Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

(0) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a) → b
f(c) → d
f(g(x, y)) → g(f(x), f(y))
f(h(x, y)) → g(h(y, f(x)), h(x, f(y)))
g(x, x) → h(e, x)

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:

f₁ > b > e
f₁ > d > e
f₁ > [g₂, h₂] > e
a > b > e
c > d > e

With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

f(a) → b
f(c) → d
f(g(x, y)) → g(f(x), f(y))
f(h(x, y)) → g(h(y, f(x)), h(x, f(y)))

(2) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(x, x) → h(e, x)

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:

[g₂, e] > h₂

With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

g(x, x) → h(e, x)

(4) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
R is empty.
Q is empty.

(5) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.

(6) TRUE