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:

g(0, f(x, x)) → x
g(x, s(y)) → g(f(x, y), 0)
g(s(x), y) → g(f(x, y), 0)
g(f(x, y), 0) → f(g(x, 0), g(y, 0))

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:

g(0, f(x, x)) → x
g(x, s(y)) → g(f(x, y), 0)
g(s(x), y) → g(f(x, y), 0)
g(f(x, y), 0) → f(g(x, 0), g(y, 0))

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

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)