to the   developed formalism, we will study different  examples
in order to answer to the swampland conjectures, considering the slow roll
parameter $\epsilon(N)$ together with the simplest attractor point for the scalar
spectral index given by $n_S-1=-2/N$.
 In this respect,   we will reconstruct the
 effective  potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ as a
 function of the inflaton field
 $\phi$. Additionally, we
 will find
 different
 constraints on the  parameters in our k-essence model from the unification of
 the
  observational
 data and  the  SC.

The outline of the paper is as follows: The  section II we give
 a brief description  of the model of  k-essence.  The background
 equation and cosmological perturbations are shown.
 In the section III, we elaborate a general formalism   to rebuild the scalar
 potential and coupling parameter in terms of   the observable  or attractor $n_S(N)$
 and the slow roll parameter. Later in section IV,
we apply the methodology for different   examples in order  to obtain
the effective potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$,
 as a function of the scalar field $\phi$.
 In the end, in section V  we give  our conclusions.
 We chose units so that
$c=\hbar=M_p=8\pi=1$.

\section{ The k-essence model }

As  a brief  description of the scenario of k-essence model,  we begin  with
 the 4-dimensional action $S$ for this theory  given by \cite{P1,P2}
\begin{equation}
S = \int \sqrt{-g_{4}}\,d^{4}x\,\left(\frac{1}{2}R
+{\cal{L}}(\phi,X)\right),\label{action}
\end{equation}
where  $g_{4}$ corresponds to  the determinant of the space-time metric
$g_{\mu\nu}$,  $R$ denotes  the Ricci scalar and the quantity ${\cal{L}}(\phi,X)$
represents to the Lagrangian density associated to  the scalar field $\phi$ and $X$. Here the
 quantity $X$
corresponds to
the kinetic energy of the field $\phi$ defined as
$X=-g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi/2$.

By   assuming that the energy momentum corresponds to a perfect fluid,
then it is possible to  identify from the action (\ref{action}) that the energy
density $\rho$ and the pressure $p$ associated to the scalar field $\phi$ and $X$ are
given by \cite{P1,P2}

\begin{equation}
\rho(\phi,X) = 2X\,\frac{\partial {\cal{L}}(\phi,X)}{\partial \,X}-{\cal{L}}(\phi,X),\label{r1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\phi,X) = {\cal{L}}(\phi,X),\label{pp1}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
In particular, for the specific   case  in which the Lagrangian ${\cal{L}}(\phi,X)=X-V(\phi)$,
 we recovered the expressions
 for the energy density and pressure in the framework
  of the GR. Here the quantity  $V(\phi)$
denotes
 the effective potential associated to scalar field $\phi$.

In this context and  in order to develop the reconstruction for the k-essence model of inflation,
 we will study  the specific  case  in which  the Lagrangian density ${\cal{L}}(\phi,X)$ is given
 by\cite{P1,P2}
 \begin{equation}
   {\cal{L}}(\phi,X)=X+2\,L(\phi)\,X-V(\phi),\label{anz}
 \end{equation}
where $L(\phi)$ is a coupling  function that depends exclusively on the scalar
field $\phi$.
We note that in the limit in which this coupling
parameter $L(\phi)\rightarrow 0$, we recovered the standard GR.

 To analyze this inflationary model,  we consider
 a spatially  flat  Friedmann Robertson Walker
(FRW) metric, together with  a scalar field homogeneous, such that the field
$\phi=\phi(t)$. In this sense, we have that  the    Friedmann equation can be written as
\begin{equation}
3H^{2} = \,\rho ,\label{HC}
\end{equation}
where $H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}$ denotes     the Hubble rate and the quantity
$a$ represents to the scale  factor.  In the following,  the dots denote
differentiation with  respect to the time.

Thus, from relations  (\ref{r1}),  (\ref{pp1}) and (\ref{anz}), we can rewrite  the continuity  equation for perfect fluid
 $ \dot{\rho}+3\,H\,(\rho+p)=0,$ as
 \begin{equation}
\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+\frac{V_\phi+L_\phi\,\dot{\phi}^2}{1+2L}=0,\label{cont}
\end{equation}
and also the eq.(\ref{HC}) can be rewrite as
\begin{equation}
3H^2=\frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2}+V(\phi)+L_\phi\,\dot{\phi}^2.\label{H2}
\end{equation}
Additionally,  combining eqs.(\ref{cont}) and (\ref{H2}) we have
\begin{equation}
2\dot{H}+3H^2+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)+L_\phi\,\dot{\phi}^2=0.\label{DH}
\end{equation}
 In the following, we will assume  that the notation  $V_\phi=\partial V/\partial\phi$,  $L_\phi$
 corresponds to
  $L_\phi=\partial L/\partial\phi$, $V_{\phi\phi}$ to
 $V_{\phi\phi}=\partial ^2V/\partial \phi^2$,
   etc.

  Introducing  the slow-roll parameters $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, $\epsilon_3$  and
$\epsilon_4$ defined as \cite{P1,P2}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_1=-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2},\,\,\,\epsilon_2=-\frac{\ddot{\phi}}{H\dot{\phi}},
\,\,\,\epsilon_3=-\frac{L\,X}{H^2},\,\,\,\,\epsilon_4=-\frac{2\,L_\phi\,X}{V_{\phi}},\label{pr}
\end{equation}
and  assuming  that the slow-roll parameters $\epsilon_1$
$|\epsilon_2|$, $|\epsilon_3|$, $|\epsilon_4|\ll 1$, during the inflationary regime,
then   the
   Friedmann equation (\ref{HC}) reduces to \cite{P1,P2}
\begin{equation}
3H^{2}\approx\,\,
V(\phi),\label{HH}
\end{equation}
and the eq.(\ref{cont})
results

\begin{equation}
3H\dot{\phi}\,(1+2L)\approx\,
-V_\phi.\label{eqf}
\end{equation}
Note that combining eqs.(\ref{H2}) and (\ref{DH}) we have that the first slow roll parameter $\epsilon_1$
can be rewritten as $\epsilon_1=X(1+2L)/H^2$.

