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__and(tt, X) → mark(X)
a__plus(N, 0) → mark(N)
a__plus(N, s(M)) → s(a__plus(mark(N), mark(M)))
mark(and(X1, X2)) → a__and(mark(X1), X2)
mark(plus(X1, X2)) → a__plus(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(tt) → tt
mark(0) → 0
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__and(X1, X2) → and(X1, X2)
a__plus(X1, X2) → plus(X1, X2)

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__and(tt, X) → mark(X)
a__plus(N, 0) → mark(N)
a__plus(N, s(M)) → s(a__plus(mark(N), mark(M)))
mark(and(X1, X2)) → a__and(mark(X1), X2)
mark(plus(X1, X2)) → a__plus(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(tt) → tt
mark(0) → 0
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__and(X1, X2) → and(X1, X2)
a__plus(X1, X2) → plus(X1, X2)

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
a__and(tt, and(tt, X26_3)) →⁺ a__and(tt, X26_3)
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [].
The pumping substitution is [X26_3 / and(tt, X26_3)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)