* Step 1: Sum WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            a__b() -> a()
            a__b() -> b()
            a__f(X1,X2,X3) -> f(X1,X2,X3)
            a__f(a(),X,X) -> a__f(X,a__b(),b())
            mark(a()) -> a()
            mark(b()) -> a__b()
            mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) -> a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)
        - Signature:
            {a__b/0,a__f/3,mark/1} / {a/0,b/0,f/3}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {a__b,a__f,mark} and constructors {a,b,f}
    + Applied Processor:
        Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy}
    + Details:
        ()
** Step 1.a:1: DecreasingLoops WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?)
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            a__b() -> a()
            a__b() -> b()
            a__f(X1,X2,X3) -> f(X1,X2,X3)
            a__f(a(),X,X) -> a__f(X,a__b(),b())
            mark(a()) -> a()
            mark(b()) -> a__b()
            mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) -> a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)
        - Signature:
            {a__b/0,a__f/3,mark/1} / {a/0,b/0,f/3}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {a__b,a__f,mark} and constructors {a,b,f}
    + Applied Processor:
        DecreasingLoops {bound = AnyLoop, narrow = 10}
    + Details:
        The system has following decreasing Loops:
          mark(y){y -> f(x,y,z)} =
            mark(f(x,y,z)) ->^+ a__f(x,mark(y),z)
              = C[mark(y) = mark(y){}]

** Step 1.b:1: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            a__b() -> a()
            a__b() -> b()
            a__f(X1,X2,X3) -> f(X1,X2,X3)
            a__f(a(),X,X) -> a__f(X,a__b(),b())
            mark(a()) -> a()
            mark(b()) -> a__b()
            mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) -> a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)
        - Signature:
            {a__b/0,a__f/3,mark/1} / {a/0,b/0,f/3}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {a__b,a__f,mark} and constructors {a,b,f}
    + Applied Processor:
        WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
    + Details:
        The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation:
          We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation:
          The following argument positions are considered usable:
            uargs(a__f) = {2}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
               p(a) = [4]                   
            p(a__b) = [0]                   
            p(a__f) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] 
               p(b) = [10]                  
               p(f) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [12]
            p(mark) = [2] x1 + [0]          
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
              a__f(a(),X,X) = [1] X + [4]           
                            > [1] X + [0]           
                            = a__f(X,a__b(),b())    
          
                  mark(a()) = [8]                   
                            > [4]                   
                            = a()                   
          
                  mark(b()) = [20]                  
                            > [0]                   
                            = a__b()                
          
          mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) = [2] X1 + [2] X2 + [24]
                            > [1] X1 + [2] X2 + [0] 
                            = a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)  
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
                  a__b() =  [0]                   
                         >= [4]                   
                         =  a()                   
          
                  a__b() =  [0]                   
                         >= [10]                  
                         =  b()                   
          
          a__f(X1,X2,X3) =  [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0] 
                         >= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [12]
                         =  f(X1,X2,X3)           
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
** Step 1.b:2: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            a__b() -> a()
            a__b() -> b()
            a__f(X1,X2,X3) -> f(X1,X2,X3)
        - Weak TRS:
            a__f(a(),X,X) -> a__f(X,a__b(),b())
            mark(a()) -> a()
            mark(b()) -> a__b()
            mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) -> a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)
        - Signature:
            {a__b/0,a__f/3,mark/1} / {a/0,b/0,f/3}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {a__b,a__f,mark} and constructors {a,b,f}
    + Applied Processor:
        WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
    + Details:
        The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation:
          We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation:
          The following argument positions are considered usable:
            uargs(a__f) = {2}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
               p(a) = [1]                           
            p(a__b) = [1]                           
            p(a__f) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [3]
               p(b) = [0]                           
               p(f) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [2]
            p(mark) = [9] x1 + [1]                  
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
                  a__b() = [1]                           
                         > [0]                           
                         = b()                           
          
          a__f(X1,X2,X3) = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1] X3 + [3]
                         > [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1] X3 + [2]
                         = f(X1,X2,X3)                   
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
                     a__b() =  [1]                            
                            >= [1]                            
                            =  a()                            
          
              a__f(a(),X,X) =  [2] X + [4]                    
                            >= [1] X + [4]                    
                            =  a__f(X,a__b(),b())             
          
                  mark(a()) =  [10]                           
                            >= [1]                            
                            =  a()                            
          
                  mark(b()) =  [1]                            
                            >= [1]                            
                            =  a__b()                         
          
          mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) =  [9] X1 + [9] X2 + [9] X3 + [19]
                            >= [1] X1 + [9] X2 + [1] X3 + [4] 
                            =  a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)           
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
** Step 1.b:3: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            a__b() -> a()
        - Weak TRS:
            a__b() -> b()
            a__f(X1,X2,X3) -> f(X1,X2,X3)
            a__f(a(),X,X) -> a__f(X,a__b(),b())
            mark(a()) -> a()
            mark(b()) -> a__b()
            mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) -> a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)
        - Signature:
            {a__b/0,a__f/3,mark/1} / {a/0,b/0,f/3}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {a__b,a__f,mark} and constructors {a,b,f}
    + Applied Processor:
        WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
    + Details:
        The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation:
          We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation:
          The following argument positions are considered usable:
            uargs(a__f) = {2}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
               p(a) = [4]                            
            p(a__b) = [8]                            
            p(a__f) = [4] x1 + [1] x2 + [3] x3 + [15]
               p(b) = [1]                            
               p(f) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [5] 
            p(mark) = [4] x1 + [4]                   
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
          a__b() = [8]
                 > [4]
                 = a()
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
                     a__b() =  [8]                            
                            >= [1]                            
                            =  b()                            
          
             a__f(X1,X2,X3) =  [4] X1 + [1] X2 + [3] X3 + [15]
                            >= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1] X3 + [5] 
                            =  f(X1,X2,X3)                    
          
              a__f(a(),X,X) =  [4] X + [31]                   
                            >= [4] X + [26]                   
                            =  a__f(X,a__b(),b())             
          
                  mark(a()) =  [20]                           
                            >= [4]                            
                            =  a()                            
          
                  mark(b()) =  [8]                            
                            >= [8]                            
                            =  a__b()                         
          
          mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) =  [4] X1 + [4] X2 + [4] X3 + [24]
                            >= [4] X1 + [4] X2 + [3] X3 + [19]
                            =  a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)           
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
** Step 1.b:4: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak TRS:
            a__b() -> a()
            a__b() -> b()
            a__f(X1,X2,X3) -> f(X1,X2,X3)
            a__f(a(),X,X) -> a__f(X,a__b(),b())
            mark(a()) -> a()
            mark(b()) -> a__b()
            mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) -> a__f(X1,mark(X2),X3)
        - Signature:
            {a__b/0,a__f/3,mark/1} / {a/0,b/0,f/3}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {a__b,a__f,mark} and constructors {a,b,f}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))