In general,
in order to give
 a measure of the inflationary expansion in an inflationary model, we can  define
 the number of $e$-folds
$N$ as
\begin{equation}
N=\int_t^{t_e}H\,dt'=\int_\phi^{\phi_e}H\,\frac{d\phi'}{\dot{\phi}}\simeq
\,\int_{\phi_e}^{\phi}\,V\,\left[\frac{1+2L}{V_{\phi'}}\right]\,d\phi',\label{3N}
\end{equation}
where the quantities  $t$ and $t_e$ correspond to two
different values of cosmological times in which the time $t_e$ indicates   the end of inflationary
stage and the number of $e-$folds  at the end of inflation is defined as $N(t=t_{e})=0$.

On the other hand, in the context of the cosmological perturbations, the quadratic  action
for the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ for the k-essence model can be
written as \cite{P1,DeFelice:2013ar,Kobayashi:2010cm}
\begin{equation}
  S^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\int\,d\tau
  d^3x\,z^2[{\cal{G}}(\zeta')^2-{\cal{F}}(\vec{\bigtriangledown}\zeta)^2],\label{ac2}
\end{equation}
where the quantity ${\cal{G}}={\cal{F}}=1+2L$ and the variable $z$ is defined as
$z=a\dot{\phi}/H$. Here the prime corresponds to derivative with respect to the
conformal time $\eta=\int dt/a$ and from the Lagrangian density given by  eq.(\ref{anz}),
 we note that the speed of sound associated to
perturbations $c_S^2=p_X/\rho_X=1$.

From eq.(\ref{ac2}), the scalar  power spectrum of the primordial curvature perturbation is given
by \cite{P1,DeFelice:2013ar,Kobayashi:2010cm}

\begin{equation}
{\cal{P_S}}=\frac{H^4}{4\pi^2\dot{\phi}^2\,(1+2L)}
\simeq\frac{V^3}{12\pi^2\,V_\phi^2}\,(1+2L).\label{P1}
\end{equation}

Since the scalar spectral index $n_S$ is defined in terms of the power spectrum $\cal{P_S}$
as
$n_S=d\ln{\cal{P_S}}/d\ln k$, we have that  the index
$n_S$ as function  of the standard slow roll parameters $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ can be
written as\cite{P1,DeFelice:2013ar,Kobayashi:2010cm}

\begin{equation}
n_S-1\simeq\,\frac{1}{1+2L}\,\left[2\eta-6\epsilon+\frac{2L_\phi}{1+2L}\sqrt{2\epsilon}\right]
,\label{ns0}
\end{equation}
where the standard parameters $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
  \epsilon=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{V_{\phi}}{V}\right)^2,\;\,\,
\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,\eta=\frac{V_{\phi\phi}}{V}.\label{CTM}
\end{equation}

Note that in the limit in which the coupling parameter $L\rightarrow 0$, the spectral index $n_S$ given by
Eq.(\ref{ns0}) reduces to the standard spectral index of the GR, where  $n_S-1\simeq
2\eta-6\epsilon$. Additionally, we have that in the context of the slow roll
approximation, the relation between the parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_1=-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\simeq\frac{1}{1+2L}\,\epsilon.\label{e11}
\end{equation}

For the case of  the tensorial perturbation, the amplitude
 of the tensor mode in the k-essence model of inflation is  not modified, and its expression
  is equivalent
  to the standard GR,
  where
  the tensor spectrum ${\cal{P_T}}$ is defined as
${\cal{P_T}}\simeq (H^2/2\pi^2)$. Thus,  we have that the tensor
to scalar ratio $r$
 in the
framework of  k-essence model  can be written as \cite{P1,DeFelice:2013ar,Kobayashi:2010cm}
\begin{equation}
r=\frac{{\cal{P_T}}}{{\cal{P_S}}}=\frac{16X(1+2L)}{H^2}\,=\,16\epsilon_1.\label{rl}
\end{equation}
Also, we can obtain  that the tensor to scalar ratio can be rewritten in terms of
the standard slow roll parameter $\epsilon$ as
\begin{equation}
r=\frac{{\cal{P_T}}}{{\cal{P_S}}}=\frac{16X(1+2L)}{H^2}\,=\,\frac{16}{1+2\,L}\;\epsilon.\label{rle}
\end{equation}
Here we have considered eqs.(\ref{e11}) and (\ref{rl}), respectively.

In the following we will study the reconstruction of the background variables
from the unification of the observables parameters  together with  the
 swampland conjectures or criteria.

\section{Reconstructing  k-essence model \label{secti2a} }
In this section we will  consider  the methodology  used to
reconstruct  the
background variables, such as;
the scalar potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling  parameter
$L(\phi)$, from the attractor $n_S(N)$ and the slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$, together   with  the swampland
conjectures.

In the context of the reconstruction,
we rewrite    the slow-roll parameters,   spectral index and the tensor to
scalar ratio  as a  function  of the number of $e$-foldings $N$ and its derivatives
\cite{Chiba:2015zpa}.
 From these
expressions    and considering an attractor point  $n_S=n_S(N)$ together with a  parameter
$\epsilon(N)$,  we should obtain
the  effective potential $V$ and the coupling parameter  $L$ in terms of
 the number $N$ i.e., $V=V(N)$ and  $L=L(N)$. Now, from
 Eq.(\ref{3N}) we should
find analytically  the number of  $e$-folds $N$ as a function  of the inflaton field $\phi $
and then
 we should  reconstruct  the scalar potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling function $L(\phi)$.

