This is a question I've discussed with a lot of mathematicians, and have read some mathematical texts about, and watched some conference talks about: what is, **axiomatically**, a quantum group?


There are many classes of noncommutative algebras that everybody agrees is a quantum group (or quantum algebra): quantizations of certain coordinate rings, quantizations of enveloping algebras, quantizations of semisimple algebraic groups, multiparameter quantizations of the Weyl algebra, etc; but what is the state of the art of attempts to **give an axiomatic definition** for this class of algebras?


A related MO question is [What is quantum algebra?](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/290522/what-is-quantum-algebra). A nice and leisure discussion, albeit not axiomatic, is Shahn Majid's *'What Is... a Quantum Group'* ([here](http://www.ams.org/notices/200601/what-is.pdf)).



Axiomatic definition of quantum groups
I would say that if you are looking for a concrete definition then it's better to adopt the [Tannakian point of view](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Tannaka+duality) and to focus on the category of representations of the quantum group rather than on the algebra itself. So take as your fundamental object a tensor category (a special type of rigid abelian monoidal category - see [here](http://www-math.mit.edu/%7Eetingof/egnobookfinal.pdf) for details). A "quantum group" is then some way of realising the category as a category of representations or corepresentations. There can be different algebras which do this job, and they can come in different flavours, such as Hopf algebras or compact quantum groups in the sense of Woronowicz. This allows one to view the various quantum groups floating around as tools to study the category itself, removing the need for any axiomatic definition.


If the object is really deserving of the name quantum group, then the tensor category should be braided, as is the case for quasi-triangular Hopf algebras and their category of modules. (see the comment of Sam Hopkins above.)


