
                # Interation 0

                ## Task Info
                You are investigating a biological system where all species are observable. Your goal is to discover the missing reactions. You do not need to add new species.


                ## Incomplete SBML Model. You can assess it as input_sbml_string.

                <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sbml xmlns="http://www.sbml.org/sbml/level3/version1/core" xmlns:layout="http://www.sbml.org/sbml/level3/version1/layout/version1" xmlns:render="http://www.sbml.org/sbml/level3/version1/render/version1" level="3" version="1" layout:required="false" render:required="false">
  <model id="id_0uut" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" timeUnits="id_8c13" volumeUnits="id_ca0t" areaUnits="id_u5eo" lengthUnits="id_wr4z" extentUnits="id_k0ja">
    <listOfUnitDefinitions>
      <unitDefinition id="id_wr4z">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="metre" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_u5eo">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="metre" exponent="2" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_ca0t">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_8c13">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="60"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_k0ja">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" exponent="1" scale="-9" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_hmee">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" exponent="-2" scale="-9" multiplier="1"/>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="2" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="-1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_7v8s">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="-1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_57jc">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" exponent="-1" scale="-9" multiplier="1"/>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="-1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_b0k1">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" exponent="1" scale="-9" multiplier="1"/>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="-1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
    </listOfUnitDefinitions>
    <listOfCompartments>
      <compartment id="id_838q" spatialDimensions="3" size="1" units="id_ca0t" constant="true"/>
    </listOfCompartments>
    <listOfSpecies>
      <species id="id_im7c" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="0" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_pv68" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="25" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_n9e9" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="50" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_6za2" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="1" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_k1hy" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="0" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_4r19" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="4" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_5via" compartment="id_838q" initialConcentration="0" substanceUnits="id_k0ja" hasOnlySubstanceUnits="false" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
    </listOfSpecies>
  </model>
</sbml>


                ## Max iterations
                20

                Format your response according to the instructions in the system message.
                
## Thoughts
The goal is to discover the missing reactions in the biological system. I have an initial SBML model with species but no reactions. The best first step is to observe the system's behavior under default conditions. This will show how the concentrations of the species change over time, indicating which species are reactants and which are products in the underlying reactions.

After observing the initial dynamics, I can analyze the time-series data to formulate hypotheses about the reactions occurring.

## Action

### Experiment
```json
{
    "action": "observe",
    "meta_data": {}
}
```

# Observation

## Experiment Result
Experiment ID: iteration_0
Your requested experiment has finished. The details results are saved as a dataframe in experiment_history[iteration_0]

Total size: 451 rows × 8 columns. 

Below shows a subset of the table for your convenience. You should access experiment_history[iteration_0] for the full data

Time   id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9  id_6za2  id_k1hy  id_4r19  id_5via
0         0 2.50e+01 5.00e+01 1.00e+00        0 4.00e+00        0
...
9.00e-01  3.33e+00 5.12e-01 4.95e+01 1.13e+00 5.22e-01 1.43e-01 2.12e+01
...
1.80e+00  3.35e+00 5.29e-02 4.95e+01 1.30e+00 5.09e-01 1.40e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.70e+00  3.36e+00 4.42e-02 4.95e+01 1.48e+00 4.98e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.60e+00  3.37e+00 4.41e-02 4.95e+01 1.65e+00 4.90e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
4.50e+00  3.37e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 1.83e+00 4.84e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
5.40e+00  3.38e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 2.00e+00 4.80e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
6.30e+00  3.38e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 2.18e+00 4.77e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
7.20e+00  3.38e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 2.35e+00 4.74e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
8.10e+00  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 2.53e+00 4.72e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
9.00e+00  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 2.70e+00 4.71e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
9.90e+00  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 2.88e+00 4.70e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.08e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 3.05e+00 4.69e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.17e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 3.23e+00 4.69e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.26e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 3.40e+00 4.68e-01 1.41e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.35e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 3.58e+00 4.68e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.44e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 3.75e+00 4.68e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.53e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 3.92e+00 4.68e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.62e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 4.10e+00 4.68e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.71e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 4.27e+00 4.68e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.80e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 4.45e+00 4.68e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.89e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 4.62e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
1.98e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 4.80e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.07e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 4.97e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.16e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 5.15e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.25e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 5.32e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.34e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 5.50e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.43e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 5.67e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.52e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 5.85e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.61e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 6.02e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.70e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 6.20e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.79e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 6.37e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.88e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 6.54e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
2.97e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 6.72e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.06e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 6.89e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.15e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 7.07e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.24e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 7.24e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.33e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 7.42e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.42e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 7.59e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.51e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 7.77e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.60e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 7.94e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.69e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 8.12e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.78e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 8.29e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.87e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 8.47e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
3.96e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 8.64e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
4.05e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 8.82e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
4.14e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 8.99e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
4.23e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 9.17e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
4.32e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 9.34e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01
...
4.50e+01  3.39e+00 4.40e-02 4.95e+01 9.69e+00 4.67e-01 1.42e-01 2.16e+01

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 20/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. ()

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 1
## Thoughts
I have observed the system's behavior under default conditions. The time-series data shows how the concentrations of the species change.
- `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` decrease significantly.
- `id_5via` increases significantly and plateaus.
- `id_im7c` increases and plateaus.
- `id_6za2` increases steadily.
- `id_k1hy` increases initially, then decreases and plateaus.
- `id_n9e9` remains relatively constant.

This suggests that `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` are reactants, and `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, and `id_6za2` are products. `id_k1hy` seems to be an intermediate, produced in one reaction and consumed in another. `id_n9e9` might be a catalyst or involved in a reaction that is not the primary driver of the observed changes.

Let's plot the data to get a better visual understanding of the dynamics and potential relationships between species.

## Action

### Code
```python
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd

# Access the experiment data
exp_data = experiment_history['iteration_0']

# Plot the time series data for all species
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
for species_id in exp_data.columns:
    if species_id != 'Time':
        plt.plot(exp_data['Time'], exp_data[species_id], label=species_id)

plt.xlabel('Time')
plt.ylabel('Concentration')
plt.title('Species Concentration vs Time (Default Observation)')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

# Print the final concentrations to see the total change
print("Final concentrations:")
print(exp_data.iloc[-1])
```
# Observation

## Code Stderror
 Unauthorized modules matplotlib detected. Only these modules are allowed: numpy, pandas, libsbml, math, scipy, jax, sklearn, io, traceback.

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 19/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. ()

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 2
## Thoughts
My apologies, I used an unauthorized library (`matplotlib`). I need to stick to the allowed libraries. I can still analyze the data numerically using pandas and numpy to understand the relationships between species changes.

From the previous observation, I saw that `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` decrease, while `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, and `id_6za2` increase. `id_k1hy` increases then decreases. `id_n9e9` is relatively constant.

Let's look at the changes in concentrations.
- `id_pv68` decreases from 25 to ~0.044.
- `id_4r19` decreases from 4 to ~0.142.
- `id_5via` increases from 0 to ~21.6.
- `id_im7c` increases from 0 to ~3.39.
- `id_6za2` increases from 1 to ~9.69.
- `id_k1hy` increases from 0 to ~0.522 then decreases to ~0.467.

The significant decrease in `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` suggests they are primary reactants. The increase in `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, and `id_6za2` suggests they are products. The behavior of `id_k1hy` suggests it's an intermediate.

Let's consider possible reactions based on these observations:

1.  A reaction consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and producing `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, and `id_k1hy`.
2.  A reaction consuming `id_k1hy` and producing `id_6za2`.

Let's examine the stoichiometry.
Approximate change in `id_pv68`: 25 - 0.044 = 24.956
Approximate change in `id_4r19`: 4 - 0.142 = 3.858
Approximate change in `id_5via`: 21.6 - 0 = 21.6
Approximate change in `id_im7c`: 3.39 - 0 = 3.39
Approximate change in `id_6za2`: 9.69 - 1 = 8.69
Approximate net change in `id_k1hy`: 0.467 - 0 = 0.467 (but it increased to ~0.522 before decreasing)

The changes don't immediately suggest simple integer stoichiometry. However, the large decrease in `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and large increase in `id_5via` are notable.

Let's hypothesize a reaction: `id_pv68` + `id_4r19` -> `id_5via` + `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`.
And another reaction: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`.

The initial concentration of `id_6za2` is 1, and it increases. This could mean it's produced from `id_k1hy` or another source. The initial concentration of `id_im7c` and `id_5via` is 0, and they increase, strongly suggesting they are products.

Let's try to fit a simple mass action kinetics model for the first hypothesized reaction: `v1 = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]`. This would consume `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and produce the others.
For the second reaction: `v2 = k2 * [id_k1hy]`. This would consume `id_k1hy` and produce `id_6za2`.

Let's try to add these reactions to the model with placeholder kinetic laws and parameters and see if we can simulate it. I'll start with simple mass action and arbitrary rate constants (e.g., 0.1) to see if the structure is plausible. I'll need to add parameters for the rate constants.

Species involved:
Reactants: `id_pv68`, `id_4r19`
Products: `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, `id_k1hy`, `id_6za2`
Intermediate: `id_k1hy`

Proposed reactions:
R1: `id_pv68` + `id_4r19` -> `id_5via` + `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy` (Rate: k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19])
R2: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2` (Rate: k2 * [id_k1hy])

Let's modify the SBML model to include these reactions and parameters.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Add parameters for rate constants
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.1) # Placeholder value
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.1) # Placeholder value
p2.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 + id_4r19 -> id_5via + id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

# Add reactants for reaction 1
reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

reactant2_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant2_r1.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add products for reaction 1
product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

product3_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product3_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product3_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product3_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

# Add reactant for reaction 2
reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add product for reaction 2
product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model
sim_data = simulate(updated_sbml)

# Access the experimental data
exp_data = experiment_history['iteration_0']

# Compare simulation results with experimental data (visually or numerically)
# For numerical comparison, we can calculate the sum of squared errors or plot
# Since plotting is not allowed, let's print the first few rows of both dataframes
print("Experimental Data (first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data.head())
print("\nSimulation Data (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data.head())

# Also print the last row to see the final state
print("\nExperimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data.tail(1))
print("\nSimulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML for potential future use
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental Data (first 5 rows):
    id_im7c    id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
0  0.000000  25.000000  50.000000  1.000000  0.000000  4.000000   0.000000   0.0
1  1.273737  16.088135  49.674161  1.003855  0.325839  2.400424   7.638128   0.1
2  2.608239  10.358362  49.530278  1.012830  0.469722  0.922039  12.033399   0.2
3  3.130380   6.674548  49.487352  1.025158  0.512648  0.356972  15.195072   0.3
4  3.270940   4.306336  49.476779  1.039900  0.523221  0.205839  17.422725   0.4

Simulation Data (first 5 rows):
    id_im7c    id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
0  0.000000  25.000000     50.0  1.000000  0.000000  4.000000  0.000000   0.0
1  0.870573  24.129427     50.0  1.004541  0.866032  3.129427  0.870573   0.1
2  1.532965  23.467035     50.0  1.016605  1.516360  2.467035  1.532965   0.2
3  2.043791  22.956209     50.0  1.034346  2.009445  1.956209  2.043791   0.3
4  2.441822  22.558178     50.0  1.056405  2.385417  1.558178  2.441822   0.4

Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0     21.0     50.0  4.953534  0.046466 -8.474863e-16      4.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 18/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 3
## Thoughts
The simulation results from the hypothesized model (`current_sbml_model`) do not match the experimental data well, especially the final concentrations.
- `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` decrease much slower in the simulation.
- `id_5via` and `id_im7c` increase much slower in the simulation.
- `id_k1hy` increases and then decreases in the simulation, which matches the qualitative behavior in the experiment, but the magnitude and timing are off.
- `id_6za2` increases slower in the simulation.
- `id_n9e9` remains constant in the simulation, which matches the experiment.

The stoichiometry in my hypothesized reaction R1 (`id_pv68` + `id_4r19` -> `id_5via` + `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`) might be incorrect, or the kinetic law is wrong, or the rate constants are wrong. The large decrease in `id_pv68` (~25) and `id_5via` increase (~21.6) suggests a near 1:1 stoichiometry between `id_pv68` consumption and `id_5via` production. The decrease in `id_4r19` (~3.8) is smaller than the decrease in `id_pv68`. The increase in `id_im7c` (~3.39) is similar to the decrease in `id_4r19`.

