Object placement is critical in image composition, requiring spatially and semantically coherent positioning of objects within diverse scenes. Existing approaches typically rely on hand-crafted rules or supervised learning on limited datasets, which restricts their generalization and interpretability, especially in open-world scenarios involving novel objects and scenes. In this work, we reformulate open-world object placement as a heuristic search task guided by reasoning from a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM). We introduce presto, a zero-shot, training-free framework that operates within an imaginary action space to iteratively refine object position and scale. Our coarse-to-fine search strategy ensures fast convergence, and we evaluate two decision-making variants: Metric-guided Selection and MLLM-as-a-judge. Experiments across multiple benchmarks show that presto~achieves state-of-the-art performance, particularly in previously unseen, open-world settings. Human studies further reveal that the MLLM-as-a-judge variant produces more perceptually coherent placements than metric-driven approaches, highlighting a gap between standard evaluation metrics and human visual judgment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of qualitative comparison of the proposed method and the baselines on OPA dataset. Foreground is outlined in red
Method
Accuracy ↑
Zero-shot Prompting
GPT-4o
71.0
DeepSeek-VL2
63.0
o4-mini
65.0
Chain-of-Thought Prompting
GPT-4o+Zero-shot CoT
78.0
Table 1: Comparison of different MLLM reasoning techniques on 100 foreground-background pairs randomly selected from the OPA dataset.
Method
OPA
OPAZ
LPIPS ↑
Hum ↑
Acc ↑
FID ↓
Hum ↑
Acc ↑
FID ↓
TERSE [ 39 ]
3.86
0.679
46.94
3.11
0.340
81.1
0
PlaceNet [ 53 ]
3.43
0.683
36.69
3.90
0.367
63.6
0.160
GracoNet [ 58 ]
4.54
0.847
27.75
3.66
0.431
59.1
0.206
CA-GAN [ 43 ]
3.79
0.792
23.21
3.74
0.347
49.0
0.268
CSANet [ 44 ]
4.10
0.863
20.88
4.24
0.426
45.1
0.274
Table 2: Comparison results on OPA and OPAZ datasets. Presto -Metric: Presto -with Metric-guided Selection. Presto -MLLM: Presto with MLLM-as-a-judge. Hum: Average rationality ratings (out of 10) of the placements by survey participants.
Figure 2: Example placements by Presto and the state-of-the-art methods. The foreground objects are outlined in red.
Figure 3: Comparison between OPA scores and human ratings. Selections made by the MLLM are outlined in green.
Metric
w/o MLLM
optimization only
initialization only
Presto -Metric
Credibility
acc. ↑
0.79
0.93
0.90
0.99
FID ↓
89.1
83.7
82.9
80.5
Diversity
LPIPS ↑
0.136
0.043
0.154
0.167
Table 3: Ablation study on the role of MLLM.
Metric
k
r(0)
α
1
4
8
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.7
1.0
Credibility
acc. ↑
0.94
0.99
0.93
0.51
0.99
0.78
0.95
0.99
0.92
FID ↓
86.8
80.5
89.2
82.0
80.5
74.5
80.3
80.5
81.1
Diversity
LPIPS ↑
0.138
0.167
0.194
0.105
0.167
0.152
0.151
0.167
0.181
Table 4: Ablation study on choices of initial candidates number k , initial scaling factor r(0) , and decay factor α .
Metric
Dataset
Qwen-VL2.5
DeepSeek-VL2
Qwen-VL2.5 + Presto -Metric
DeepSeek-VL2 + Presto -Metric
Accuracy ↑
OPA
0.34
0.63
0.85
0.91
OPAZ
0.32
0.38
0.61
0.71
Table 5: Ablation study on the generalizability across MLLMs.
Humanoid Robots Lab, University of Bonn, Germany. · Center for Robotics, University of Bonn, Germany. · Lamarr Institute for ML and AI, Bonn, Germany. +1