如果你只有两个选项，你可以使用Math.round()。唯一有问题的值对是X.5(例如;37.5和62.5)它会四舍五入两个值，你最终会得到101%，你可以试试这里:

https://jsfiddle.net/f8np1t0k/2/

因为你需要始终显示100%，你只需从它们中删除一个百分比，例如在第一个

const correctedar= Number.isInteger(around -0.5) ?A - 1: A

或者你可以选择有更多%选票的选项。

1% diff的错误在1-100对值的划分的10k例中发生114次。

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 });
}

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]

因为这里没有一个答案似乎能正确解决这个问题，下面是我使用下划线的半模糊版本:

function foo(l, target) {
    var off = target - _.reduce(l, function(acc, x) { return acc + Math.round(x) }, 0);
    return _.chain(l).
            sortBy(function(x) { return Math.round(x) - x }).
            map(function(x, i) { return Math.round(x) + (off > i) - (i >= (l.length + off)) }).
            value();
}

foo([13.626332, 47.989636, 9.596008, 28.788024], 100) // => [48, 29, 14, 9]
foo([16.666, 16.666, 16.666, 16.666, 16.666, 16.666], 100) // => [17, 17, 17, 17, 16, 16]
foo([33.333, 33.333, 33.333], 100) // => [34, 33, 33]
foo([33.3, 33.3, 33.3, 0.1], 100) // => [34, 33, 33, 0]

如果你只有两个选项，你可以使用Math.round()。唯一有问题的值对是X.5(例如;37.5和62.5)它会四舍五入两个值，你最终会得到101%，你可以试试这里:

https://jsfiddle.net/f8np1t0k/2/

因为你需要始终显示100%，你只需从它们中删除一个百分比，例如在第一个

const correctedar= Number.isInteger(around -0.5) ?A - 1: A

或者你可以选择有更多%选票的选项。

1% diff的错误在1-100对值的划分的10k例中发生114次。