The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).

(0) Obligation:

Runtime Complexity TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
min(x, 0) → 0
min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
twice(0) → 0
twice(s(x)) → s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) → f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) → f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) CpxTrsToCpxRelTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Transformed TRS to relative TRS where S is empty.

(2) Obligation:

Runtime Complexity Relative TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
min(x, 0) → 0
min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
twice(0) → 0
twice(s(x)) → s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) → f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) → f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(3) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
-(s(x), s(y)) →⁺ -(x, y)
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [].
The pumping substitution is [x / s(x), y / s(y)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)