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(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(X)) → mark(X)
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(X)) → mark(X)
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(X)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Sliced the following arguments:
cons/1

(4) Obligation:

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

a__f(0) → cons(0)
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(X)) → mark(X)
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1)) → cons(mark(X1))
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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)