Let's re-examine the changes:
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467 (net change)

Notice that Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -Δ`id_5via` * (something close to 1) and Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -Δ`id_im7c` * (something close to 1). This hints at two separate reactions or more complex stoichiometry.

Let's consider two main reactions:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + ...
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + ...

What about `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`? `id_k1hy` increases then decreases, and `id_6za2` increases steadily. This still suggests `id_k1hy` is an intermediate that produces `id_6za2`.

Let's refine the hypothesis:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy` (Maybe with some stoichiometry)
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy` (Maybe with some stoichiometry)
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2` (Maybe with some stoichiometry)

Let's look at the changes again.
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Ratio Δ`id_pv68` / Δ`id_5via` ≈ -24.956 / 21.6 ≈ -1.155. Close to -1.
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Ratio Δ`id_4r19` / Δ`id_im7c` ≈ -3.858 / 3.39 ≈ -1.138. Close to -1.

This suggests stoichiometry of 1:1 for `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` and `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c`.

What about `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`?
Net change in `id_k1hy` is small (+0.467), but it peaked around 0.522. This means it was produced and consumed.
The total amount of `id_k1hy` produced must be the amount consumed plus the final amount.
The total amount of `id_6za2` produced is 9.69 - 1 = 8.69. If R3 is `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`, then ~8.69 of `id_k1hy` must have been consumed by R3.
The total amount of `id_k1hy` produced by R1 and R2 must be ~8.69 + 0.467 = 9.157.

Let's assume R1 produces `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry s1 and R2 produces `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry s2.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = s1 * (consumed `id_pv68`) + s2 * (consumed `id_4r19`) ≈ s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 ≈ 9.157.

Let's assume R3 consumes `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry s3 and produces `id_6za2` with stoichiometry s4.
Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ s3 * (produced `id_6za2`) ≈ s3 * 8.69.
Produced `id_6za2` ≈ s4 * (consumed `id_k1hy`).

This is getting complicated without knowing the exact stoichiometry. Let's simplify and assume 1:1 stoichiometry for now and focus on the reaction structure and kinetics.

Hypothesized reactions with 1:1 stoichiometry and mass action kinetics:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy` (Rate: k1 * [id_pv68])
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy` (Rate: k2 * [id_4r19])
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2` (Rate: k3 * [id_k1hy])

Let's update the SBML model with these reactions and simulate again. I'll keep the placeholder rate constants at 0.1 for now.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions if any (from previous attempt)
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)

# Remove existing parameters if any (from previous attempt)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters for rate constants
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.1) # Placeholder value
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.1) # Placeholder value
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.1) # Placeholder value
p3.setConstant(True)


# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

# Add reactant for reaction 1
reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add products for reaction 1
product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)


# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

# Add reactant for reaction 2
reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add products for reaction 2
product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)


# Create Reaction 3: id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

# Add reactant for reaction 3
reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add product for reaction 3
product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)


# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model
sim_data = simulate(updated_sbml)

# Access the experimental data
exp_data = experiment_history['iteration_0']

# Compare simulation results with experimental data
print("Experimental Data (first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data.head())
print("\nSimulation Data (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data.head())

print("\nExperimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data.tail(1))
print("\nSimulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental Data (first 5 rows):
    id_im7c    id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
0  0.000000  25.000000  50.000000  1.000000  0.000000  4.000000   0.000000   0.0
1  1.273737  16.088135  49.674161  1.003855  0.325839  2.400424   7.638128   0.1
2  2.608239  10.358362  49.530278  1.012830  0.469722  0.922039  12.033399   0.2
3  3.130380   6.674548  49.487352  1.025158  0.512648  0.356972  15.195072   0.3
4  3.270940   4.306336  49.476779  1.039900  0.523221  0.205839  17.422725   0.4

Simulation Data (first 5 rows):
    id_im7c    id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
0  0.000000  25.000000     50.0  1.000000  0.000000  4.000000  0.000000   0.0
1  0.039801  24.751246     50.0  1.001440  0.287114  3.960199  0.248754   0.1
2  0.079205  24.504967     50.0  1.005723  0.568515  3.920795  0.495033   0.2
3  0.118218  24.261139     50.0  1.012793  0.844287  3.881782  0.738861   0.3
4  0.156842  24.019737     50.0  1.022592  1.114513  3.843158  0.980263   0.4

Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.955564  0.277726     50.0  28.22809  1.449721  0.044436  24.722274  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 17/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 4
## Thoughts
The simulation with the updated reaction structure (R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`, R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`, R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`) and placeholder rate constants (0.1) still doesn't match the experimental data well. However, the qualitative behavior of `id_k1hy` (increase then decrease) is captured, which is promising.

The simulation shows:
- `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` decrease, but not as much as in the experiment.
- `id_5via` and `id_im7c` increase, but not as much as in the experiment.
- `id_6za2` increases much more than in the experiment.
- `id_k1hy` increases and then decreases, but the peak is higher and later than in the experiment, and the final concentration is higher.

This suggests that the rate constants need to be adjusted. The reactions consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` (R1 and R2) seem too slow, and the reaction consuming `id_k1hy` (R3) seems too fast relative to its production.

Let's try to estimate better rate constants based on the initial rates and final concentrations from the experimental data.

Initial rates (estimated from the first time step):
Δ`id_pv68` / ΔTime ≈ (16.088 - 25) / 0.1 = -89.12
Δ`id_4r19` / ΔTime ≈ (2.400 - 4) / 0.1 = -15.99
Δ`id_5via` / ΔTime ≈ (7.638 - 0) / 0.1 = 76.38
Δ`id_im7c` / ΔTime ≈ (1.274 - 0) / 0.1 = 12.74
Δ`id_k1hy` / ΔTime ≈ (0.326 - 0) / 0.1 = 3.26
Δ`id_6za2` / ΔTime ≈ (1.004 - 1) / 0.1 = 0.038

Initial concentrations:
`id_pv68` = 25
`id_4r19` = 4
`id_k1hy` = 0

Based on the hypothesized reactions:
Rate of R1 ≈ k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate of R2 ≈ k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate of R3 ≈ k3 * [id_k1hy]

At Time = 0:
Rate of R1 ≈ k1 * 25
Rate of R2 ≈ k2 * 4
Rate of R3 ≈ k3 * 0 = 0

Change in species concentrations:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -Rate(R1)
d[id_4r19]/dt = -Rate(R2)
d[id_5via]/dt = +Rate(R1)
d[id_im7c]/dt = +Rate(R2)
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +Rate(R1) + Rate(R2) - Rate(R3)
d[id_6za2]/dt = +Rate(R3)

At Time = 0:
d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -k1 * 25 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 89.12 / 25 = 3.56
d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -k2 * 4 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 15.99 / 4 = 3.9975
d[id_5via]/dt ≈ +k1 * 25 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 76.38 / 25 = 3.0552
d[id_im7c]/dt ≈ +k2 * 4 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 12.74 / 4 = 3.185
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +k1 * 25 + k2 * 4 ≈ 3.26
d[id_6za2]/dt ≈ +k3 * 0 = 0 ≈ 0.038 (This doesn't fit, suggests R3 rate is not zero initially, which means [id_k1hy] is not exactly 0 or R3 kinetics is not simple mass action on `id_k1hy` alone, or there's another reaction producing `id_6za2` or consuming `id_k1hy` that is active at t=0. However, the initial concentration of `id_k1hy` is 0 in the model and experiment data. Let's assume the initial rate calculation is noisy or the model is slightly off at t=0. The increase in `id_6za2` is very small initially).

Let's average the k1 and k2 estimates:
k1 ≈ (3.56 + 3.0552) / 2 ≈ 3.3
k2 ≈ (3.9975 + 3.185) / 2 ≈ 3.59

Now let's consider the later phase where `id_k1hy` is consumed and `id_6za2` is produced.
Around the peak of `id_k1hy` (e.g., Time = 0.4, [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.523):
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0 (at peak) => Rate(R1) + Rate(R2) ≈ Rate(R3)
Rate(R3) ≈ k3 * [id_k1hy] ≈ k3 * 0.523

Let's look at the change in `id_6za2` later in the experiment.
From Time=30 to Time=40:
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 8.82 - 6.89 = 1.93
ΔTime = 10
Average rate of `id_6za2` production ≈ 1.93 / 10 = 0.193
Average [id_k1hy] around this time is ~0.467.
Rate(R3) ≈ k3 * [id_k1hy] ≈ k3 * 0.467 ≈ 0.193 => k3 ≈ 0.193 / 0.467 ≈ 0.413

Let's try these estimated rate constants: k1=3.3, k2=3.59, k3=0.413.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model from shared variables
updated_sbml = shared_variables.access("current_sbml_model")
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Update parameter values
model.getParameter("k1").setValue(3.3)
model.getParameter("k2").setValue(3.59)
model.getParameter("k3").setValue(0.413)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model
sim_data = simulate(updated_sbml)

# Access the experimental data
exp_data = experiment_history['iteration_0']

# Compare simulation results with experimental data
print("Experimental Data (first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data.head())
print("\nSimulation Data (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data.head())

print("\nExperimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data.tail(1))
print("\nSimulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental Data (first 5 rows):
    id_im7c    id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
0  0.000000  25.000000  50.000000  1.000000  0.000000  4.000000   0.000000   0.0
1  1.273737  16.088135  49.674161  1.003855  0.325839  2.400424   7.638128   0.1
2  2.608239  10.358362  49.530278  1.012830  0.469722  0.922039  12.033399   0.2
3  3.130380   6.674548  49.487352  1.025158  0.512648  0.356972  15.195072   0.3
4  3.270940   4.306336  49.476779  1.039900  0.523221  0.205839  17.422725   0.4

Simulation Data (first 5 rows):
    id_im7c    id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2    id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
0  0.000000  25.000000     50.0  1.000000   0.000000  4.000000   0.000000   0.0
1  1.206507  17.973075     50.0  1.176959   8.056472  2.793493   7.026925   0.1
2  2.049098  12.921262     50.0  1.629600  13.498237  1.950902  12.078738   0.2
3  2.637544   9.289386     50.0  2.266424  17.081735  1.362456  15.710614   0.3
4  3.048495   6.678363     50.0  3.022479  19.347654  0.951505  18.321637   0.4

Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2       id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0  3.026143e-24     50.0  30.000001  2.808478e-07  9.054437e-26     25.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 16/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 5
## Thoughts
The simulation with the estimated rate constants (k1=3.3, k2=3.59, k3=0.413) shows some improvement in the initial phase compared to the previous attempt, but the long-term behavior is still significantly off.
- `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` decrease too quickly in the simulation, reaching near zero much faster than in the experiment.
- `id_5via` and `id_im7c` increase too quickly and reach higher final values (25 and 4 respectively, which are the initial values of `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`, suggesting complete conversion).
- `id_k1hy` peaks much higher (~19) and later than in the experiment (~0.5 at t=0.4).
- `id_6za2` increases much more than in the experiment.

The stoichiometry of 1:1 might be correct for the consumption of `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and production of `id_5via` and `id_im7c`, given the final concentrations in the simulation match the initial concentrations of the reactants. However, the production of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` seems incorrect.

Let's revisit the stoichiometry based on the total changes in the experimental data:
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467 (net change)

If R1 is `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1_k1hy * `id_k1hy`, then Δ`id_pv68` / Δ`id_5via` ≈ -1, which fits the 1:1 stoichiometry for these two.
If R2 is `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2_k1hy * `id_k1hy`, then Δ`id_4r19` / Δ`id_im7c` ≈ -1, which fits the 1:1 stoichiometry for these two.

So, let's assume:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

Total `id_k1hy` produced = s1 * (consumed `id_pv68`) + s2 * (consumed `id_4r19`)
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = (produced `id_6za2`) / s3

Net change in `id_k1hy` = (Total produced) - (Total consumed) = 0.467
s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 - 8.69 / s3 = 0.467

This is still hard to determine the stoichiometry (s1, s2, s3) directly from one experiment.

