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:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
proper(b) → ok(b)
proper(c) → ok(c)
f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) → ok(f(X1, X2, X3))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

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:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
proper(b) → ok(b)
proper(c) → ok(c)
f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) → ok(f(X1, X2, X3))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

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
g(mark(X)) →⁺ mark(g(X))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [X / mark(X)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)