我的JS实现由Varun Vohra投票的答案

const set1 = [13.626332, 47.989636, 9.596008, 28.788024];
// const set2 = [24.25, 23.25, 27.25, 25.25];

const values = set1;

console.log('Total: ', values.reduce((accum, each) => accum + each));
console.log('Incorrectly Rounded: ', 
  values.reduce((accum, each) => accum + Math.round(each), 0));

const adjustValues = (values) => {
  // 1. Separate integer and decimal part
  // 2. Store both in a new array of objects sorted by decimal part descending
  // 3. Add in original position to "put back" at the end
  const flooredAndSortedByDecimal = values.map((value, position) => (
    {
        floored: Math.floor(value),
        decimal: value - Number.parseInt(value),
        position
    }
  )).sort(({decimal}, {decimal: otherDecimal}) => otherDecimal - decimal);

  const roundedTotal = values.reduce((total, value) => total + Math.floor(value), 0);
  let availableForDistribution = 100 - roundedTotal;

  // Add 1 to each value from what's available
  const adjustedValues = flooredAndSortedByDecimal.map(value => {
    const { floored, ...rest } = value;
    let finalPercentage = floored;
    if(availableForDistribution > 0){
        finalPercentage = floored + 1;
        availableForDistribution--;
    }

    return {
        finalPercentage,
        ...rest
    }
  });

  // Put back and return the new values
  return adjustedValues
    .sort(({position}, {position: otherPosition}) => position - otherPosition)
    .map(({finalPercentage}) => finalPercentage);
}

const finalPercentages = adjustValues(values);
console.log({finalPercentages})

// { finalPercentage: [14, 48, 9, 29]}

我曾经写过一个un舍入工具，来找到一组数字的最小扰动来匹配一个目标。这是一个不同的问题，但理论上可以在这里使用类似的想法。在这种情况下，我们有一系列的选择。

因此，对于第一个元素，我们可以四舍五入到14，也可以四舍五入到13。这样做的代价(在二进制整数编程的意义上)对于向上舍入比向下舍入要小，因为向下舍入需要我们将该值移动更大的距离。同样，我们可以把每个数字四舍五入，所以我们总共有16个选择。

  13.626332
  47.989636
   9.596008
+ 28.788024
-----------
 100.000000

我通常会在MATLAB中使用bintprog(一种二进制整数编程工具)解决一般问题，但这里只有几个选项需要测试，所以用简单的循环就可以很容易地测试出16个选项中的每一个。例如，假设我们将这个集合四舍五入为:

 Original      Rounded   Absolute error
   13.626           13          0.62633
    47.99           48          0.01036
    9.596           10          0.40399
 + 28.788           29          0.21198
---------------------------------------
  100.000          100          1.25266

总绝对误差为1.25266。它可以通过以下替代舍入来略微减少:

 Original      Rounded   Absolute error
   13.626           14          0.37367
    47.99           48          0.01036
    9.596            9          0.59601
 + 28.788           29          0.21198
---------------------------------------
  100.000          100          1.19202

事实上，这就是绝对误差的最优解。当然，如果有20项，搜索空间的大小将是2^20 = 1048576。对于30或40个术语，这个空间将是相当大的。在这种情况下，您将需要使用能够有效搜索空间的工具，可能使用分支和绑定方案。

您可以尝试跟踪由于舍入而产生的误差，如果累计误差大于当前数字的小数部分，则再反向舍入。

13.62 -> 14 (+.38)
47.98 -> 48 (+.02 (+.40 total))
 9.59 -> 10 (+.41 (+.81 total))
28.78 -> 28 (round down because .81 > .78)
------------
        100

不确定这是否适用于一般情况，但如果顺序相反，似乎也会有类似的效果:

28.78 -> 29 (+.22)
 9.59 ->  9 (-.37; rounded down because .59 > .22)
47.98 -> 48 (-.35)
13.62 -> 14 (+.03)
------------
        100

我相信在某些情况下，这种方法可能会失效，但任何方法都至少在某种程度上是任意的，因为您基本上是在修改输入数据。

我写了一个c#版本的舍入帮助器，算法和Varun Vohra的答案一样，希望对你有帮助。

public static List<decimal> GetPerfectRounding(List<decimal> original,
    decimal forceSum, int decimals)
{
    var rounded = original.Select(x => Math.Round(x, decimals)).ToList();
    Debug.Assert(Math.Round(forceSum, decimals) == forceSum);
    var delta = forceSum - rounded.Sum();
    if (delta == 0) return rounded;
    var deltaUnit = Convert.ToDecimal(Math.Pow(0.1, decimals)) * Math.Sign(delta);