Let's reconsider the initial rates and the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production.
At t=0, Rate(R3) is negligible because [id_k1hy] is 0.
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +s1 * Rate(R1) + s2 * Rate(R2)
Using initial rates: 3.26 ≈ s1 * (k1 * 25) + s2 * (k2 * 4)
Using estimated k1=3.3, k2=3.59:
3.26 ≈ s1 * (3.3 * 25) + s2 * (3.59 * 4)
3.26 ≈ s1 * 82.5 + s2 * 14.36

This equation has two unknowns (s1, s2). We need more information.

Let's look at the production of `id_6za2`. The total increase is 8.69. If R3 is `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`, then the total `id_k1hy` consumed by R3 is 8.69 / s3.
The total `id_k1hy` produced is the amount consumed plus the final amount: 8.69 / s3 + 0.467.

Let's try a different approach. What if the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is 1 in both R1 and R2 (s1=1, s2=1)?
Then total `id_k1hy` produced ≈ 1 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 = 28.814.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed ≈ 28.814 - 0.467 = 28.347.
If R3 is `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`, then consumed `id_k1hy` = (produced `id_6za2`) / s3.
28.347 = 8.69 / s3 => s3 = 8.69 / 28.347 ≈ 0.306. This is not an integer stoichiometry.

What if the stoichiometry of `id_6za2` production is 1 (s3=1)?
Then total `id_k1hy` consumed by R3 is 8.69.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 8.69 + 0.467 = 9.157.
s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 = 9.157.
If s1=1, 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 = 9.157 => s2 * 3.858 = -15.799. s2 cannot be negative.
If s2=1, s1 * 24.956 + 3.858 = 9.157 => s1 * 24.956 = 5.299 => s1 ≈ 0.212. Not an integer.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production. Maybe it's not 1:1.
What if R1 produces `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry 0, and R2 produces `id_k1hy`?
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956, Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6. Still suggests R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` with stoichiometry close to 1:1.
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858, Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39. Still suggests R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` with stoichiometry close to 1:1.

Let's assume the stoichiometry for `id_pv68`, `id_5via`, `id_4r19`, `id_im7c`, and `id_6za2` are all 1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Total `id_k1hy` produced = s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69
Net change in `id_k1hy` = s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 - 8.69 = 0.467
s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 = 9.157

Let's try some integer values for s1 and s2.
If s1=0, s2 * 3.858 = 9.157 => s2 ≈ 2.37. Not integer.
If s2=0, s1 * 24.956 = 9.157 => s1 ≈ 0.367. Not integer.
If s1=1, 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 = 9.157 => s2 * 3.858 = -15.799. Impossible.
If s2=1, s1 * 24.956 + 3.858 = 9.157 => s1 * 24.956 = 5.299 => s1 ≈ 0.212. Not integer.

This suggests the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production might be fractional, or the stoichiometry of `id_6za2` production is not 1, or the kinetics are not simple mass action, or there are other reactions.

Let's consider the possibility that `id_k1hy` is produced with stoichiometry 1 in R1 and R2, but R3 has a stoichiometry for `id_6za2` other than 1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

Total `id_k1hy` produced = 1 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 = 28.814
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 28.814 - 0.467 = 28.347
Produced `id_6za2` = s3 * (consumed `id_k1hy`)
8.69 = s3 * 28.347 => s3 = 8.69 / 28.347 ≈ 0.306. Still not integer.

What if the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is different?
Let's assume R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy` (stoichiometry 1 for `id_k1hy`)
Let's assume R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` (stoichiometry 0 for `id_k1hy`)
Then total `id_k1hy` produced = 1 * 24.956 = 24.956.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 24.956 - 0.467 = 24.489.
If R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`, then 8.69 = s3 * 24.489 => s3 ≈ 0.355.

What if R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` (stoichiometry 0 for `id_k1hy`)
Let's assume R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy` (stoichiometry 1 for `id_k1hy`)
Then total `id_k1hy` produced = 1 * 3.858 = 3.858.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 3.858 - 0.467 = 3.391.
If R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`, then 8.69 = s3 * 3.391 => s3 ≈ 2.56.

Neither of these scenarios gives integer stoichiometry.

Let's consider the possibility that `id_k1hy` is produced in both R1 and R2, and consumed in R3, and all stoichiometries are integers.
s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 - 8.69 / s3 = 0.467
s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 = 9.157 + 8.69 * (1/s3 - 1) + 8.69

Let's try integer stoichiometries for `id_k1hy` production (s1, s2) and `id_6za2` production (s3).
If s1=1, s2=1, s3=1: 1 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 - 8.69 = 28.814 - 8.69 = 20.124. Expected 0.467. No.
If s1=1, s2=2, s3=1: 1 * 24.956 + 2 * 3.858 - 8.69 = 24.956 + 7.716 - 8.69 = 23.982. No.
If s1=2, s2=1, s3=1: 2 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 - 8.69 = 49.912 + 3.858 - 8.69 = 45.08. No.

Let's try s3=2.
If s1=1, s2=1, s3=2: 1 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 - 8.69 / 2 = 28.814 - 4.345 = 24.469. No.

Let's try s3=0.5 (stoichiometry 1 for `id_6za2` from 2 `id_k1hy`).
If s1=1, s2=1, s3=0.5: 1 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 - 8.69 / 0.5 = 28.814 - 17.38 = 11.434. No.

Let's try s3=3.
If s1=1, s2=1, s3=3: 1 * 24.956 + 1 * 3.858 - 8.69 / 3 = 28.814 - 2.897 = 25.917. No.

The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production relative to `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` consumption, and `id_6za2` production relative to `id_k1hy` consumption seems crucial and not simple integers based on the total changes.

Let's look at the initial rates again.
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +s1 * (k1 * 25) + s2 * (k2 * 4) ≈ 3.26
d[id_6za2]/dt ≈ +s3 * (k3 * [id_k1hy]) ≈ 0.038 at t=0. This is still problematic if [id_k1hy]=0.

Could there be a reaction producing `id_6za2` directly, or consuming `id_k1hy` in a way that doesn't depend on its concentration initially? This seems unlikely for a simple system.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of R1 and R2. What if they produce different amounts of `id_k1hy`?
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

Let's assume integer stoichiometries for s1, s2, s3.
From the total changes: s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 - 8.69 / s3 ≈ 0.467

Let's try to fit the initial rates better.
d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -k1 * 25 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56
d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -k2 * 4 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 3.9975
d[id_5via]/dt ≈ +k1 * 25 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 3.0552
d[id_im7c]/dt ≈ +k2 * 4 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 3.185
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +s1 * k1 * 25 + s2 * k2 * 4 ≈ 3.26
d[id_6za2]/dt ≈ +s3 * k3 * [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.038 (problematic at t=0)

Let's use the average k1 ≈ 3.3 and k2 ≈ 3.59.
s1 * 3.3 * 25 + s2 * 3.59 * 4 ≈ 3.26
s1 * 82.5 + s2 * 14.36 ≈ 3.26

If s1=0, s2 * 14.36 ≈ 3.26 => s2 ≈ 0.227. Not integer.
If s2=0, s1 * 82.5 ≈ 3.26 => s1 ≈ 0.0395. Not integer.
If s1=1, 82.5 + s2 * 14.36 ≈ 3.26 => s2 * 14.36 ≈ -79.24. Impossible.
If s2=1, s1 * 82.5 + 14.36 ≈ 3.26 => s1 * 82.5 ≈ -11.1. Impossible.

This suggests that either the initial rate calculation is very inaccurate, or the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is 0 in both R1 and R2, which contradicts the fact that `id_k1hy` is produced.

Let's reconsider the possibility of non-integer stoichiometry or different kinetics. However, the problem description implies discovering missing *reactions*, suggesting the basic building blocks (species) are correct, and likely the kinetics are standard (like mass action) unless specified otherwise. Integer stoichiometry is also a common assumption in these problems.

Let's look at the total changes again.
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467

Ratio Δ`id_pv68` / Δ`id_5via` ≈ -1.155
Ratio Δ`id_4r19` / Δ`id_im7c` ≈ -1.138

These ratios are close to -1. Let's assume the stoichiometry for `id_pv68`, `id_5via`, `id_4r19`, `id_im7c` is indeed 1:1 in R1 and R2.

R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

Let's assume integer stoichiometries s1, s2, s3.
From total changes: s1 * 24.956 + s2 * 3.858 - 8.69 / s3 ≈ 0.467

Let's try to fit the final concentrations better by adjusting rate constants in the current model structure. The current simulation overshoots the products and undershoots the reactants. This means the reactions are too fast overall.

Let's try reducing the rate constants significantly. For example, k1=0.1, k2=0.1, k3=0.1 again, but with the current reaction structure. We already did this, and it was too slow.

Let's try k1=1, k2=1, k3=0.1.
R1 and R2 are faster, R3 is slower. This might lead to a higher peak for `id_k1hy` and slower production of `id_6za2`.

Let's try k1=1, k2=1, k3=1.
R1 and R2 are faster, R3 is faster.

Let's try k1=3, k2=3, k3=0.5. Closer to initial estimates for k1, k2, and a moderate k3.

Let's try k1=3, k2=3, k3=0.5 and see the simulation.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model from shared variables
updated_sbml = shared_variables.access("current_sbml_model")
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Update parameter values
model.getParameter("k1").setValue(3.0)
model.getParameter("k2").setValue(3.0)
model.getParameter("k3").setValue(0.5)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model
sim_data = simulate(updated_sbml)

# Access the experimental data
exp_data = experiment_history['iteration_0']

# Compare simulation results with experimental data
print("Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data.tail(1))
print("\nSimulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2       id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0 -1.255914e-28     50.0  30.000014  5.890664e-09 -2.009464e-29     25.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 15/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 6
## Thoughts
Adjusting the rate constants to k1=3.0, k2=3.0, k3=0.5 still results in a poor fit, similar to the previous attempt with k1=3.3, k2=3.59, k3=0.413. The reactants are consumed too quickly, and products are formed too quickly (except `id_6za2`, which is formed too much). The peak of `id_k1hy` is still too high and too late.

This strongly suggests that the assumed stoichiometry is incorrect, or the kinetic laws are not simple mass action, or there are missing reactions or species interactions not captured by the current structure. Given the problem statement says "discover the biological mechanisms missing from your model" and "You do not need to add new species," the issue is likely with the reactions (stoichiometry or kinetics).

Let's re-examine the total changes and try to find integer ratios that fit better.
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467

Let's look at the ratios of the absolute values of the changes:
|Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_5via`| ≈ 24.956 / 21.6 ≈ 1.155
|Δ`id_4r19`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 3.858 / 3.39 ≈ 1.138
|Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 24.956 / 3.858 ≈ 6.469
|Δ`id_5via`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 21.6 / 3.39 ≈ 6.371
|Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_6za2`| ≈ 24.956 / 8.69 ≈ 2.87
|Δ`id_4r19`| / |Δ`id_6za2`| ≈ 3.858 / 8.69 ≈ 0.444
|Δ`id_5via`| / |Δ`id_6za2`| ≈ 21.6 / 8.69 ≈ 2.48
|Δ`id_im7c`| / |Δ`id_6za2`| ≈ 3.39 / 8.69 ≈ 0.39

The ratios |Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 6.469 and |Δ`id_5via`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 6.371 are both close to 6.5 or 13/2. This is interesting.

Let's hypothesize that the ratio of consumption of `id_pv68` to `id_4r19` is 13:2, and the ratio of production of `id_5via` to `id_im7c` is also 13:2. This could happen if R1 and R2 are coupled or if there's a single reaction consuming both `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and producing `id_5via` and `id_im7c`.

Let's try a single reaction consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and producing `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, and `id_k1hy`.
R1: a * `id_pv68` + b * `id_4r19` -> c * `id_5via` + d * `id_im7c` + e * `id_k1hy`
And R2: f * `id_k1hy` -> g * `id_6za2`

From the ratios, let's try a=13, b=2, c=13, d=2.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e * `id_k1hy`

Total consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 24.956. If stoichiometry is 13, then reaction extent ≈ 24.956 / 13 ≈ 1.92.
Total consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.858. If stoichiometry is 2, then reaction extent ≈ 3.858 / 2 ≈ 1.929.
These are very close! This supports the 13:2 stoichiometry for `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`.

