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:

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(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:

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(X)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(3) SlicingProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Sliced the following arguments:
a__c/0
g/0
d/0
c/0

(4) Obligation:

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

a__f(f(X)) → a__c
a__c → d
a__h(X) → a__c
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c) → a__c
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g) → g
mark(d) → d
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c → c
a__h(X) → h(X)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(5) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
mark(f(X)) →⁺ a__f(mark(X))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [X / f(X)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(6) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)