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 });
}

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。

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; }

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。