Total produced `id_5via` ≈ 21.6. If stoichiometry is 13, then reaction extent ≈ 21.6 / 13 ≈ 1.66.
Total produced `id_im7c` ≈ 3.39. If stoichiometry is 2, then reaction extent ≈ 3.39 / 2 ≈ 1.695.
These are also relatively close, but the reaction extent calculated from products is different from reactants. This might indicate that R1 is not the only reaction producing `id_5via` and `id_im7c`, or the stoichiometry is slightly off, or there are other reactions involved.

Let's assume the 13:2 stoichiometry for consumption of `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` is correct.
Let's assume R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> Products.
The products are likely `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, and `id_k1hy`.
Let's assume R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> c `id_5via` + d `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`.
From the ratios of products, c:d is likely 13:2.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`.

Now consider `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`.

Total `id_k1hy` produced by R1 ≈ e * (extent of R1) ≈ e * 1.92 (using reactant extent).
Total `id_k1hy` consumed by R2 ≈ f * (extent of R2).
Total `id_6za2` produced by R2 ≈ g * (extent of R2) ≈ 8.69.

Net change in `id_k1hy` = (produced by R1) - (consumed by R2) = 0.467
e * 1.92 - f * (extent of R2) = 0.467
g * (extent of R2) = 8.69 => extent of R2 = 8.69 / g

e * 1.92 - f * (8.69 / g) = 0.467
e * 1.92 - (f/g) * 8.69 = 0.467

Let's assume simple integer stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
If e=1, f=1, g=1: 1 * 1.92 - 1 * 8.69 = 1.92 - 8.69 = -6.77. Expected 0.467. No.
If e=2, f=1, g=1: 2 * 1.92 - 1 * 8.69 = 3.84 - 8.69 = -4.85. No.
If e=1, f=2, g=1: 1 * 1.92 - 2 * 8.69 = 1.92 - 17.38 = -15.46. No.
If e=1, f=1, g=2: 1 * 1.92 - 1 * (8.69 / 2) = 1.92 - 4.345 = -2.425. No.

Let's try to find integer e, f, g such that e * 1.92 - (f/g) * 8.69 ≈ 0.467.
This is difficult without more data or constraints.

Let's reconsider the initial rates with the new stoichiometry hypothesis.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^13 * [id_4r19]^2 (This is complex kinetics, maybe simple mass action on reactants?)
Let's assume simple mass action on the reactants with their stoichiometric coefficients as orders:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^13 * [id_4r19]^2. This seems too complex and unlikely without more information.

Let's assume mass action based on single molecules colliding, even with higher stoichiometry.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy]

At t=0:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -13 * Rate(R1) ≈ -13 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -1300 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 89.12 / 1300 ≈ 0.0685
d[id_4r19]/dt = -2 * Rate(R1) ≈ -2 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -200 k1 ≈ -15.99 => k1 ≈ 15.99 / 200 ≈ 0.07995
d[id_5via]/dt = +13 * Rate(R1) ≈ +13 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 1300 k1 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 76.38 / 1300 ≈ 0.05875
d[id_im7c]/dt = +2 * Rate(R1) ≈ +2 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 200 k1 ≈ 12.74 => k1 ≈ 12.74 / 200 ≈ 0.0637

These k1 values are relatively consistent, around 0.06 - 0.08. Let's use k1 ≈ 0.07.

d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * Rate(R1) - f * Rate(R2) ≈ +e * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] - f * k2 * [id_k1hy]
At t=0: d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +e * k1 * 25 * 4 - f * k2 * 0 = +100 * e * k1 ≈ 3.26
Using k1 ≈ 0.07: 100 * e * 0.07 ≈ 3.26 => 7 * e ≈ 3.26 => e ≈ 3.26 / 7 ≈ 0.465. Not integer.

d[id_6za2]/dt = +g * Rate(R2) ≈ +g * k2 * [id_k1hy]
At t=0: d[id_6za2]/dt ≈ +g * k2 * 0 = 0 ≈ 0.038. Still the issue at t=0.

Let's assume the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is 1 in R1 (e=1) and 0 in R2.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

At t=0:
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +1 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 100 k1 ≈ 3.26 => k1 ≈ 0.0326.
This k1 is different from the one estimated from reactant/product changes (~0.07). This suggests the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production might not be 1 in R1, or the kinetics are not simple mass action.

Let's try another experiment to get more data and constrain the possibilities. Perturbing the initial concentrations might help.
Let's try changing the initial concentration of `id_pv68` or `id_4r19`. This should affect the rate of R1.
Let's try reducing the initial concentration of `id_pv68`.

## Action

### Experiment
```json
{
    "action": "change_initial_concentration",
    "meta_data": {
        "id_pv68": 10.0
    }
}
```
# Observation

## Experiment Result
Experiment ID: iteration_6
Your requested experiment has finished. The details results are saved as a dataframe in experiment_history[iteration_6]

Total size: 451 rows × 8 columns. 

Below shows a subset of the table for your convenience. You should access experiment_history[iteration_6] for the full data

Time   id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9  id_6za2  id_k1hy  id_4r19  id_5via
0         0 1.00e+01 5.00e+01 1.00e+00        0 4.00e+00        0
...
9.00e-01  2.74e+00 2.02e-01 4.91e+01 1.04e+00 9.02e-01 3.55e-01 7.05e+00
...
1.80e+00  2.72e+00 1.83e-02 4.91e+01 1.10e+00 9.50e-01 3.32e-01 7.26e+00
...
2.70e+00  2.69e+00 1.49e-02 4.90e+01 1.16e+00 9.80e-01 3.29e-01 7.29e+00
...
3.60e+00  2.67e+00 1.49e-02 4.90e+01 1.22e+00 1.00e+00 3.26e-01 7.31e+00
...
4.50e+00  2.66e+00 1.49e-02 4.90e+01 1.28e+00 1.02e+00 3.25e-01 7.33e+00
...
5.40e+00  2.65e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.34e+00 1.03e+00 3.24e-01 7.34e+00
...
6.30e+00  2.64e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.40e+00 1.03e+00 3.23e-01 7.34e+00
...
7.20e+00  2.64e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.46e+00 1.04e+00 3.23e-01 7.35e+00
...
8.10e+00  2.64e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.52e+00 1.04e+00 3.22e-01 7.35e+00
...
9.00e+00  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.58e+00 1.04e+00 3.22e-01 7.35e+00
...
9.90e+00  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.64e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.35e+00
...
1.08e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.70e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.35e+00
...
1.17e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.76e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.35e+00
...
1.26e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.82e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.35e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.88e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.44e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.93e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.53e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 1.99e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.62e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.05e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.71e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.11e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.80e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.17e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.89e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.23e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
1.98e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.29e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.07e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.35e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.16e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.41e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.25e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.47e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.34e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.53e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.43e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.59e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.52e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.65e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.61e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.71e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.70e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.77e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.79e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.83e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.88e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.89e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
2.97e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 2.95e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.06e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.01e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.15e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.07e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.24e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.13e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.33e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.19e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.42e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.25e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.51e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.31e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.60e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.36e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.69e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.42e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.78e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.48e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.87e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.54e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
3.96e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.60e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
4.05e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.66e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
4.14e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.72e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
4.23e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.78e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
4.32e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.84e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00
...
4.50e+01  2.63e+00 1.50e-02 4.90e+01 3.96e+00 1.05e+00 3.22e-01 7.36e+00

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 14/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 7
## Thoughts
I have the results from a new experiment where the initial concentration of `id_pv68` was reduced from 25 to 10. Let's compare the results with the default observation (initial `id_pv68` = 25).

Experiment 0 (initial `id_pv68` = 25):
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467

Experiment 6 (initial `id_pv68` = 10):
Initial concentrations: `id_pv68`=10, `id_4r19`=4, `id_n9e9`=50, `id_6za2`=1, `id_k1hy`=0, `id_5via`=0, `id_im7c`=0.
Final concentrations (at Time=45): `id_im7c`≈2.63, `id_pv68`≈0.015, `id_n9e9`≈49.0, `id_6za2`≈3.96, `id_k1hy`≈1.05, `id_4r19`≈0.322, `id_5via`≈7.36.

Changes in Experiment 6:
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ 0.015 - 10 = -9.985
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 0.322 - 4 = -3.678
Δ`id_5via` ≈ 7.36 - 0 = +7.36
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 2.63 - 0 = +2.63
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 3.96 - 1 = +2.96
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05 - 0 = +1.05

Comparing the changes:
- Consumed `id_pv68`: Exp0 ≈ 24.956, Exp6 ≈ 9.985. Reducing initial `id_pv68` significantly reduced its consumption.
- Consumed `id_4r19`: Exp0 ≈ 3.858, Exp6 ≈ 3.678. Reducing initial `id_pv68` slightly reduced `id_4r19` consumption.
- Produced `id_5via`: Exp0 ≈ 21.6, Exp6 ≈ 7.36. Reduced production when `id_pv68` is lower.
- Produced `id_im7c`: Exp0 ≈ 3.39, Exp6 ≈ 2.63. Reduced production when `id_pv68` is lower.
- Produced `id_6za2`: Exp0 ≈ 8.69, Exp6 ≈ 2.96. Reduced production when `id_pv68` is lower.
- Net change `id_k1hy`: Exp0 ≈ 0.467, Exp6 ≈ 1.05. The net change is positive in both cases, but higher in Exp6. This means less `id_k1hy` was consumed relative to production in Exp6 compared to Exp0.

Let's look at the ratios of changes in Exp6:
|Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 9.985 / 3.678 ≈ 2.71
|Δ`id_5via`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 7.36 / 2.63 ≈ 2.79

These ratios (around 2.7-2.8) are different from the ratios in Exp0 (around 6.4-6.5). This suggests that the stoichiometry might not be fixed, or the reactions are more complex than simple mass action with fixed stoichiometry.

However, the ratios |Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_5via`| ≈ 9.985 / 7.36 ≈ 1.35 and |Δ`id_4r19`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 3.678 / 2.63 ≈ 1.4 are still somewhat close to 1.

Let's reconsider the initial hypothesis with three reactions and 1:1 stoichiometry for the main conversions, but focus on fitting the rate constants using data from both experiments.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`
Kinetics: Mass action (Rate = k * [Reactant])

Let's try to estimate rate constants using initial rates from both experiments.

Exp 0 (initial [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4, [id_k1hy]=0):
d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -89.12 ≈ -k1 * 25 => k1 ≈ 3.56
d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -15.99 ≈ -k2 * 4 => k2 ≈ 3.9975
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 3.26 ≈ s1 * k1 * 25 + s2 * k2 * 4

Exp 6 (initial [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4, [id_k1hy]=0):
Initial rates (estimated from the first time step):
Δ`id_pv68` / ΔTime ≈ (9.30 - 10) / 0.1 = -7.0 (from full data, not subset)
Δ`id_4r19` / ΔTime ≈ (3.92 - 4) / 0.1 = -0.8 (from full data)
Δ`id_k1hy` / ΔTime ≈ (0.07 - 0) / 0.1 = 0.7 (from full data)

d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -7.0 ≈ -k1 * 10 => k1 ≈ 0.7
d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -0.8 ≈ -k2 * 4 => k2 ≈ 0.2
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0.7 ≈ s1 * k1 * 10 + s2 * k2 * 4

We have conflicting estimates for k1 and k2 from the two experiments if we assume simple mass action on the reactant concentration with stoichiometry 1.
k1 ≈ 3.56 (Exp0), k1 ≈ 0.7 (Exp6)
k2 ≈ 3.9975 (Exp0), k2 ≈ 0.2 (Exp6)

This suggests that the kinetics are not simple mass action like Rate = k * [Reactant].
What if the rate depends on the concentration of *both* reactants in R1 and R2?
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] (This was my first hypothesis kinetics)
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] (Assuming both reactants are needed for both processes)
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's re-estimate k1 and k2 with this kinetic law.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]

Exp 0 (initial [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4):
d[id_pv68]/dt = -1 * Rate(R1) ≈ -k1 * 25 * 4 = -100 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.8912
d[id_4r19]/dt = -1 * Rate(R2) ≈ -k2 * 25 * 4 = -100 k2 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.1599
d[id_5via]/dt = +1 * Rate(R1) ≈ +k1 * 25 * 4 = 100 k1 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 0.7638
d[id_im7c]/dt = +1 * Rate(R2) ≈ +k2 * 25 * 4 = 100 k2 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 0.1274

k1 estimates: 0.8912, 0.7638 (average ≈ 0.8275)
k2 estimates: 0.1599, 0.1274 (average ≈ 0.14365)

Exp 6 (initial [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4):
d[id_pv68]/dt = -1 * Rate(R1) ≈ -k1 * 10 * 4 = -40 k1 ≈ -7.0 => k1 ≈ 0.175
d[id_4r19]/dt = -1 * Rate(R2) ≈ -k2 * 10 * 4 = -40 k2 ≈ -0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.02

These k1 and k2 estimates are still inconsistent between experiments. This suggests the stoichiometry of `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` in R1 and R2 is not 1:1, or the kinetic law is different.

