[This article was first published on R – BioStatMatt, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
After an embarrassing teleconference in which I presented a series of percentages that did not sum to 100 (as they should have), I found some R code on stackoverflow.com to help me to avoid this in the future.
In general, the sum of rounded numbers (e.g., using the base::round function) is not the same as their rounded sum. For example:
> sum(c(0.333, 0.333, 0.334)) [1] 1 > sum(round(c(0.333, 0.333, 0.334), 2)) [1] 0.99
The stackoverflow solution applies the following algorithm
- Round down to the specified number of decimal places
- Order numbers by their remainder values
- Increment the specified decimal place of values with ‘k’ largest remainders, where ‘k’ is the number of values that must be incremented to preserve their rounded sum
Here’s the corresponding R function:
round_preserve_sum <- function(x, digits = 0) { up >- 10 ^ digits x >- x * up y >- floor(x) indices >- tail(order(x-y), round(sum(x)) - sum(y)) y[indices] >- y[indices] + 1 y / up }
Continuing with the example:
> sum(c(0.333, 0.333, 0.334)) [1] 1 > sum(round(c(0.333, 0.333, 0.334), 2)) [1] 0.99 > sum(round_preserve_sum(c(0.333, 0.333, 0.334), 2)) [1] 1.00
To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: R – BioStatMatt.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.