In this framework, we start   rewriting
 the derivatives of the potential $V$, coupling function $L$  and  the    slow roll parameters
in terms of    the number $N$,
as
$$
V_{\phi}=\frac{dV}{d\phi}=  \,\frac{V\,(1+2L)}{V_{\phi}}
\,V_{\,N}\,,
$$
and then we  get
\begin{equation}
V_{\phi}^2=[V (1+2L)\,\,V_{\,N}]\,.\label{dV}
\end{equation}
In the following, we will assume  that $V_N>0$ and then  the quantity  $1+2L>0$. Also, in the following
  we will consider
 the notation  $V_{\,N}=dV/dN$,
 $V_{NN}=d^2V/dN^2$, $L_N$ to $L_{N}=dL/dN$ etc.

For the quantity  $V_{\phi\phi}$, we have
\begin{equation}
V_{\phi\phi}=\frac{1}{2\,V_N}\,\,\left[(1+2L)\,[V_N^2+V\,V_{NN}]+2L_N\,V\,V_N\right],\label{ddV}
\end{equation}
and for the coupling parameter $L_\phi$, we get
\begin{equation}
L_\phi=\sqrt{\frac{V(1+2L)}{V_N}}\,L_N.
\end{equation}

From these relations, we find that  the standard slow roll parameters $\epsilon$ and
$\eta$  given by eq.(\ref{CTM}) can be  rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}\,(1+2L)\,\frac{V_N}{V},\label{p1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{(1+2L)}{2}\,\left[\frac{V_N}{V}+\frac{V_{NN}}{V_N}\right]+L_N
,\label{p2}
\end{equation}
respectively.

Also, from eq.(\ref{3N}) we obtain that
 the relationship  between the $e$-folding $N$ and the inflaton
 $\phi$  becomes
 \begin{equation}
   \int
   \left[\frac{V_{\,N}}{(1+2L)\,V}\right]^{1/2}\,dN=\int\,d\phi.\label{NF}
 \end{equation}

In relation to the observables, we find that the power spectrum of the primordial curvature
perturbation $\cal{P_S}$ as a function of the number of e-folds  becomes
 \begin{equation}
   {\cal{P_S}}=\frac{1}{12\pi^2}\,\frac{V^2}{V_N},\label{PN1}
 \end{equation}
and as we can note this quantity does not depend on the coupling parameter $L$, under this
formalism.

Also, from   eqs.(\ref{ns0}),
(\ref{p1}) and (\ref{p2}), we obtain that  the scalar spectral index $n_S$ can be rewritten in
terms of the $e$-folds  $N$ as
\begin{equation}
n_S-1=-2\frac{V_{\,N}}{V}+\frac{V_{\,NN}}{V_{\,N}}=\left[ \ln\left(\frac{V_N}{V^2}\right)\right]_N,
\label{NSN1}
\end{equation}
and
by considering  Eq.(\ref{rl})    the tensor to scalar ratio can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
  r=\frac{{\cal{P_T}}}{{\cal{P_S}}}=8\,\frac{V_{\,N}}{V}.\label{gr8}
\end{equation}

 Here, we note that  the expressions for the power spectrum ${\cal{P_S}}(N)$,  the scalar spectral index $n_S(N)$ and
 the tensor to scalar ratio  $r(N)$
 are the same
  to the one obtained in the standard  GR \cite{Chiba:2015zpa} and these observables depend
  exclusively on the effective  potential and its derivative with respect to $N$. This suggests
  that the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ can not be rebuild from the one
  attractor, such as; the scalar spectrum or the scalar  spectral index $n_S(N)$ or from the tensor to
  scalar ratio $r(N)$, as can be seen from eq.(\ref{PN1}) or (\ref{NSN1}) or (\ref{gr8}).
However, we observe from eq.(\ref{NF}) that the relation between the number of $e$-folds and the
inflaton field depends of the coupling parameter $L$ as well as $V$, and then in
order to reconstruct the background in our model, we should  know  the function $L(N)$
 from a specific ansatz or parametrization of this coupling function.

Thus, as in the case of GR the effective potential $V$ in terms of the number $N$
can be obtained from the attractor $n_S(N)$ as
\begin{equation}
V(N)=-1/\exp\left[\int(n_S-1)dN\right]\,dN,\label{VNN}
\end{equation}
or also giving the attractor $r(N)$ with which we have that the effective
potential becomes
\begin{equation}
V(N)=\,\exp\left[\frac{1}{8}\int\,r\,dN\right].\label{Vw}
\end{equation}

Here, we emphasize  that the reconstruction of the effective potential  in terms of the scalar field $\phi$
i.e., $V(\phi)$ can not
be determined without the help of
the coupling parameter $L(N)$, see eq.(\ref{NF}). In this sense, we make the difference with
respect to the standard GR, although the expressions for the observables
parameters
 $n_S(N)$ and $r(N)$ are the same to GR, as can be seen of eqs.(\ref{NSN1}) and (\ref{gr8}).

Thus, a possible solution to rebuild the background variables can be through an ansatz
on the slow roll parameter $\epsilon$ in terms of the number $N$ i.e., $\epsilon(N)$.
This ansatz on the slow roll parameter
$\epsilon$ would have to
 take into account
the swampland conjecture in which $V_\phi/V\sim \mathcal{O}(1)$, since this
parameter $\epsilon\propto (V_\phi/V)^2$. In this respect, the coupling parameter $L(N)$ can be
determined considering eq.(\ref{p1}) in which
\begin{equation}
L(N)=\left[\frac{\epsilon\,V}{V_N}-\frac{1}{2}\right],\label{LN}
\end{equation}
where  the slow roll parameter  $\epsilon=\epsilon(N)$.