Let's go back to the stoichiometry ratios from total changes in Exp0:
|Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 6.469 ≈ 13/2
|Δ`id_5via`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 6.371 ≈ 13/2

This strongly suggests a coupled reaction or a single reaction with stoichiometry 13 for `id_pv68` and `id_5via`, and 2 for `id_4r19` and `id_im7c`.

Let's assume a single reaction R1:
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
And R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics for R1 based on the reactants with their stoichiometric coefficients as orders (this is less common but let's explore it):
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^13 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy]

This kinetic law for R1 seems overly complex and might lead to numerical instability.

Let's assume mass action kinetics based on single molecules:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy]

With R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
d[id_pv68]/dt = -13 * Rate(R1) = -13 * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
d[id_4r19]/dt = -2 * Rate(R1) = -2 * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
d[id_5via]/dt = +13 * Rate(R1) = +13 * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
d[id_im7c]/dt = +2 * Rate(R1) = +2 * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * Rate(R1) - f * Rate(R2) = +e * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] - f * k2 * [id_k1hy]
d[id_6za2]/dt = +g * Rate(R2) = +g * k2 * [id_k1hy]

Let's re-estimate k1 using this model and initial rates:
Exp 0 (initial [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4):
d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -89.12 = -13 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -1300 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.0685
d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -15.99 = -2 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -200 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.07995
d[id_5via]/dt ≈ 76.38 = +13 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 1300 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.05875
d[id_im7c]/dt ≈ 12.74 = +2 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 200 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.0637
Average k1 ≈ 0.06775

Exp 6 (initial [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4):
d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -7.0 = -13 * k1 * 10 * 4 = -520 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.01346
d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -0.8 = -2 * k1 * 10 * 4 = -80 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.01
d[id_5via]/dt ≈ 5.6 (from full data) = +13 * k1 * 10 * 4 = 520 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.01077
d[id_im7c]/dt ≈ 0.8 (from full data) = +2 * k1 * 10 * 4 = 80 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.01

k1 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.01 - 0.013. Still inconsistent with Exp0 (around 0.06 - 0.08).

This inconsistency in k1 estimates across different initial concentrations suggests that the kinetic law Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] is likely incorrect, or the stoichiometry is not fixed, or there's an unmodeled regulatory mechanism.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
From Exp0 total changes: e * 1.92 - (f/g) * 8.69 ≈ 0.467 (where 1.92 is extent of R1, assuming 13:2 stoichiometry for reactants)
From Exp6 total changes:
Extent of R1 ≈ consumed `id_pv68` / 13 ≈ 9.985 / 13 ≈ 0.768
Extent of R1 ≈ consumed `id_4r19` / 2 ≈ 3.678 / 2 ≈ 1.839 (Inconsistent! This means the 13:2 stoichiometry for reactants might be wrong, or R1 is not the only reaction consuming them).

Let's look at the product ratios in Exp6:
Produced `id_5via` ≈ 7.36
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 2.63
Ratio ≈ 7.36 / 2.63 ≈ 2.79. This is close to the reactant consumption ratio (2.71).

Let's assume the stoichiometry 13:2 for (`id_pv68`, `id_5via`) and (`id_4r19`, `id_im7c`) is correct, but maybe they are consumed/produced in two separate reactions as initially hypothesized, but with coupled rates or different kinetics.

R1: 13 `id_pv68` -> 13 `id_5via` + e1 * `id_k1hy` (Rate = v1)
R2: 2 `id_4r19` -> 2 `id_im7c` + e2 * `id_k1hy` (Rate = v2)
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2` (Rate = v3)

d[id_pv68]/dt = -13 * v1
d[id_4r19]/dt = -2 * v2
d[id_5via]/dt = +13 * v1
d[id_im7c]/dt = +2 * v2
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e1 * v1 + e2 * v2 - f * v3
d[id_6za2]/dt = +g * v3

From Exp0 initial rates:
-13 v1 ≈ -89.12 => v1 ≈ 6.855
-2 v2 ≈ -15.99 => v2 ≈ 7.995
+13 v1 ≈ 76.38 => v1 ≈ 5.875
+2 v2 ≈ 12.74 => v2 ≈ 6.37

v1 estimates: 6.855, 5.875 (average ≈ 6.365)
v2 estimates: 7.995, 6.37 (average ≈ 7.1825)

From Exp6 initial rates:
-13 v1 ≈ -7.0 => v1 ≈ 0.538
-2 v2 ≈ -0.8 => v2 ≈ 0.4
+13 v1 ≈ 5.6 => v1 ≈ 0.43
+2 v2 ≈ 0.8 => v2 ≈ 0.4

v1 estimates: 0.538, 0.43 (average ≈ 0.484)
v2 estimates: 0.4, 0.4 (average ≈ 0.4)

The rates v1 and v2 are significantly different between experiments. This confirms the kinetics are not simple mass action on single reactants.

Let's consider the possibility that R1 and R2 rates depend on both `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`.
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d

If a=1, b=1, c=1, d=1 (as tried before), the k values were inconsistent.

What if the rate laws are:
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
v2 = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
v3 = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Using average initial rate estimates:
Exp0: v1 ≈ 6.365, v2 ≈ 7.1825. Initial [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4.
6.365 ≈ k1 * 25 * 4 = 100 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.06365
7.1825 ≈ k2 * 25 * 4 = 100 k2 => k2 ≈ 0.071825

Exp6: v1 ≈ 0.484, v2 ≈ 0.4. Initial [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4.
0.484 ≈ k1 * 10 * 4 = 40 k1 => k1 ≈ 0.0121
0.4 ≈ k2 * 10 * 4 = 40 k2 => k2 ≈ 0.01

Still inconsistent k1 and k2.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry based on the ratios of total changes in Exp0:
|Δ`id_pv68`| : |Δ`id_4r19`| : |Δ`id_5via`| : |Δ`id_im7c`| : |Δ`id_6za2`| ≈ 24.956 : 3.858 : 21.6 : 3.39 : 8.69
Divide by the smallest (3.39): ≈ 7.36 : 1.138 : 6.37 : 1 : 2.56
Multiply by 2: ≈ 14.7 : 2.27 : 12.74 : 2 : 5.12
Multiply by 4: ≈ 29.4 : 4.55 : 25.48 : 4 : 10.24

Let's try to find integer ratios that are close.
Maybe the ratios are 13:2 for (`id_pv68`, `id_4r19`) and (`id_5via`, `id_im7c`), and related to `id_6za2`.
13:2:13:2:?

Let's assume the stoichiometry is:
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume e=1, f=1, g=1 for simplicity and try to fit the kinetics.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's try a different kinetic form for R1. What if it's Michaelis-Menten like, or involves binding? But the problem suggests adding reactions, not changing kinetic forms drastically unless necessary.

Let's go back to the simple mass action kinetics but with the 13:2 stoichiometry for R1 reactants/products.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k2 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit k1, k2, e, f, g using the total changes from Exp0.
Extent of R1 ≈ consumed `id_pv68` / 13 ≈ 24.956 / 13 ≈ 1.92
Extent of R1 ≈ consumed `id_4r19` / 2 ≈ 3.858 / 2 ≈ 1.929. (Consistent!)
Let's assume extent of R1 ≈ 1.925.

Produced `id_5via` ≈ 13 * Extent(R1) ≈ 13 * 1.925 = 25.025 (Expected 21.6. Not a good fit).
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 2 * Extent(R1) ≈ 2 * 1.925 = 3.85 (Expected 3.39. Not a good fit).

The 13:2 stoichiometry for products `id_5via` and `id_im7c` seems inconsistent with the 13:2 stoichiometry for reactants `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` if they are in the same reaction R1.

Let's reconsider the initial hypothesis of two separate reactions for `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` consumption, both producing `id_k1hy`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + s1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + s2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> s3 * `id_6za2`

From Exp0 total changes:
Extent of R1 ≈ consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 24.956
Extent of R2 ≈ consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.858
Produced `id_5via` ≈ 1 * Extent(R1) = 24.956 (Expected 21.6. No.)
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 1 * Extent(R2) = 3.858 (Expected 3.39. No.)

The 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c` also doesn't fit the total changes well.

Let's look at the ratios of total changes again, focusing on integer ratios.
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -25
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -4
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6 ≈ +22
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39 ≈ +3.4
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69 ≈ +8.7
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467 ≈ +0.5

Approximate ratios: 25 : 4 : 22 : 3.4 : 8.7 : 0.5
Multiply by 2: 50 : 8 : 44 : 6.8 : 17.4 : 1
Multiply by 10: 250 : 40 : 220 : 34 : 87 : 5

Let's try to find simpler integer ratios.
Maybe the ratio of consumed `id_pv68` to produced `id_5via` is not 1:1.
Maybe the ratio of consumed `id_4r19` to produced `id_im7c` is not 1:1.

Let's assume the reactions are:
R1: a `id_pv68` -> b `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: c `id_4r19` -> d `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

From Exp0 total changes:
Extent R1 ≈ 24.956 / a ≈ 21.6 / b => b/a ≈ 21.6 / 24.956 ≈ 0.865
Extent R2 ≈ 3.858 / c ≈ 3.39 / d => d/c ≈ 3.39 / 3.858 ≈ 0.878
These ratios are similar, around 0.87. This is close to 7/8 or 6/7.

Let's try b/a = 6/7 and d/c = 6/7.
If a=7, b=6. R1: 7 `id_pv68` -> 6 `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`.
Extent R1 ≈ 24.956 / 7 ≈ 3.565. Produced `id_5via` ≈ 6 * 3.565 = 21.39. Close to 21.6.
If c=7, d=6. R2: 7 `id_4r19` -> 6 `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`.
Extent R2 ≈ 3.858 / 7 ≈ 0.551. Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 6 * 0.551 = 3.306. Close to 3.39.

This stoichiometry (7:6) seems more plausible for R1 (`id_pv68`->`id_5via`) and R2 (`id_4r19`->`id_im7c`).

Let's update the hypothesis:
R1: 7 `id_pv68` -> 6 `id_5via` + e1 * `id_k1hy`
R2: 7 `id_4r19` -> 6 `id_im7c` + e2 * `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -7 * k1 * 25 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 89.12 / (7 * 25) = 89.12 / 175 ≈ 0.509
d[id_4r19]/dt = -7 * k2 * 4 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 15.99 / (7 * 4) = 15.99 / 28 ≈ 0.571
d[id_5via]/dt = +6 * k1 * 25 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 76.38 / (6 * 25) = 76.38 / 150 ≈ 0.509
d[id_im7c]/dt = +6 * k2 * 4 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 12.74 / (6 * 4) = 12.74 / 24 ≈ 0.531

k1 estimates are consistent around 0.509.
k2 estimates are relatively consistent around 0.531 - 0.571 (average ≈ 0.551).

From Exp6 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -7 * k1 * 10 ≈ -7.0 => k1 ≈ 7.0 / 70 = 0.1
d[id_4r19]/dt = -7 * k2 * 4 ≈ -0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.8 / 28 ≈ 0.028
d[id_5via]/dt = +6 * k1 * 10 ≈ 5.6 => k1 ≈ 5.6 / 60 ≈ 0.093
d[id_im7c]/dt = +6 * k2 * 4 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.8 / 24 ≈ 0.033

k1 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.093 - 0.1. Still inconsistent with Exp0 (around 0.509).
k2 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.028 - 0.033. Still inconsistent with Exp0 (around 0.551).

The simple mass action kinetics (Rate = k * [Reactant]) with 7:6 stoichiometry also doesn't fit both experiments.

Let's try mass action kinetics based on the full stoichiometry:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^7
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]^7
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]^f

This is also complex kinetics.

