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; }

不要把四舍五入的数字相加。你会得到不准确的结果。总数可能会显著偏离，这取决于术语的数量和小数部分的分布。

显示四舍五入的数字，但和实际值。根据你呈现数字的方式不同，实际的方法也会有所不同。这样你就能得到

14 48 10 29 __ 100

不管怎样，都会有差异。在你的例子中，没有办法显示加起来等于100的数字而不以错误的方式“舍入”一个值(最小的错误是将9.596更改为9)

EDIT

你需要在以下选项中做出选择:

项目的准确性 和的准确性(如果你是四舍五入的值) 四舍五入的项目与四舍五入的总和的一致性)

大多数情况下，当处理百分比时，第三种方法是最好的选择，因为当总数等于101%时比当单个项目的总数不等于100时更明显，并且您可以保持单个项目的准确性。“舍入”9.596到9在我看来是不准确的。

为了解释这一点，我有时会添加一个脚注，解释各个值是四舍五入的，可能不是100% -任何理解四舍五入的人都应该能够理解这个解释。

这是一个银行家四舍五入的例子，又名“四舍五入半偶数”。BigDecimal支持。它的目的是确保四舍五入平衡，即不偏袒银行或客户。

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

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。