Note that the relation between the number $N$ and the inflaton $\phi$ given by eq.(\ref{NF}) can be
rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\int\,\frac{V_N}{V}\,\left[\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\right]^{1/2}\,\,dN=\int\,d\phi.\label{NPG}
\end{equation}
This suggests that first swampland criterion on the field range traversed by
scalar field during the slow roll epoch in an effective field theory $\Delta\phi<\Delta\sim  \mathcal{O}(1)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
  \phi-\phi_0=\Delta\phi=\int_{N_0}^N\,\frac{V_{N'}}{V}\,
  \left[\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\right]^{1/2}\,\,dN'=\int_{N_0}^N\,
  \sqrt{\frac{r}{8(1+2L)}}\,dN'
  <\Delta\sim  \mathcal{O}(1),\label{DF1}
\end{equation}
where $N(\phi=\phi_0)=N_0$ corresponds to the number of $e-$folds
during the slow roll epoch and its value is such that
$0<N_0<N$. Recalled that during the slow roll scenario we can consider that the number of $e-$folds
is large  ($\mathcal{O}(10)\sim\mathcal{O}(10^2)$), see
ref.\cite{Chiba:2015zpa,Herrera:2018cgi}. Also,
we note that in the special case in which the ratio $r$ and $L$ are constants, then we
 have the  relation
$\Delta\phi\propto \Delta N<\Delta$, in which $\Delta N=N-N_0>0$.

In the context of  the second swampland conjecture we consider that
 this  criterion  is related to the
slope of the effective  potential, then we can associate the parameter $\epsilon$
to this conjecture, such as,
the parameter $\sqrt{2\epsilon}=(V_\phi/V)> c$, where the constant $c$ from the swampland conjecture is
of
order one, i.e.,
 $c\sim{ \cal{O}}(1)$ (in Planck unit) as we mentioned before.

In this sense,  from eqs.(\ref{rle}) and (\ref{gr8}) (or eq.(\ref{p1})), we have
\begin{equation}
  (1+2L)=2\,\epsilon\,\left(\frac{V}{V_N}\right),
\end{equation}
and considering the second swampland conjecture in which $\epsilon>c^2/2 $, we
obtain a lower bound for the coupling parameter $L$ given by
\begin{equation}
  L>\,c^2\,\left(\frac{V}{2\,V_N}\right)-\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
In this form, we can obtain some constraints on the parameters-space from the swampland criteria
in order to
rebuild  the k-essence model.

In the following, under the slow roll approximation we will study some specific examples
in order to reconstruct
the scalar potential $V(\phi)$ and coupling parameter $L(\phi)$, from the
attractor $n_S(N)$ and  $\epsilon(N)$   together with the swampland criteria.

\section{Unifying swampland criteria  and  attractor point }

In this section we will apply
 the formalism of above in order to rebuild the background variables in our k-essence model. In this context,
  we shall use  the simplest
 attractor  for the scalar spectral index  $n_S(N)$ together with some examples
 for the slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$,
 in order to find analytically the effective potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$
 in terms of the inflaton field $\phi$.
 Thus,
 following
refs.\cite{T,Chiba:2015zpa} we consider  that for large $N$ (slow roll regime), the simplest  attractor point
for the scalar spectral
index in terms of the number of $e$-foldings   can be written as
\begin{equation}
n_S-1=-\frac{2}{N},\label{e1}
\end{equation}
in which for $N=60$ the scalar spectral index is well corroborated from the Planck data.
As we mentioned before, here large $N$ corresponds to values of the number of
$e-$foldings
$\sim{\cal{O}}(10)\sim {\cal{O}}(10^2)$, during the slow roll stage
 \cite{T,Chiba:2015zpa},
 and the point $N=0$
is not allowed.  In this sense, this parametrization on the observable $n_S(N)$ does
not  pretend  to describe the end of the inflation where the number $N=0$, but it characterizes
the slow roll regime in which the number of $e-$folds $N$ is large.
In the following, we will consider the value of the number of  $e$-folds $N=60$,
in order to evaluate the observational parameters and we will only analyze the
attractor point $n_S(N)$ given by relation (\ref{e1}), for two different slow roll parameters $\epsilon(N)$.

In this way, replacing  eq.(\ref{e1}) into eq.(\ref{NSN1}) and integrating we have\cite{Chiba:2015zpa}
$$
\frac{V_N}{V^2}=\frac{\alpha}{N^2},
$$
where the parameter $\alpha$ corresponds to an integration constant and as we
have assumed that $V_N>0$, then the parameter $\alpha>0$. However, from eq.(\ref{PN1}) we can note
that this integration constant $\alpha$ can be fixed considering the scalar power
spectrum $\cal P_S$, when the wavelength of the perturbation crosses the Hubble radius
( at $N=60$)
  results
 \begin{equation}
   \alpha=\frac{N^2}{12\pi^2\cal{P_S}}.
 \end{equation}
In this sense, for the specific case in which the number $N=60$ and the scalar
power
spectrum ${\cal{P_S}}\simeq 2.2\times 10^{-9}$, we have that the value of $\alpha\simeq
10^{10}$.

Now, from eq.(\ref{VNN})
the effective potential in terms of the number of $e$-folds $N$ can be written
as
\begin{equation}
V(N)=\frac{N}{\alpha+\beta\,N},\label{V1}
\end{equation}
where the quantity $\beta$ corresponds to a second integration constant and rigorously this
constant can be chosen to be  positive, negative or zero. However, we can obtain
an estimate of this constant considering the tensor to scalar ratio (\ref{gr8}) in which
 \begin{equation}
   \beta=\frac{\alpha}{N}\left[\frac{8}{Nr}-1\right],\,\,\,\mbox{for}\;\;\beta>0,\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\;\,\,\;
 \beta=\frac{\alpha}{N}\left[1-\frac{8}{Nr}\right],\,\,\,\mbox{for}\;\;\beta<0.\label{BET}
 \end{equation}
Thus,  for the case $N=60$, $\alpha=10^{10}$ and considering that the tensor to
scalar ratio $r<0.07$ from observational data, we obtain a lower limit for
the integration constant $\beta$  when is positive, given by
$\beta>1.5\times10^{8}$. For the case in which the integration constant
 $\beta$ is negative, we find a upper bound given by $\beta<-1.5\times 10^8$.

In order to rebuild the effective potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$,
we should  know the
parameter $L(N)$ to perform the integral given by eq.(\ref{NF}) i.e., we  should find the relation between
the number of e-folds and the inflaton field ($N=N(\phi)$) for the reconstruction
of the $V(\phi)$ and $L(\phi)$.