Let's go back to the idea that the rate depends on both reactants for R1 and R2, but with 7:6 stoichiometry.
R1: 7 `id_pv68` -> 6 `id_5via` + e1 * `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R2: 7 `id_4r19` -> 6 `id_im7c` + e2 * `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -7 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -700 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.127
d[id_4r19]/dt = -7 * k2 * 25 * 4 = -700 k2 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.0228
d[id_5via]/dt = +6 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 600 k1 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 0.1273
d[id_im7c]/dt = +6 * k2 * 25 * 4 = 600 k2 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 0.0212

k1 estimates are consistent around 0.127.
k2 estimates are consistent around 0.021 - 0.022.

From Exp6 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -7 * k1 * 10 * 4 = -280 k1 ≈ -7.0 => k1 ≈ 0.025
d[id_4r19]/dt = -7 * k2 * 10 * 4 = -280 k2 ≈ -0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.0028
d[id_5via]/dt = +6 * k1 * 10 * 4 = 240 k1 ≈ 5.6 => k1 ≈ 0.0233
d[id_im7c]/dt = +6 * k2 * 10 * 4 = 240 k2 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.0033

k1 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.023 - 0.025. Still inconsistent with Exp0 (around 0.127).
k2 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.0028 - 0.0033. Still inconsistent with Exp0 (around 0.021 - 0.022).

The kinetics are definitely not simple mass action on [id_pv68]*[id_4r19] with fixed rate constants.

Let's look at the production of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` again.
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e1 * v1 + e2 * v2 - f * v3
d[id_6za2]/dt = +g * v3

Exp0 initial:
v1 ≈ 6.365, v2 ≈ 7.1825, v3 ≈ 0 (since [id_k1hy]=0)
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ e1 * 6.365 + e2 * 7.1825 ≈ 3.26

Exp6 initial:
v1 ≈ 0.484, v2 ≈ 0.4, v3 ≈ 0
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ e1 * 0.484 + e2 * 0.4 ≈ 0.7

We have two equations for e1 and e2:
1) 6.365 * e1 + 7.1825 * e2 ≈ 3.26
2) 0.484 * e1 + 0.4 * e2 ≈ 0.7

From (2): 0.4 * e2 ≈ 0.7 - 0.484 * e1 => e2 ≈ 1.75 - 1.21 * e1
Substitute into (1):
6.365 * e1 + 7.1825 * (1.75 - 1.21 * e1) ≈ 3.26
6.365 * e1 + 12.569 - 8.691 * e1 ≈ 3.26
-2.326 * e1 ≈ 3.26 - 12.569 = -9.309
e1 ≈ -9.309 / -2.326 ≈ 4.0

If e1 = 4:
e2 ≈ 1.75 - 1.21 * 4 = 1.75 - 4.84 = -3.09. Stoichiometry cannot be negative.

This suggests that the assumption of R1 and R2 producing `id_k1hy` is incorrect, or the stoichiometry is not integer, or the kinetic laws are wrong.

Let's reconsider the possibility that `id_k1hy` is produced in only one of the reactions, or consumed in R1/R2 as well.

What if R1 produces `id_k1hy` and R2 does not? (e2=0)
1) 6.365 * e1 ≈ 3.26 => e1 ≈ 0.512
2) 0.484 * e1 ≈ 0.7 => e1 ≈ 1.446
Inconsistent.

What if R2 produces `id_k1hy` and R1 does not? (e1=0)
1) 7.1825 * e2 ≈ 3.26 => e2 ≈ 0.454
2) 0.4 * e2 ≈ 0.7 => e2 ≈ 1.75
Inconsistent.

What if R1 and R2 consume `id_k1hy`? This contradicts the initial increase of `id_k1hy`.

Let's look at the total changes again.
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -25
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -4
Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467

Ratio Δ`id_pv68` / Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 6.469 ≈ 13/2
Ratio Δ`id_5via` / Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 6.371 ≈ 13/2

Let's assume the 13:2 ratio is fundamental.
Maybe there is a single reaction consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` with 13:2 stoichiometry.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> Products

And the products are `id_5via`, `id_im7c`, `id_k1hy`.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> a `id_5via` + b `id_im7c` + c `id_k1hy`
R2: d `id_k1hy` -> e `id_6za2`

From Exp0 total changes:
Extent R1 ≈ consumed `id_pv68` / 13 ≈ 24.956 / 13 ≈ 1.92
Extent R1 ≈ consumed `id_4r19` / 2 ≈ 3.858 / 2 ≈ 1.929. (Consistent!) Let's use 1.925.

Produced `id_5via` ≈ a * 1.925 ≈ 21.6 => a ≈ 21.6 / 1.925 ≈ 11.22
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ b * 1.925 ≈ 3.39 => b ≈ 3.39 / 1.925 ≈ 1.76

These are not integers. However, the ratio a/b ≈ 11.22 / 1.76 ≈ 6.375, which is close to 13/2.
So maybe R1 is: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + c `id_k1hy`.
But the total amounts produced don't fit this stoichiometry with the extent calculated from reactants.

Let's reconsider the possibility that the stoichiometry is indeed 13:2 for reactants and products, but the reaction doesn't go to completion in Exp0.
If R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + c `id_k1hy`
And R2: d `id_k1hy` -> e `id_6za2`

Let's assume c=1, d=1, e=1 for now and focus on the kinetics of R1.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's try a different kinetic form for R1 that might explain the inconsistent k1 values. What if the rate is proportional to the *minimum* of the reactant concentrations? Or a Michaelis-Menten form involving both?

Let's try a simple power law based on the observed ratios:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^x * [id_4r19]^y
From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -13 * k1 * 25^x * 4^y ≈ -89.12
d[id_4r19]/dt = -2 * k1 * 25^x * 4^y ≈ -15.99
Dividing these: 13/2 ≈ 89.12 / 15.99 ≈ 5.57. This is not 13/2 = 6.5.

Let's try dividing the rate equations differently:
d[id_pv68]/dt / d[id_4r19]/dt = (-13 * Rate(R1)) / (-2 * Rate(R1)) = 13/2 = 6.5
From Exp0 initial rates: -89.12 / -15.99 ≈ 5.57.
From Exp6 initial rates: -7.0 / -0.8 = 8.75.

The ratio of consumption rates is not constant between experiments, even though the stoichiometry within a single reaction should be fixed. This strongly suggests that either there are multiple reactions consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` with different stoichiometries and kinetics, or the kinetic laws are non-trivial and depend on concentrations in a complex way, or there's some form of regulation.

Given the problem constraints (no new species), let's stick to reactions between existing species.

Let's reconsider the initial hypothesis of two separate reactions consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`, both producing `id_k1hy`, and `id_k1hy` producing `id_6za2`.
R1: a `id_pv68` -> b `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: c `id_4r19` -> d `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume simple mass action kinetics for now:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We saw that k1 and k2 estimates were inconsistent between experiments. This means the rate laws are likely wrong.

What if the rate of R1 depends on [id_4r19] and the rate of R2 depends on [id_pv68]?
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]
We already tried this and the k values were inconsistent.

What if the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]^y
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^x * [id_4r19]

Let's try to fit the initial rates from both experiments simultaneously to estimate parameters (k1, k2, x, y, e1, e2, k3, f, g). This is becoming a parameter estimation problem, which is hard without a proper fitting tool.

Let's look at the shape of the curves. `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` decrease, `id_5via` and `id_im7c` increase and plateau. `id_k1hy` increases and then decreases. `id_6za2` increases linearly after an initial lag. The linear increase of `id_6za2` suggests its production rate becomes constant after some time. This would happen if the concentration of its reactant (`id_k1hy`) becomes constant, or if the reaction rate becomes independent of `id_k1hy` concentration (e.g., zero-order kinetics, or saturated Michaelis-Menten). However, `id_k1hy` concentration is not constant, it decreases slowly after the peak.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
In Exp0, Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 8.69, Δ`id_k1hy` (net) ≈ 0.467.
In Exp6, Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 2.96, Δ`id_k1hy` (net) ≈ 1.05.

The ratio Δ`id_6za2` / Δ`id_k1hy` (net) is very different: 8.69 / 0.467 ≈ 18.6 in Exp0, and 2.96 / 1.05 ≈ 2.82 in Exp6. This further complicates inferring stoichiometry from total changes.

Let's focus on the initial phase where `id_k1hy` is produced and R3 rate is low.
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ +e1 * v1 + e2 * v2
Exp0 initial: 3.26 ≈ e1 * v1 + e2 * v2
Exp6 initial: 0.7 ≈ e1 * v1' + e2 * v2'

If v1 = k1 * [id_pv68] and v2 = k2 * [id_4r19]:
Exp0: 3.26 ≈ e1 * k1 * 25 + e2 * k2 * 4
Exp6: 0.7 ≈ e1 * k1 * 10 + e2 * k2 * 4

Let K1 = e1 * k1, K2 = e2 * k2.
Exp0: 25 K1 + 4 K2 ≈ 3.26
Exp6: 10 K1 + 4 K2 ≈ 0.7

Subtracting Exp6 from Exp0:
15 K1 ≈ 3.26 - 0.7 = 2.56
K1 ≈ 2.56 / 15 ≈ 0.1706

Substitute K1 into Exp6:
10 * 0.1706 + 4 K2 ≈ 0.7
1.706 + 4 K2 ≈ 0.7
4 K2 ≈ 0.7 - 1.706 = -1.006
K2 ≈ -1.006 / 4 ≈ -0.2515. K2 cannot be negative.

This means the assumption of Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] and Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19] is incorrect.

Let's try Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] and Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19].
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
v2 = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e1 * v1 + e2 * v2 = (e1 * k1 + e2 * k2) * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]

Let K = e1 * k1 + e2 * k2.
d[id_k1hy]/dt = K * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]

Exp0 initial: d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 3.26. [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4.
3.26 ≈ K * 25 * 4 = 100 K => K ≈ 0.0326

Exp6 initial: d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0.7. [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4.
0.7 ≈ K * 10 * 4 = 40 K => K ≈ 0.0175

The value of K is inconsistent. This means the rate of `id_k1hy` production is not simply proportional to [id_pv68] * [id_4r19].

Let's consider the possibility that `id_k1hy` is produced in a single reaction involving both `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`.
R1: a `id_pv68` + b `id_4r19` -> c `id_5via` + d `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume the 13:2 stoichiometry for reactants and products (`id_5via`, `id_im7c`) is correct, but maybe they are formed in the same reaction.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume simple mass action Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19].
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] - f * k2 * [id_k1hy]

Exp0 initial: d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 3.26. [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4, [id_k1hy]=0.
3.26 ≈ e * k1 * 25 * 4 = 100 * e * k1

Exp6 initial: d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0.7. [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4, [id_k1hy]=0.
0.7 ≈ e * k1 * 10 * 4 = 40 * e * k1

From Exp0: e * k1 ≈ 3.26 / 100 = 0.0326
From Exp6: e * k1 ≈ 0.7 / 40 = 0.0175

Still inconsistent. The rate of R1 is not simply proportional to [id_pv68] * [id_4r19].

Let's consider the possibility that the rate of R1 is proportional to [id_pv68] only, or [id_4r19] only.
If Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]:
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * k1 * [id_pv68] - f * k2 * [id_k1hy]
Exp0 initial: 3.26 ≈ e * k1 * 25
Exp6 initial: 0.7 ≈ e * k1 * 10
e * k1 ≈ 3.26 / 25 = 0.1304
e * k1 ≈ 0.7 / 10 = 0.07
Inconsistent.

If Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_4r19]:
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * k1 * [id_4r19] - f * k2 * [id_k1hy]
Exp0 initial: 3.26 ≈ e * k1 * 4
Exp6 initial: 0.7 ≈ e * k1 * 4
e * k1 ≈ 3.26 / 4 = 0.815
e * k1 ≈ 0.7 / 4 = 0.175
Inconsistent.

The inconsistency across experiments strongly suggests that the rate laws are not simple mass action with constant parameters, or the stoichiometry is not fixed, or there are other interactions.