    List<int> applyDeltaSequence; 
    if (delta < 0)
    {
        applyDeltaSequence = original
            .Zip(Enumerable.Range(0, int.MaxValue), (x, index) => new { x, index })
            .OrderBy(a => original[a.index] - rounded[a.index])
            .ThenByDescending(a => a.index)
            .Select(a => a.index).ToList();
    }
    else
    {
        applyDeltaSequence = original
            .Zip(Enumerable.Range(0, int.MaxValue), (x, index) => new { x, index })
            .OrderByDescending(a => original[a.index] - rounded[a.index])
            .Select(a => a.index).ToList();
    }

    Enumerable.Repeat(applyDeltaSequence, int.MaxValue)
        .SelectMany(x => x)
        .Take(Convert.ToInt32(delta/deltaUnit))
        .ForEach(index => rounded[index] += deltaUnit);

    return rounded;
}

通过以下单元测试:

[TestMethod]
public void TestPerfectRounding()
{
    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> {3.333m, 3.334m, 3.333m}, 10, 2),
        new List<decimal> {3.33m, 3.34m, 3.33m});

    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> {3.33m, 3.34m, 3.33m}, 10, 1),
        new List<decimal> {3.3m, 3.4m, 3.3m});

    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> {3.333m, 3.334m, 3.333m}, 10, 1),
        new List<decimal> {3.3m, 3.4m, 3.3m});


    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> { 13.626332m, 47.989636m, 9.596008m, 28.788024m }, 100, 0),
        new List<decimal> {14, 48, 9, 29});
    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> { 16.666m, 16.666m, 16.666m, 16.666m, 16.666m, 16.666m }, 100, 0),
        new List<decimal> { 17, 17, 17, 17, 16, 16 });
    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> { 33.333m, 33.333m, 33.333m }, 100, 0),
        new List<decimal> { 34, 33, 33 });
    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Utils.GetPerfectRounding(
        new List<decimal> { 33.3m, 33.3m, 33.3m, 0.1m }, 100, 0),
        new List<decimal> { 34, 33, 33, 0 });
}

我认为以下几点可以达到你的目的

function func( orig, target ) {

    var i = orig.length, j = 0, total = 0, change, newVals = [], next, factor1, factor2, len = orig.length, marginOfErrors = [];

    // map original values to new array
    while( i-- ) {
        total += newVals[i] = Math.round( orig[i] );
    }

    change = total < target ? 1 : -1;

    while( total !== target ) {

        // Iterate through values and select the one that once changed will introduce
        // the least margin of error in terms of itself. e.g. Incrementing 10 by 1
        // would mean an error of 10% in relation to the value itself.
        for( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) {

            next = i === len - 1 ? 0 : i + 1;

            factor2 = errorFactor( orig[next], newVals[next] + change );
            factor1 = errorFactor( orig[i], newVals[i] + change );

            if(  factor1 > factor2 ) {
                j = next; 
            }
        }

        newVals[j] += change;
        total += change;
    }


    for( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) { marginOfErrors[i] = newVals[i] && Math.abs( orig[i] - newVals[i] ) / orig[i]; }

    // Math.round() causes some problems as it is difficult to know at the beginning
    // whether numbers should have been rounded up or down to reduce total margin of error. 
    // This section of code increments and decrements values by 1 to find the number
    // combination with least margin of error.
    for( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) {
        for( j = 0; j < len; j++ ) {
            if( j === i ) continue;

            var roundUpFactor = errorFactor( orig[i], newVals[i] + 1)  + errorFactor( orig[j], newVals[j] - 1 );
            var roundDownFactor = errorFactor( orig[i], newVals[i] - 1) + errorFactor( orig[j], newVals[j] + 1 );
            var sumMargin = marginOfErrors[i] + marginOfErrors[j];

            if( roundUpFactor < sumMargin) { 
                newVals[i] = newVals[i] + 1;
                newVals[j] = newVals[j] - 1;
                marginOfErrors[i] = newVals[i] && Math.abs( orig[i] - newVals[i] ) / orig[i];
                marginOfErrors[j] = newVals[j] && Math.abs( orig[j] - newVals[j] ) / orig[j];
            }

            if( roundDownFactor < sumMargin ) { 
                newVals[i] = newVals[i] - 1;
                newVals[j] = newVals[j] + 1;
                marginOfErrors[i] = newVals[i] && Math.abs( orig[i] - newVals[i] ) / orig[i];
                marginOfErrors[j] = newVals[j] && Math.abs( orig[j] - newVals[j] ) / orig[j];
            }