In fact, to find the coupling parameter $L(N)$ and then $N=N(\phi)$, we can consider
an ansatz on
the slow roll parameter $\epsilon=\epsilon(N)$ together with the attractor point $n_S(N)$
from the relation given by eq.(\ref{LN}). The motivation to consider
 this ansatz on the
slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$ is associated to satisfy  the second
swampland conjecture, since the parameter $\epsilon$ is proportional to  $ (V_\phi/V)^2$.

As a first
ansatz on the variable $\epsilon(N)$, we consider the simplest situation in which the slow
roll parameter $\epsilon$ is equal to a constant
\begin{equation}
\epsilon(N)=\epsilon_0=cte.
\end{equation}
In order to satisfy the second swampland conjecture, we can assume that this constant  $\epsilon_0 $
satisfies the lower bound  $\epsilon_0> c^2/2 \sim1/2$.

Immediately, we can see that from eq.(\ref{CTM}) and  this ansatz
for the slow roll parameter,  the effective potential as a function of the
inflaton field corresponds to an exponential potential with which
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)=\exp[A_1\phi+C]=\exp[\,\tilde{\phi}\,],\label{POT1}
\end{equation}
where  the field $\tilde{\phi}$ is defined as $\tilde{\phi}=A_1\phi+C$, in which
the quantity
$A_1=\sqrt{2\epsilon_0}$ and $C$ corresponds to an integration
constant. Thus, we note that the attractor given by eq.(\ref{e1}) is not necessary
for the reconstruction of the $V(\phi)$. However, in order to rebuild the
coupling parameter $L(\phi)$, we need an ansatz on the attractor point $n_S(N)$.

In this context, from eq.(\ref{LN})
 we  obtain the
the coupling parameter $L(N)$ in terms of the number of e-folds $N$ becomes
 \begin{equation}
L(N)=\,\frac{\epsilon_0\,N(\alpha+\beta\, N)}{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}.\label{LN1}
\end{equation}
Here we have used the relation for the potential $V(N)$ given by  eq.(\ref{V1}) obtained
from attractor $n_S(N)$ given by  eq.(\ref{e1}).

Now, considering the relation between the number $N$
and the scalar field given by eq.(\ref{NPG}) and assuming the special case in which $\beta>0$,
we have that the number $N(\phi)$ is given by
 \begin{equation}
N(\phi)=\frac{\alpha\,\exp[\,\tilde{\phi}]}{\alpha-\beta\,\exp[\,\tilde{\phi}]}.\label{NP1}
 \end{equation}
Here we can note that replacing eq.(\ref{NP1}) into eq.(\ref{V1}) we recover the effective
potential $V(\phi)=e^{\tilde{\phi}}$ given by eq.(\ref{POT1}). Also, we
observe that number of $e$-folds has a pole at $\tilde{\phi}=\ln(\alpha/\beta)$
when $\beta>0$,
and then we can only consider that the range for the scalar field $\tilde{\phi}$
is given by
$\tilde{\phi}<\ln(\alpha/\beta)$, since the number $N>0$, see eq.(\ref{NP1}).

Additionally, we
can mention that for the case in which the integration constant $\beta<0$ the
number $N=N(\phi)$ results
$N(\phi)=\frac{\alpha\,\exp[\,\tilde{\phi}]}{\alpha+(-\beta)\,\exp[\,\tilde{\phi}]}$ and
this number $N$ does not contain a pole.
Also,
for the specific  case in which the constant $\beta=0$, we have that the number
of $e-$foldings evolves exponentially as
$N(\phi)=\,e^{\,\tilde{\phi}}$ and we note that the number of $e-$foldings does not depend on the
integration constant $\alpha$.

Thus for $\beta>0$, we find that the reconstruction for the coupling function $L(\phi)$
by combining eqs.(\ref{LN1}) and (\ref{NP1}) becomes
 \begin{equation}
L(\phi)=\frac{\epsilon_0\,\alpha^2\,e^{\,\tilde{\phi}}}{(\alpha-\beta\,e^{\,\tilde{\phi}})^2}-\frac{1}{2}
=\frac{\epsilon_0\,\alpha^2\,V(\phi)}{[\alpha-\beta\,V(\phi)]^2}-\frac{1}{2},\label{R1}
 \end{equation}
with $\alpha>\beta V(\phi)$, since the number of $e-$foldings $N$ is defined as positive.
In the particular case in which the parameter $\alpha\gg \beta V$, we observe
that the coupling function $L(\phi)$  evolves exponentially with the scalar
field, since in this limit $L(\phi)\propto V(\phi)\propto e^{\phi}$.

For the case in which the integration constant  $\beta<0$, we have
\begin{equation}
L(\phi)=\frac{\epsilon_0\,\alpha^2\,e^{\,\tilde{\phi}}}{(\alpha+(-\beta)\,e^{\,\tilde{\phi}})^2}-\frac{1}{2}
=\frac{\epsilon_0\,\alpha^2\,V(\phi)}{[\alpha+(-\beta)\,V(\phi)]^2}-\frac{1}{2}.\label{R2}
 \end{equation}
Here we also note that  the limit $\alpha\gg \beta V$ we have that the coupling
parameter $L(\phi)\propto V(\phi)\propto e^{\phi}$ as before. However, in the
case in which the constant $\beta$ is negative  the number $N$ does not contain a pole, with which
we can consider the opposite limit  $\alpha\ll \beta V$, and here the coupling function
evolves as $L(\phi)\propto V(\phi)^{-1}\propto e^{-\phi}$.