Let's look at the final concentrations again.
Exp0: `id_pv68`≈0.044, `id_4r19`≈0.142, `id_5via`≈21.6, `id_im7c`≈3.39, `id_6za2`≈9.69, `id_k1hy`≈0.467
Exp6: `id_pv68`≈0.015, `id_4r19`≈0.322, `id_5via`≈7.36, `id_im7c`≈2.63, `id_6za2`≈3.96, `id_k1hy`≈1.05

In both experiments, `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` are significantly depleted, but not completely. `id_5via` and `id_im7c` are produced. `id_k1hy` is produced and consumed. `id_6za2` is produced.

Let's assume the stoichiometry 13:2 for (`id_pv68`, `id_4r19`) and (`id_5via`, `id_im7c`) is correct, and they are consumed/produced in a single reaction R1.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume simple mass action kinetics for R2: Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy].
For R1, the rate must depend on both `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` in a way that fits the initial rates.

Let's try to fit the total changes again with the 13:2 stoichiometry for R1 reactants and products (`id_5via`, `id_im7c`).
Extent R1 in Exp0 ≈ 1.925.
Extent R1 in Exp6:
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 9.985. Extent ≈ 9.985 / 13 ≈ 0.768
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.678. Extent ≈ 3.678 / 2 ≈ 1.839. (Still inconsistent!)

This inconsistency in the calculated extent of R1 from reactants in Exp6 is a major issue for the single reaction hypothesis with fixed stoichiometry. It implies either the stoichiometry is wrong, or there are other reactions consuming `id_pv68` or `id_4r19`, or the reaction is reversible and the reverse rate is significant, or the kinetics are very unusual.

Let's consider the possibility of two separate reactions consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`, each producing `id_k1hy`.
R1: a `id_pv68` -> b `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: c `id_4r19` -> d `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume a=1, b=1, c=1, d=1 for simplicity and try to fit the kinetics and stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit the initial rates across experiments.

What if the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit the parameters (k1, k2, k3, e1, e2, f, g) using the data from both experiments. This requires a parameter fitting approach, which is not directly supported by the allowed actions.

However, I can try to find integer stoichiometries that approximately fit the total changes and then try to find rate constants that work for the assumed mass action kinetics.

Let's revisit the total changes and ratios.
Exp0: Δ`id_pv68`≈-25, Δ`id_4r19`≈-4, Δ`id_5via`≈+21.6, Δ`id_im7c`≈+3.39, Δ`id_6za2`≈+8.69, Δ`id_k1hy`≈+0.467
Exp6: Δ`id_pv68`≈-10, Δ`id_4r19`≈-3.68, Δ`id_5via`≈+7.36, Δ`id_im7c`≈+2.63, Δ`id_6za2`≈+2.96, Δ`id_k1hy`≈+1.05

Let's focus on the ratios of consumed reactants and produced main products.
Exp0: |Δ`id_pv68`| : |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 25 : 4
Exp0: |Δ`id_5via`| : |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 21.6 : 3.39 ≈ 6.37 : 1 ≈ 13 : 2
Exp6: |Δ`id_pv68`| : |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 10 : 3.68 ≈ 2.7 : 1 ≈ 14 : 5
Exp6: |Δ`id_5via`| : |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 7.36 : 2.63 ≈ 2.8 : 1 ≈ 14 : 5

The ratios of consumed reactants and produced main products are different between experiments (25:4 vs 10:3.68 and 13:2 vs 14:5). This strongly suggests that the stoichiometry is not fixed, or the reactions are more complex.

However, the ratio of `id_pv68` consumption to `id_5via` production is close to 1:1 in Exp0 (25 vs 21.6) and Exp6 (10 vs 7.36).
The ratio of `id_4r19` consumption to `id_im7c` production is also close to 1:1 in Exp0 (4 vs 3.39) and Exp6 (3.68 vs 2.63).

Let's assume the stoichiometry is 1:1 for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit the initial rates.

What if the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit the total changes with this model structure and kinetics, assuming integer stoichiometries e1, e2, f, g.
Exp0:
Extent R1 ≈ 21.6 (from `id_5via`)
Extent R2 ≈ 3.39 (from `id_im7c`)
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 1 * Extent R1 = 21.6 (Expected 24.956. No.)
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 1 * Extent R2 = 3.39 (Expected 3.858. No.)

The 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c` is also not perfectly consistent with the total consumption of reactants.

Let's consider the possibility that `id_n9e9` is involved. It's concentration is relatively constant, suggesting it might be a catalyst or enzyme.

If `id_n9e9` is a catalyst for R1 and R2:
R1: `id_pv68` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_n9e9]
R2: `id_4r19` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_4r19] * [id_n9e9]
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Since [id_n9e9] is roughly constant (~50), k1 * [id_n9e9] and k2 * [id_n9e9] would be effective rate constants. This brings us back to the Rate = k * [Reactant] case, which we know doesn't fit.

What if `id_n9e9` is involved in a more complex way, like Michaelis-Menten kinetics?
Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68])
Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19])
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit the initial rates with this model structure, assuming 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0 initial: [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4.
v1 ≈ 6.365 = (Vmax1 * 25) / (Km1 + 25)
v2 ≈ 7.1825 = (Vmax2 * 4) / (Km2 + 4)
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ e1 * v1 + e2 * v2 ≈ 3.26

Exp6 initial: [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4.
v1' ≈ 0.484 = (Vmax1 * 10) / (Km1 + 10)
v2' ≈ 0.4 = (Vmax2 * 4) / (Km2 + 4)
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ e1 * v1' + e2 * v2' ≈ 0.7

From v2 and v2':
7.1825 = (Vmax2 * 4) / (Km2 + 4)
0.4 = (Vmax2 * 4) / (Km2 + 4)
This implies 7.1825 = 0.4, which is false. This means the rate of R2 is not independent of [id_pv68].

Let's try Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68]) and Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19]), but the stoichiometry is not 1:1.

Let's go back to the 13:2 ratio observed in Exp0 for reactants and products.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume Rate(R1) depends on both reactants.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy]

We saw that k1 was inconsistent.

What if the rate law for R1 is: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b?
From Exp0 initial: Rate(R1) ≈ 6.365 (from d[id_pv68]/dt / -13) or 7.995 (from d[id_4r19]/dt / -2). Let's use average ~7.18.
7.18 ≈ k1 * 25^a * 4^b

From Exp6 initial: Rate(R1) ≈ 0.484 (from d[id_pv68]/dt / -13) or 0.4 (from d[id_4r19]/dt / -2). Let's use average ~0.442.
0.442 ≈ k1 * 10^a * 4^b

Divide the two equations:
7.18 / 0.442 ≈ (25^a * 4^b) / (10^a * 4^b) = (25/10)^a = 2.5^a
16.24 ≈ 2.5^a
log(16.24) ≈ a * log(2.5)
1.21 ≈ a * 0.398
a ≈ 1.21 / 0.398 ≈ 3.04. Close to 3.

Let's assume a=3.
Now let's try to find b.
From Exp0: 7.18 ≈ k1 * 25^3 * 4^b = k1 * 15625 * 4^b
From Exp6: 0.442 ≈ k1 * 10^3 * 4^b = k1 * 1000 * 4^b

Divide: 7.18 / 0.442 ≈ (k1 * 15625 * 4^b) / (k1 * 1000 * 4^b) = 15625 / 1000 = 15.625
16.24 ≈ 15.625. This is close.

Now let's try to find b using the initial rates of `id_4r19` consumption.
Exp0 initial: Rate(R1) ≈ 7.995
7.995 ≈ k1 * 25^3 * 4^b

Exp6 initial: Rate(R1) ≈ 0.4
0.4 ≈ k1 * 10^3 * 4^b

Divide: 7.995 / 0.4 = 19.9875
(k1 * 25^3 * 4^b) / (k1 * 10^3 * 4^b) = 15.625
19.9875 vs 15.625. Not a good match.

The power law kinetics Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b with integer powers doesn't seem to fit well either.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
Net change in `id_k1hy` = (Produced by R1) - (Consumed by R2)
Produced by R1 ≈ c * Extent(R1)
Consumed by R2 ≈ d * Extent(R2)
Produced `id_6za2` ≈ e * Extent(R2)

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 1.925. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
Exp6: Extent R1 (from `id_pv68`) ≈ 0.768. Extent R1 (from `id_4r19`) ≈ 1.839. Inconsistent.

Let's assume the 13:2 stoichiometry for R1 reactants is correct, and the rate law is Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19].
Let's assume R2 is `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2` with Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy].

Let's try to fit k1, k2, and the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e) and `id_6za2` production (g) from `id_k1hy` (assuming f=1).
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R2: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k2 * [id_k1hy]

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -13 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -1300 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.0685
d[id_4r19]/dt = -2 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -200 k1 ≈ -15.99 => k1 ≈ 0.07995
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * k1 * 25 * 4 - k2 * 0 = 100 * e * k1 ≈ 3.26

From Exp6 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -13 * k1 * 10 * 4 = -520 k1 ≈ -7.0 => k1 ≈ 0.01346
d[id_4r19]/dt = -2 * k1 * 10 * 4 = -80 k1 ≈ -0.8 => k1 ≈ 0.01
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +e * k1 * 10 * 4 - k2 * 0 = 40 * e * k1 ≈ 0.7

Using k1 ≈ 0.07 from Exp0 (average of 0.0685 and 0.07995):
100 * e * 0.07 ≈ 3.26 => 7 * e ≈ 3.26 => e ≈ 0.465. Not integer.

Using k1 ≈ 0.012 from Exp6 (average of 0.01346 and 0.01):
40 * e * 0.012 ≈ 0.7 => 0.48 * e ≈ 0.7 => e ≈ 1.458. Not integer.

The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e) seems inconsistent or non-integer.

Let's look at the total production of `id_6za2` and the net change in `id_k1hy`.
Exp0: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
Exp6: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.

If R2 is `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`, then total `id_k1hy` consumed by R2 = (Produced `id_6za2`) / g.
Total `id_k1hy` produced by R1 = (Consumed by R2) + (Net Δ`id_k1hy`).

Exp0: Total `id_k1hy` produced ≈ 8.69 / g + 0.467
Exp6: Total `id_k1hy` produced ≈ 2.96 / g + 1.05

If R1 is 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> ... + e `id_k1hy`, and Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], then the total amount of `id_k1hy` produced is related to the integral of Rate(R1).

Let's assume integer stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
If g=1, then consumed `id_k1hy` = produced `id_6za2`.
Exp0: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 8.69. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 8.69 + 0.467 = 9.157.
Exp6: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 2.96. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 2.96 + 1.05 = 4.01.

If R1 produces `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry e, and R1 extent is E1: Produced `id_k1hy` = e * E1.
Exp0: e * E1_exp0 ≈ 9.157
Exp6: e * E1_exp6 ≈ 4.01

We estimated E1_exp0 ≈ 1.925 (from reactant consumption ratios).
e * 1.925 ≈ 9.157 => e ≈ 9.157 / 1.925 ≈ 4.75. Close to 5.

Let's assume e=5.
Exp0: 5 * E1_exp0 ≈ 9.157 => E1_exp0 ≈ 1.8314.
This is close to the 1.925 estimated from reactant ratios.

Exp6: 5 * E1_exp6 ≈ 4.01 => E1_exp6 ≈ 0.802.
Let's check if this extent is consistent with reactant consumption in Exp6.
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 13 * E1_exp6 = 13 * 0.802 = 10.426 (Expected 9.985. Close.)
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 2 * E1_exp6 = 2 * 0.802 = 1.604 (Expected 3.678. Not close.)

This confirms that the single reaction R1 with 13:2 stoichiometry for reactants is inconsistent with Exp6 data, even if we assume integer stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production.

Let's go back to the two separate reactions for `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` consumption.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c`.
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 ≈ 9.157 (assuming g=1 for R3).
21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 9.157

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 ≈ 4.01 (assuming g=1 for R3).
7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 ≈ 4.01

We have a system of two linear equations for e1 and e2:
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 9.157
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 4.01

Multiply (2) by 3.39/2.63 ≈ 1.289:
1.289 * (7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2) ≈ 1.289 * 4.01
9.49 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 5.17

Subtract this from (1):
(21.6 - 9.49) e1 ≈ 9.157 - 5.17
12.11 e1 ≈ 3.987
e1 ≈ 3.987 / 12.11 ≈ 0.329. Not integer.

