我用Javascript写了一个函数，它接受一个百分比数组，并使用最大余数方法输出一个四舍五入的百分比数组。它不使用任何库。

输入:[21.6,46.7,31,0.5,0.2]

输出:[22,47,31,0,0]

const values = [21.6, 46.7, 31, 0.5, 0.2]; console.log(roundPercentages(values)); function roundPercentages(values) { const flooredValues = values.map(e => Math.floor(e)); const remainders = values.map(e => e - Math.floor(e)); const totalRemainder = 100 - flooredValues.reduce((a, b) => a + b); // Deep copy because order of remainders is important [...remainders] // Sort from highest to lowest remainder .sort((a, b) => b - a) // Get the n largest remainder values, where n = totalRemainder .slice(0, totalRemainder) // Add 1 to the floored percentages with the highest remainder (divide the total remainder) .forEach(e => flooredValues[remainders.indexOf(e)] += 1); return flooredValues; }

可能做到这一点的“最佳”方法(引用是因为“最佳”是一个主观术语)是保持你所处位置的连续(非积分)计数，并四舍五入该值。

然后将其与历史记录一起使用，以确定应该使用什么值。例如，使用您给出的值:

Value      CumulValue  CumulRounded  PrevBaseline  Need
---------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ----
                                  0
13.626332   13.626332            14             0    14 ( 14 -  0)
47.989636   61.615968            62            14    48 ( 62 - 14)
 9.596008   71.211976            71            62     9 ( 71 - 62)
28.788024  100.000000           100            71    29 (100 - 71)
                                                    ---
                                                    100

在每个阶段，都不需要四舍五入数字本身。相反，将累积值四舍五入，并计算出从上一个基线中达到该值的最佳整数——该基线是前一行的累积值(四舍五入)。

这是可行的，因为您不会在每个阶段都丢失信息，而是更聪明地使用信息。“正确的”四舍五入值在最后一列，你可以看到它们的和是100。

在上面的第三个值中，您可以看到这与盲目舍入每个值之间的区别。虽然9.596008通常会四舍五入到10，但累积的71.211976正确地四舍五入到71 -这意味着只需要9就可以加上之前的基线62。

这也适用于“有问题的”序列，比如三个大约1/3的值，其中一个应该四舍五入:

Value      CumulValue  CumulRounded  PrevBaseline  Need
---------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ----
                                  0
33.333333   33.333333            33             0    33 ( 33 -  0)
33.333333   66.666666            67            33    34 ( 67 - 33)
33.333333   99.999999           100            67    33 (100 - 67)
                                                    ---
                                                    100

如果你真的必须四舍五入，这里已经有了很好的建议(最大余数，最小相对误差，等等)。

也有一个很好的理由不四舍五入(你至少会得到一个“看起来更好”但“错误”的数字)，以及如何解决这个问题(警告你的读者)，这就是我所做的。

让我加上“错误”的数字部分。

假设你有三个事件/实体/…用一些百分比来近似:

DAY 1
who |  real | app
----|-------|------
  A | 33.34 |  34
  B | 33.33 |  33
  C | 33.33 |  33

稍后，值略有变化，为

DAY 2
who |  real | app
----|-------|------
  A | 33.35 |  33
  B | 33.36 |  34
  C | 33.29 |  33

第一个表有前面提到的“错误”数字的问题:33.34更接近33而不是34。

但现在误差更大了。与第2天和第1天相比，A的实际百分比值增加了0.01%，但近似值显示下降了1%。

这是一个定性错误，可能比最初的定量错误更严重。

你可以为整个集合设计一个近似值，但是，你可能必须在第一天发布数据，因此你不知道第二天的情况。所以，除非你真的，真的，必须近似，否则最好不要。

如果是四舍五入，就没有办法在所有情况下都得到完全相同的结果。

你可以取你拥有的N个百分比的小数部分(在你给出的例子中是4)。

把小数部分相加。在你的例子中，总分为3。

将分数最高的3个数字上排，其余的取底。

(抱歉修改了)

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