For the situation in which the quantity $\beta=0$, we find that the reconstruction for the coupling parameter
$L(\phi)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
  L(\phi)=\epsilon_0\,\,e^{\,\tilde{\phi}}-\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}

In relation to the unification between the observational parameters and the SC,
we  consider the first swampland conjecture in which $\Delta\phi<
\Delta\,\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$, for our first example.  In this sense, we can  rewrite eq.(\ref{NP1}) for the case $\beta>0$ in which the integration
constant $C$ is defined as  $C=\ln[N_0/(\alpha+\beta N_0)]-\sqrt{2\epsilon_0}\phi_0$,
 wherewith the range of the inflaton field during the slow roll regime results
\begin{equation}
  \Delta\phi=\phi-\phi_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\epsilon_0}}\,\ln\left[\frac{N\,(\alpha+\beta N_0)}
  {N_0(\alpha+\beta N)}\right] <\Delta\,\sim 1,
\end{equation}
 as before $N(\phi=\phi_0)=N_0$
 and its value is $0<N_0<N$,  see eq.(\ref{DF1}).  Thus, from this conjecture and
 for the case $\beta>0$, we can find
 a lower bound for the value
 $\epsilon_0$ given by
\begin{equation}
  \epsilon_0>\frac{1}{2}\,\,\ln^2\left[\frac{N\,(\alpha+\beta [N-\Delta N])}
  {[N-\Delta N](\alpha+\beta N)}\right],\label{qqq}
\end{equation}
where recalled that the quantity $\Delta N$ is defined as $\Delta N=N-N_0>0$.

 In particular
for the case in which $\Delta N=50$ (or $N_0=10$) and $\alpha=10^{10}$,
we find that the integration constant
$\beta$ becomes $\beta<3.2 \times 10^8$ according eq.(\ref{qqq}) together with
the constraint   $\epsilon_0>c^2/2\sim0.5$
(second swampland conjecture).
However, from the tensor to scalar ratio in which $r<0.07$ at $N=60$ we have found that
$\beta>1.5\times 10^{8}$, see relation  given by eq.(\ref{BET}). In this form,
we obtain that
 the range for the parameter $\beta$ unifying
the observational data together with the swampland conjectures becomes
\begin{equation}
  1.5\times 10^8<\beta<3.2 \times 10^8.\label{co1}
\end{equation}
In this sense, we observe that the range for the parameter $\beta$ is very arrow if we want to satisfy
the observational and theoretical conditions. Similarly, for the situation in which the  integration constant
$\beta$  is negative, we find that the range for this parameter  is given by
\begin{equation}
  -1.5\times 10^8>\beta>-3.2 \times
10^8.\label{co2}
\end{equation}

As a second
ansatz on the variable $\epsilon(N)$, we can assume
that for large N, the slow
roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$ can be considered as \cite{Huang:2007qz,Gao:2017owg,Gron:2018rtj}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon(N)=\frac{\gamma}{N},\label{AS2}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ corresponds to a constant.  We note that from ref.\cite{Gao:2017owg},  we can recognize that for
large $N$, the
constant $\gamma$ is equal to  $\gamma=1/4$ for this parametrization on $\epsilon(N)$.
However,  applying  the second swampland conjecture, we have  that
the slow roll parameter $\epsilon>c^2/2$, then the constant $\gamma$ can
satisfy the lower bound given by $\gamma>N\,c^2/2$. Thus, for the case
in which the number of $e$-folds  $N=60$ and $c\sim 1$,  we get that the lower limit for $\gamma$
results $\gamma>30$.

From  this ansatz on $\epsilon(N)$, we find that the coupling parameter $L$ as a
function of the number of e-folds
results
 \begin{equation}
   L(N)=\frac{\gamma(\alpha+\beta\,N)}{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}.\label{38}
 \end{equation}

Now, from  eq.(\ref{NPG}) and assuming the case in which the constant $\beta$ is  positive,  we
get that the number
of $e-$foldings in terms of the scalar field becomes
\begin{equation}
N(\phi)=\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\,\tan^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\;\sqrt{\alpha\;\beta}\,(A_2\,\phi+C)\right],\label{NP2}
\end{equation}
where $A_2$ is defined as $A_2=\sqrt{2\;\gamma}/\alpha$ and $C$ corresponds to
an  integration constant. Here we note that in order to
evade the singularity on the number $N=N(\phi)$
given by  eq.(\ref{NP2}),
 we have  that  $0<\sqrt{\alpha\beta}\,(A_2\phi+C)\lesssim \pi$.
For the situation in which the integration constant
$\beta<0$, we obtain that the relation between $N$ and $\phi$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
N(\phi)=\frac{\alpha}{(-\beta)}\,\tanh^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\;\sqrt{\alpha\;(-\beta)}\,(A_2\,\phi+C)\right].
\end{equation}
In particular for the special case in which $\beta=0$, we find that the relation $N=N(\phi)$
is given by
\begin{equation}
N(\phi)=\frac{1}{4}\,\left[\sqrt{2\,\gamma}\,\phi\,+C\right]^2.
\end{equation}
Again, we note that this relation $N=N(\phi)$ for the case $\beta=0$ does not depend of
the integration constant $\alpha$.

Thus, for the case $\beta>0$, we obtain that the reconstruction for the effective potential $V(\phi)$
combining eqs.(\ref{V1}) and (\ref{NP2}) results
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)=
\frac{1}{\beta}\,\sin^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\;\sqrt{\alpha\;\beta}\,(A_2\,\phi+C)\right]=\frac{1}{2\,\beta}
\left[1-\cos\left(\sqrt{\alpha\;\beta}\,[A_2\,\phi+C]\right)\right],\label{V22}
\end{equation}
and this effective potential corresponds to  natural inflation\cite{Freese:1990rb,Adams:1992bn},
see also \cite{Ni1}. In this framework, the scalar field  is associated to a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone
boson (pNGb) with a  pNGb potential given by (\ref{V22}). Here the constants $\beta^{-1/4}$
and $1/\sqrt{\alpha\beta}\,A_2$ can be associated to the mass scales from the
particle physics models, for more details see \cite{Freese:1990rb,Adams:1992bn}.

