The Runtime Complexity (innermost) 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:

revApp#2(Nil, x16) → x16
revApp#2(Cons(x6, x4), x2) → revApp#2(x4, Cons(x6, x2))
dfsAcc#3(Leaf(x8), x16) → Cons(x8, x16)
dfsAcc#3(Node(x6, x4), x2) → dfsAcc#3(x4, dfsAcc#3(x6, x2))
main(x1) → revApp#2(dfsAcc#3(x1, Nil), Nil)

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(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:

revApp#2(Nil, x16) → x16
revApp#2(Cons(x6, x4), x2) → revApp#2(x4, Cons(x6, x2))
dfsAcc#3(Leaf(x8), x16) → Cons(x8, x16)
dfsAcc#3(Node(x6, x4), x2) → dfsAcc#3(x4, dfsAcc#3(x6, x2))
main(x1) → revApp#2(dfsAcc#3(x1, Nil), Nil)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

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

Sliced the following arguments:
Cons/0
Leaf/0

(4) Obligation:

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

revApp#2(Nil, x16) → x16
revApp#2(Cons(x4), x2) → revApp#2(x4, Cons(x2))
dfsAcc#3(Leaf, x16) → Cons(x16)
dfsAcc#3(Node(x6, x4), x2) → dfsAcc#3(x4, dfsAcc#3(x6, x2))
main(x1) → revApp#2(dfsAcc#3(x1, Nil), Nil)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(5) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
revApp#2(Cons(x4), x2) →⁺ revApp#2(x4, Cons(x2))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [].
The pumping substitution is [x4 / Cons(x4)].
The result substitution is [x2 / Cons(x2)].

(6) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)