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。

或者像这样简单，你只需要累积误差…

const p = [13.626332, 47.989636, 9.596008, 28.788024];
const round = (a, e = 0) => a.map(x => (r = Math.round(x + e), e += x - r, r));
console.log(round(p));

结果:[14,48,9,29]

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

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。

下面是@varun-vohra答案的一个简单的Python实现:

def apportion_pcts(pcts, total):
    proportions = [total * (pct / 100) for pct in pcts]
    apportions = [math.floor(p) for p in proportions]
    remainder = total - sum(apportions)
    remainders = [(i, p - math.floor(p)) for (i, p) in enumerate(proportions)]
    remainders.sort(key=operator.itemgetter(1), reverse=True)
    for (i, _) in itertools.cycle(remainders):
        if remainder == 0:
            break
        else:
            apportions[i] += 1
            remainder -= 1
    return apportions

你需要math, itertools, operator。

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 });
}