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:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
*(h, x) → h
*(x, h) → h
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(+(*(x, y), x), y))

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Precedence:

h > a₄ > s₁
h > 1 > s₁
*₂ > +₂ > s₁

Status:

a₄: [1,2,3,4]
h: multiset
s₁: [1]
+₂: [1,2]
1: multiset
*₂: [1,2]

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

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
*(h, x) → h
*(x, h) → h
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(+(*(x, y), x), y))

(2) Obligation:

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

(3) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(4) TRUE