我不确定你需要什么程度的精度，但我要做的就是简单地把前n个数字加1,n是小数总和的上界。在这种情况下，它是3，所以我将给前3项加1，然后将其余的取整。当然，这并不是非常准确，有些数字可能会四舍五入或在不应该的时候，但它工作得很好，总是会得到100%。

因此[13.626332,47.989636,9.596008,28.788024]将是[14,48,10,28]，因为Math.ceil(.626332+.989636+.596008+.788024) == 3

function evenRound( arr ) {
  var decimal = -~arr.map(function( a ){ return a % 1 })
    .reduce(function( a,b ){ return a + b }); // Ceil of total sum of decimals
  for ( var i = 0; i < decimal; ++i ) {
    arr[ i ] = ++arr[ i ]; // compensate error by adding 1 the the first n items
  }
  return arr.map(function( a ){ return ~~a }); // floor all other numbers
}

var nums = evenRound( [ 13.626332, 47.989636, 9.596008, 28.788024 ] );
var total = nums.reduce(function( a,b ){ return a + b }); //=> 100

你总是可以告诉用户这些数字是四舍五入的，可能不是非常准确……

我不确定你需要什么程度的精度，但我要做的就是简单地把前n个数字加1,n是小数总和的上界。在这种情况下，它是3，所以我将给前3项加1，然后将其余的取整。当然，这并不是非常准确，有些数字可能会四舍五入或在不应该的时候，但它工作得很好，总是会得到100%。

因此[13.626332,47.989636,9.596008,28.788024]将是[14,48,10,28]，因为Math.ceil(.626332+.989636+.596008+.788024) == 3

function evenRound( arr ) {
  var decimal = -~arr.map(function( a ){ return a % 1 })
    .reduce(function( a,b ){ return a + b }); // Ceil of total sum of decimals
  for ( var i = 0; i < decimal; ++i ) {
    arr[ i ] = ++arr[ i ]; // compensate error by adding 1 the the first n items
  }
  return arr.map(function( a ){ return ~~a }); // floor all other numbers
}

var nums = evenRound( [ 13.626332, 47.989636, 9.596008, 28.788024 ] );
var total = nums.reduce(function( a,b ){ return a + b }); //=> 100

你总是可以告诉用户这些数字是四舍五入的，可能不是非常准确……

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]}

下面是一个实现了最大余数方法的Ruby宝石: https://github.com/jethroo/lare_round

使用方法:

a =  Array.new(3){ BigDecimal('0.3334') }
# => [#<BigDecimal:887b6c8,'0.3334E0',9(18)>, #<BigDecimal:887b600,'0.3334E0',9(18)>, #<BigDecimal:887b4c0,'0.3334E0',9(18)>]
a = LareRound.round(a,2)
# => [#<BigDecimal:8867330,'0.34E0',9(36)>, #<BigDecimal:8867290,'0.33E0',9(36)>, #<BigDecimal:88671f0,'0.33E0',9(36)>]
a.reduce(:+).to_f
# => 1.0

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