For the case in which the integration constant $\beta$ is negative, we have that the reconstruction of the
effective potential as a function of the scalar field, becomes
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)=
\frac{1}{(-\beta)}\,\sinh^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\;\sqrt{\alpha\;(-\beta)}\,(A_2\,\phi+C)\right], \label{V23}
\end{equation}
and this potential corresponds to  Hyperbolic inflation
\cite{Basilakos:2015sza}. Also,  we mention that this potential has an
interesting application to describe the dark energy  and
 then the later time acceleration of the present universe\cite{Hp1}.
  Additionally,  we have that this hyperbolic potential has a behavior of an
exponential or power law potential, depending on the specific limits taken for the scalar field.
In this way, in the case in which $\lvert\sqrt{\alpha (-\beta)}(A_2\phi+C)/2\lvert\gg 1 $, we
have an exponential potential $V(\phi)\propto e^{-\sqrt{\alpha (-\beta)}\,A_2\,\phi}$
and in the opposite limit  $\lvert\sqrt{\alpha (-\beta)}(A_2\phi+C)/2\lvert\ll 1 $,
we get a quadratic potential $V(\phi)\propto \phi^2$.

In the special case in which the integration constant $\beta=0$, we obtain that
the reconstruction for
the effective potential is given by
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)=\frac{1}{4\alpha}\,\,\left[\sqrt{2\,\gamma}\,\phi\,+C\right]^2,\label{V24}
\end{equation}
and it corresponds to a quadratic  potential (chaotic potential) i.e.,
$V(\phi)\propto\phi^2$ and it coincides with  the potential given by eq.(\ref{V23})
in
the limit
$\lvert\sqrt{\alpha (-\beta)}(A_2\phi+C)/2\lvert\ll 1 $.

For the reconstruction of the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$, we can combine eqs.(\ref{38})
and (\ref{NP2}) for the case in which $\beta>0$ obtaining
\begin{equation}
L(\phi)=\gamma\left(1+\tan^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\;\sqrt{\alpha\;\beta}\,(A_2\,\phi+C)\right]\right)
-\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\gamma}{(1-\beta V(\phi))}-\frac{1}{2},\label{LL1}
\end{equation}
and in order to have $1+2L>0$, then it is necessary that during the inflationary epoch $\beta V<1$.

 In the situation in which the integration constant  $\beta$ is  negative we have
\begin{equation}
L(\phi)=\gamma\left(1+\tanh^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\;\sqrt{\alpha\;(-\beta)}\,(A_2\,\phi+C)\right]\right)
-\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\gamma}{(1+(-\beta) V(\phi))}-\frac{1}{2}.\label{LL2}
\end{equation}
Note that in this case we have the possibility to consider the regime in which
$1<(-\beta)V(\phi)$, for the function $L(\phi)$ that increases as $L(\phi)\propto 1/V(\phi)$, when
the potential
decreases during the slow roll scenario.

Now, for  the situation in which the integration constant $\beta$ is equal to zero, we
obtain
that the reconstruction of the  coupling parameter
$L(\phi)=\gamma-1/2=$ constant and positive, since $\gamma>30$ in order to satisfy the SC.

As before, in order to consider the first conjecture in the reconstruction of k-essence inflation,
 we rewrite the eq.(\ref{NP2}) for the case in which
the constant $\beta>0$ to find a limit on the parameter $\gamma$. In this
context,  we obtain that the range $\Delta\phi$ in terms of the variation  $\Delta N=N-N_0$, can be written as
\begin{equation}
  \Delta\phi=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha\beta}\,A_2}\,\arctan\left[\sqrt{\frac{\beta\,\Delta
  N}{\alpha}}\,\right]<\Delta \sim 1.\label{dp2}
\end{equation}
 In this form, from eq.(\ref{dp2}) we
find that a lower bound for the parameter $\gamma$ given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma>\left(\frac{2\,\alpha}{\beta}\right)\,\arctan^2\left[\sqrt{\frac{\beta\,\Delta
  N}{\alpha}}\,\right].\label{ss}
\end{equation}
From the lower bound for $\gamma$ given by eq.(\ref{ss}) and under the condition
$\gamma>N\,c^2/2\simeq 30$ imposed by the second SC, we find numerically that the upper bound for the
 integration constant $\beta$ is given by $\beta<8.3 \times 10^8$. Here we have
 used the values $\alpha=10^{10}$ and $\Delta N=50$.

 In this way, we obtain that
 the range for the integration constant $\beta$ under the unification  of the upper bound for the
 ratio $r<0.07$ and
 the swampland criteria is
 \begin{equation}
 1.5\times 10^{8}  <\beta<8.3\times 10^{8}.
 \end{equation}
Thus,   to satisfy the
observational data together with the swampland criteria,
we note that this range for the parameter $\beta$ is not that  narrow as the previous case in which
$\epsilon(N)=\epsilon_0=$ constant.   Also, we note that this result suggests that the mass
scale $\beta^{-1/4}\sim { \cal{O}}(10^{-2})$ (in units of Planck mass) is
similar to obtained in the framework of GR, where $\beta^{-1/4}\sim$ GUT scale $(\sim{ \cal{O}}(10^{-4}))$
\cite{Adams:1992bn}.

Analogously, for the situation in which the parameter $\beta$ is negative, we find
that the range for $\beta$  is given by $-10^8>\beta>-10^{9}$, assuming the values of
$\alpha=10^{10}$ and the variation $\Delta N=N-N_0=50$.

\section{Conclusions \label{conclu}}

 In this article we have investigated the reconstruction of the background
 variables
 in  the k-essence inflationary model from the Lagrangian density given by eq.(\ref{anz}).
 To rebuild this scenario, we have
  unified the swampland criteria together
 with the attractor point associated to
  the scalar
 spectral index
  $n_S(N)$ and the slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$, in which $N$ denotes  the
number of $e$-folds. From a coupling of the form $L(\phi)X$ in the k-essence
model, we have found a general treatment of reconstruction in the framework of
slow-roll approximation. In this sense, we have obtained integrable results for the scalar potential
$V(N)$ and the coupling parameter $L(N)$, in terms of the scalar spectral index $n_S(N)$
and the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$. Interestingly, we have found that the
effective potential as a function of the number $N$ i.e., $V(N)$ coincides with
the expression obtained in the framework of GR, (see eq.(\ref{VNN})) and it does
not depend of the coupling parameter $L$. However, in order to rebuild the
effective potential in terms of the scalar field $V(\phi)$, we need to consider
an expression for the coupling parameter $L$ as a function of the number of
$e-$foldings $N$ i.e., $L(N)$. In this respect, we make the difference with
respect to the reconstruction of the effective potential  $V(\phi)$ in the framework of the  GR.
Additionally, in this general analysis we have obtained   from the
slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$  and the attractor point $n_S(N)$ an expression for
the coupling parameter $L(N)$, see eq.(\ref{LN}).

