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(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, XS))) → mark(XS)
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, XS))) → mark(XS)
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
cons(mark(X1), X2) →⁺ mark(cons(X1, X2))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [X1 / mark(X1)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)