  The majority of multi-agent system (MAS) implementations aim to optimise
agents' policies with respect to a single objective, despite the fact that many
real-world problem domains are inherently multi-objective in nature.
Multi-objective multi-agent systems (MOMAS) explicitly consider the possible
trade-offs between conflicting objective functions. We argue that, in MOMAS,
such compromises should be analysed on the basis of the utility that these
compromises have for the users of a system. As is standard in multi-objective
optimisation, we model the user utility using utility functions that map value
or return vectors to scalar values. This approach naturally leads to two
different optimisation criteria: expected scalarised returns (ESR) and
scalarised expected returns (SER). We develop a new taxonomy which classifies
multi-objective multi-agent decision making settings, on the basis of the
reward structures, and which and how utility functions are applied. This allows
us to offer a structured view of the field, to clearly delineate the current
state-of-the-art in multi-objective multi-agent decision making approaches and
to identify promising directions for future research. Starting from the
execution phase, in which the selected policies are applied and the utility for
the users is attained, we analyse which solution concepts apply to the
different settings in our taxonomy. Furthermore, we define and discuss these
solution concepts under both ESR and SER optimisation criteria. We conclude
with a summary of our main findings and a discussion of many promising future
research directions in multi-objective multi-agent systems.