        }
    }

    function errorFactor( oldNum, newNum ) {
        return Math.abs( oldNum - newNum ) / oldNum;
    }

    return newVals;
}


func([16.666, 16.666, 16.666, 16.666, 16.666, 16.666], 100); // => [16, 16, 17, 17, 17, 17]
func([33.333, 33.333, 33.333], 100); // => [34, 33, 33]
func([33.3, 33.3, 33.3, 0.1], 100); // => [34, 33, 33, 0] 
func([13.25, 47.25, 11.25, 28.25], 100 ); // => [13, 48, 11, 28]
func( [25.5, 25.5, 25.5, 23.5], 100 ); // => [25, 25, 26, 24]

最后一件事，我使用问题中最初给出的数字运行函数，与期望的输出进行比较

func([13.626332, 47.989636, 9.596008, 28.788024], 100); // => [48, 29, 13, 10]

这与问题想要的不同=>[48,29,14,9]。我无法理解这一点，直到我看了总误差范围

-------------------------------------------------
| original  | question | % diff | mine | % diff |
-------------------------------------------------
| 13.626332 | 14       | 2.74%  | 13   | 4.5%   |
| 47.989636 | 48       | 0.02%  | 48   | 0.02%  |
| 9.596008  | 9        | 6.2%   | 10   | 4.2%   |
| 28.788024 | 29       | 0.7%   | 29   | 0.7%   |
-------------------------------------------------
| Totals    | 100      | 9.66%  | 100  | 9.43%  |
-------------------------------------------------

从本质上讲，我的函数的结果实际上引入了最少的误差。

小提琴在这里

我已经实现了Varun Vohra的答案在这里的列表和字典的方法。

import math
import numbers
import operator
import itertools


def round_list_percentages(number_list):
    """
    Takes a list where all values are numbers that add up to 100,
    and rounds them off to integers while still retaining a sum of 100.

    A total value sum that rounds to 100.00 with two decimals is acceptable.
    This ensures that all input where the values are calculated with [fraction]/[total]
    and the sum of all fractions equal the total, should pass.
    """
    # Check input
    if not all(isinstance(i, numbers.Number) for i in number_list):
        raise ValueError('All values of the list must be a number')

    # Generate a key for each value
    key_generator = itertools.count()
    value_dict = {next(key_generator): value for value in number_list}
    return round_dictionary_percentages(value_dict).values()


def round_dictionary_percentages(dictionary):
    """
    Takes a dictionary where all values are numbers that add up to 100,
    and rounds them off to integers while still retaining a sum of 100.

    A total value sum that rounds to 100.00 with two decimals is acceptable.
    This ensures that all input where the values are calculated with [fraction]/[total]
    and the sum of all fractions equal the total, should pass.
    """
    # Check input
    # Only allow numbers
    if not all(isinstance(i, numbers.Number) for i in dictionary.values()):
        raise ValueError('All values of the dictionary must be a number')
    # Make sure the sum is close enough to 100
    # Round value_sum to 2 decimals to avoid floating point representation errors
    value_sum = round(sum(dictionary.values()), 2)
    if not value_sum == 100:
        raise ValueError('The sum of the values must be 100')

    # Initial floored results
    # Does not add up to 100, so we need to add something
    result = {key: int(math.floor(value)) for key, value in dictionary.items()}

    # Remainders for each key
    result_remainders = {key: value % 1 for key, value in dictionary.items()}
    # Keys sorted by remainder (biggest first)
    sorted_keys = [key for key, value in sorted(result_remainders.items(), key=operator.itemgetter(1), reverse=True)]

    # Otherwise add missing values up to 100
    # One cycle is enough, since flooring removes a max value of < 1 per item,
    # i.e. this loop should always break before going through the whole list
    for key in sorted_keys:
        if sum(result.values()) == 100:
            break
        result[key] += 1

    # Return
    return result