In order to apply this  reconstruction methodology during the slow roll regime, we have considered  the simplest
example for the scalar spectral index $n_S(N)$ given by $n_S=1-2/N$, together
with two specific ansatze for the slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$ under the assumption  of
 large
$N$. In this sense, we have utilized  the special cases in which the slow roll
parameter $\epsilon(N)$ is a constant and when $\epsilon(N)\propto N^{-1} $, in
order to rebuild the effective potential $V(\phi)$ and the coupling parameter
$L(\phi)$.

In the case in which the slow roll parameter is a constant, we have found that
the effective potential as a function of the scalar field  corresponds to an exponential potential,
as can be seen of eq.(\ref{POT1}).
In this situation,  we have noted that the attractor $n_S(N)$ was not necessary, in order to rebuild the
exponential potential $V(\phi)$, since from definition of the slow roll parameter is possible to obtain the
effective potential. In relation to the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ when $\epsilon(N)=$ constant, we have found
that the reconstruction
is given by   eq.(\ref{R1}) for the case in which the integration constant $\beta$
is positive and $L(\phi)$ is given by eq.(\ref{R2}) for the case in which
$\beta<0$. Here, we  have noted that when $\beta V(\phi)\ll \alpha$,
the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ is proportional to the exponential potential i.e.,
$L(\phi)\propto V(\phi)\propto e^{\phi}$. Also, we have found that in
the limit $\vert\beta\vert V(\phi)\ll \alpha$, the coupling function $L(\phi)$
coincides with the expression for
 $L(\phi)$ in the case when the integration constant $\beta=0$. Also, we have obtained
 that in order to satisfy that
 the number of $e-$folds $N>0$,  we have imposed the condition $\alpha>\beta V$.

 To unify these results with the swampland criteria,
 we have  found  a lower bound for the ansatz $\epsilon(N)=\epsilon_0=$ constant
  given by eq.(\ref{qqq}), together with the fact that the second swampland conjecture
  $\epsilon_0>c^2/2\sim 1/2$, in order to satisfy both SC. In
  particular for the case in which $\Delta N=50$  and from the observational
  data in which $\alpha=10^{10}$, we have obtained a range for the integration
  constant $\beta$ when $\beta>0$ given by eq.(\ref{co1}) and for $\beta<0$ we
  have the range given by  eq.(\ref{co2}). Here from this unification, we have found that the range
  for the parameter $\beta$ is very narrow, in order to satisfy
  the observational data and swampland criteria.

Another ansatz on the slow roll parameter $\epsilon(N)$ that we have studied for large
$N$, is given by eq.(\ref{AS2}), in which the parameter $\epsilon(N)\propto 1/N$.
Interestingly in this situation, we have found that  the reconstruction for the effective potential $V(\phi)$
for $\beta>0$
coincides with the natural inflation. In this sense, we have found a pNGb
potential given by eq.(\ref{V22}) in the reconstruction of k-essence from  $\epsilon(N)\propto 1/N$
and the attractor point $n_S(N)-1=-2/N$. Here we have recognized the constants  $\beta^{-1/4}$
and $\sqrt{\alpha/(\beta \gamma)}$ as parameters associated to  mass scales from the particle physics
models. For the case in which the integration constant $\beta<0$, we have found
the effective potential given by
 eq.(\ref{V23}) and this effective potential corresponds to the hyperbolic inflation.
 Here the hyperbolic potential has  a behavior of an exponential or power law
 potential (quadratic potential) from the limits applied to the scalar field.
 Additionally, we have obtained that for the
specific case in which the integration constant $\beta=0$, the effective
potential corresponds to a chaotic potential  in which $V(\phi)\propto\phi^2$.
Also,  we have found that the reconstruction  for the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ in the case in which
 the integration constant $\beta>0$ is given by eq.(\ref{LL1})  and  for $\beta<0$  by
 eq.(\ref{LL2}). In particular for the case in which $1\gg\vert \beta\vert V$,
 the coupling parameter $L(\phi)$ coincides with the special case in which $\beta=0$,
 where $L(\phi)=$ constant.

As well, from the first  swampland conjecture we have obtain a lower limit for the parameter $\gamma$
given by eq.(\ref{ss}) and  by considering the second  conjecture we have found the
limit $\gamma>N\,c^2/2$. In  particular for the  situation in which $\Delta N=50$, we
have obtained numerically an upper bound for the constant $\beta$  given by $\beta<8.3\times
10^8$ from both criteria. On the other hand, considering the observational data
for the tensor to scalar ratio in which $r<0.07$, we have obtained a lower limit and then we have found
that the
range for
the integration constant $\beta$ given by $1.5\times 10^8<\beta<8.3\times 10^8$.
As before, we have found that the range for the parameter $\beta$ is very narrow
from the unification of the observational data and swampland criteria.

Thus, we have shown that it is possible to unify the theoretical foundations
from the SC
and the observational parameters corroborated by observations in
the reconstruction of the early universe (inflation epoch).

Finally in this article, we have not addressed the reconstruction to
another  attractor point $n_S(N)$ or slow roll parameter
$\epsilon(N)$. Also, we have not included the TCC in our analysis.
 We hope
to return to these points in the near future.

\begin{acknowledgments}
 This work was supported by
Proyecto VRIEA-PUCV N$_{0}$ 039.449/2020.
\end{acknowledgments}