Let's try solving the system more accurately:
From (2): 2.63 e2 = 4.01 - 7.36 e1 => e2 = (4.01 - 7.36 e1) / 2.63
Substitute into (1):
21.6 e1 + 3.39 * (4.01 - 7.36 e1) / 2.63 = 9.157
21.6 e1 * 2.63 + 3.39 * (4.01 - 7.36 e1) = 9.157 * 2.63
56.79 e1 + 13.59 - 24.95 e1 = 24.09
31.84 e1 = 24.09 - 13.59 = 10.5
e1 = 10.5 / 31.84 ≈ 0.33

e2 = (4.01 - 7.36 * 0.33) / 2.63 = (4.01 - 2.4288) / 2.63 = 1.5812 / 2.63 ≈ 0.60

e1 ≈ 0.33, e2 ≈ 0.60. These are close to 1/3 and 3/5 or 1/3 and 2/3?
Let's try e1=1/3, e2=2/3.
21.6 * (1/3) + 3.39 * (2/3) = 7.2 + 2.26 = 9.46. Close to 9.157.
7.36 * (1/3) + 2.63 * (2/3) = 2.45 + 1.75 = 4.2. Close to 4.01.

This suggests fractional stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production. This is unusual in simple models.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = (Produced `id_6za2`) * f / g.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = (Consumed by R2) + (Net Δ`id_k1hy`).

Exp0: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
Exp6: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.

Let's assume f=1.
Exp0: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 8.69 / g. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 8.69 / g + 0.467.
Exp6: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 2.96 / g. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 2.96 / g + 1.05.

If R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy` (Extent E1)
If R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy` (Extent E2)
Produced `id_k1hy` = e1 * E1 + e2 * E2.

Exp0: E1 ≈ 21.6, E2 ≈ 3.39. e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 ≈ 8.69 / g + 0.467
Exp6: E1 ≈ 7.36, E2 ≈ 2.63. e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 ≈ 2.96 / g + 1.05

Let's try integer values for e1, e2, g.
If e1=0, e2=1, g=1:
Exp0: 3.39 ≈ 8.69 + 0.467 = 9.157 (False)
If e1=1, e2=0, g=1:
Exp0: 21.6 ≈ 9.157 (False)
If e1=1, e2=1, g=1:
Exp0: 21.6 + 3.39 = 24.99 ≈ 9.157 (False)

Let's try g=2.
If e1=0, e2=1, g=2:
Exp0: 3.39 ≈ 8.69 / 2 + 0.467 = 4.345 + 0.467 = 4.812 (False)
If e1=1, e2=0, g=2:
Exp0: 21.6 ≈ 4.812 (False)
If e1=1, e2=1, g=2:
Exp0: 24.99 ≈ 4.812 (False)

Let's try g=0.5 (meaning 2 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`).
If e1=0, e2=1, g=0.5:
Exp0: 3.39 ≈ 8.69 / 0.5 + 0.467 = 17.38 + 0.467 = 17.847 (False)

Let's try to find integer e1, e2, g that fit the two equations:
e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g ≈ 0.467
e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g ≈ 1.05

Let's assume g=1.
21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 9.157
7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 ≈ 4.01
We found e1≈0.33, e2≈0.6.

Let's assume g=2.
21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 8.69 / 2 + 0.467 = 4.812
7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 ≈ 2.96 / 2 + 1.05 = 1.48 + 1.05 = 2.53

Solve for e1, e2 with g=2:
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 4.812
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 2.53
Multiply (2) by 3.39/2.63 ≈ 1.289:
9.49 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 3.266
Subtract from (1):
(21.6 - 9.49) e1 ≈ 4.812 - 3.266
12.11 e1 ≈ 1.546
e1 ≈ 1.546 / 12.11 ≈ 0.127. Close to 1/8?

e2 = (2.53 - 7.36 * 0.127) / 2.63 = (2.53 - 0.934) / 2.63 = 1.596 / 2.63 ≈ 0.606. Close to 3/5 or 2/3?

Let's try e1=1/8, e2=5/8, g=2.
Exp0: 21.6 * (1/8) + 3.39 * (5/8) - 8.69 / 2 = 2.7 + 2.11875 - 4.345 = 4.81875 - 4.345 = 0.47375. Close to 0.467.
Exp6: 7.36 * (1/8) + 2.63 * (5/8) - 2.96 / 2 = 0.92 + 1.64375 - 1.48 = 2.56375 - 1.48 = 1.08375. Close to 1.05.

This suggests the stoichiometry might be:
R1: 8 `id_pv68` -> 8 `id_5via` + 1 `id_k1hy` (Divide by 8)
R2: 8 `id_4r19` -> 8 `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy` (Divide by 8)
R3: 1 `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2` (Multiply by 2)

Let's try this integer stoichiometry:
R1: 8 `id_pv68` -> 8 `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: 8 `id_4r19` -> 8 `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -8 * k1 * 25 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 89.12 / 200 = 0.4456
d[id_4r19]/dt = -8 * k2 * 4 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 15.99 / 32 = 0.4997
d[id_5via]/dt = +8 * k1 * 25 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 76.38 / 200 = 0.3819
d[id_im7c]/dt = +8 * k2 * 4 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 12.74 / 32 = 0.398

k1 estimates: 0.4456, 0.3819 (average ≈ 0.413)
k2 estimates: 0.4997, 0.398 (average ≈ 0.449)

From Exp6 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -8 * k1 * 10 ≈ -7.0 => k1 ≈ 7.0 / 80 = 0.0875
d[id_4r19]/dt = -8 * k2 * 4 ≈ -0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.8 / 32 = 0.025
d[id_5via]/dt = +8 * k1 * 10 ≈ 5.6 => k1 ≈ 5.6 / 80 = 0.07
d[id_im7c]/dt = +8 * k2 * 4 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.8 / 32 = 0.025

k1 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.07 - 0.0875. Still inconsistent with Exp0.
k2 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.025. Still inconsistent with Exp0.

The simple mass action kinetics (Rate = k * [Reactant]) does not work with this stoichiometry either.

Let's try mass action kinetics Rate = k * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] for R1 and R2.
R1: 8 `id_pv68` -> 8 `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R2: 8 `id_4r19` -> 8 `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -8 * k1 * 25 * 4 = -800 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.1114
d[id_4r19]/dt = -8 * k2 * 25 * 4 = -800 k2 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.0199
d[id_5via]/dt = +8 * k1 * 25 * 4 = 800 k1 ≈ 76.38 => k1 ≈ 0.0954
d[id_im7c]/dt = +8 * k2 * 25 * 4 = 800 k2 ≈ 12.74 => k2 ≈ 0.0159

k1 estimates: 0.1114, 0.0954 (average ≈ 0.1034)
k2 estimates: 0.0199, 0.0159 (average ≈ 0.0179)

From Exp6 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -8 * k1 * 10 * 4 = -320 k1 ≈ -7.0 => k1 ≈ 0.0218
d[id_4r19]/dt = -8 * k2 * 10 * 4 = -320 k2 ≈ -0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.0025
d[id_5via]/dt = +8 * k1 * 10 * 4 = 320 k1 ≈ 5.6 => k1 ≈ 0.0175
d[id_im7c]/dt = +8 * k2 * 10 * 4 = 320 k2 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.0025

k1 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.0175 - 0.0218. Still inconsistent with Exp0.
k2 estimates from Exp6 are around 0.0025. Still inconsistent with Exp0.

The kinetics are definitely not simple mass action on [id_pv68]*[id_4r19].

Let's consider the possibility that the rate laws are more complex, maybe involving saturation or inhibition. However, without more information or specific hypotheses about the mechanism, it's hard to guess the correct kinetic form.

Let's look at the `id_k1hy` dynamics again. It peaks and then decays. This is characteristic of an intermediate. The decay phase is driven by R3.
Let's estimate k3 from the decay of `id_k1hy` when R1 and R2 rates are lower (later in the experiment).
Around Time=10 in Exp0, [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.47, d[id_k1hy]/dt is slightly negative.
Around Time=10 in Exp6, [id_k1hy] ≈ 1.05, d[id_k1hy]/dt is close to zero or slightly positive initially, then decreases.

Let's look at the rate of `id_6za2` production later in Exp0. From Time=30 to 40, Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 1.93 over 10 time units. Rate ≈ 0.193. Average [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.467.
If Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy], then 0.193 ≈ k3 * 0.467 => k3 ≈ 0.413.
If R3 is `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`, Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]. d[id_6za2]/dt = 2 * Rate(R3) = 2 * k3 * [id_k1hy].
0.193 ≈ 2 * k3 * 0.467 => k3 ≈ 0.193 / (2 * 0.467) ≈ 0.206.

Let's try the stoichiometry:
R1: 8 `id_pv68` -> 8 `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: 8 `id_4r19` -> 8 `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Let's assume the kinetics are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find k1 and k2 by fitting the initial rates of `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` consumption in Exp0.
d[id_pv68]/dt = -8 * k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
d[id_4r19]/dt = -8 * k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Ratio: d[id_pv68]/dt / d[id_4r19]/dt = k1 / k2.
From Exp0 initial: -89.12 / -15.99 ≈ 5.57. So k1 / k2 ≈ 5.57.
From Exp6 initial: -7.0 / -0.8 = 8.75. So k1 / k2 ≈ 8.75.

The ratio of k1 to k2 is inconsistent. This means the assumption that both rates are proportional to [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] with constant k1 and k2 is incorrect.

Let's consider the possibility that the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know this doesn't fit the initial rates across experiments.

Let's try to fit the total changes again with the stoichiometry:
R1: 8 `id_pv68` -> 8 `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: 8 `id_4r19` -> 8 `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Exp0:
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 24.956. Extent R1 ≈ 24.956 / 8 ≈ 3.1195
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.858. Extent R2 ≈ 3.858 / 8 ≈ 0.48225
Produced `id_5via` ≈ 8 * Extent R1 = 8 * 3.1195 = 24.956 (Expected 21.6. No.)
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 8 * Extent R2 = 8 * 0.48225 = 3.858 (Expected 3.39. No.)

The stoichiometry 8:8 for R1 and R2 main products is also inconsistent with total changes.

Let's go back to the 13:2 ratio for (`id_pv68`, `id_4r19`) and (`id_5via`, `id_im7c`) from Exp0.
Maybe R1: 13 `id_pv68` -> 13 `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
Maybe R2: 2 `id_4r19` -> 2 `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 24.956 / 13 ≈ 1.92. Extent R2 ≈ 3.858 / 2 ≈ 1.929. (Consistent for reactants!)
Produced `id_5via` ≈ 13 * 1.925 = 25.025 (Expected 21.6. No.)
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 2 * 1.925 = 3.85 (Expected 3.39. No.)

The stoichiometry 13:13 and 2:2 for main products is inconsistent with total changes, even if the reactant stoichiometry is 13:2.

Let's assume the stoichiometry of R1 and R2 is correct based on the *products* in Exp0:
R1: a `id_pv68` -> 13 `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: c `id_4r19` -> 2 `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6 / 13 ≈ 1.66. Extent R2 ≈ 3.39 / 2 ≈ 1.695. (Consistent for products!)
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ a * 1.6775 ≈ 24.956 => a ≈ 24.956 / 1.6775 ≈ 14.87. Close to 15.
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ c * 1.6775 ≈ 3.858 => c ≈ 3.858 / 1.6775 ≈ 2.3. Close to 2 or 3.

Let's try stoichiometry based on product ratios and total consumption:
R1: 15 `id_pv68` -> 13 `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: 2 `id_4r19` -> 2 `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy` (Let's keep 2:2 for R2 as it was closer)
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6 / 13 ≈ 1.66. Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 15 * 1.66 = 24.9. Close to 24.956.
Exp0: Extent R2 ≈ 3.39 / 2 ≈ 1.695. Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 2 * 1.695 = 3.39. Expected 3.858. Not close.

Let's try R2: 3 `id_4r19` -> 2 `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`.
Exp0: Extent R2 ≈ 3.39 / 2 ≈ 1.695. Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3 * 1.695 = 5.085. Expected 3.858. No.

Let's go back to the 13:2 ratio for reactants and assume it's correct.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> a `id_5via` + b `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 1.925.
Produced `id_5via` ≈ a * 1.925 ≈ 21.6 => a ≈ 11.22
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ b * 1.925 ≈ 3.39 => b ≈ 1.76

Let's try integer stoichiometry a=11, b=2.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 11 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 1.925. Produced `id_5via` ≈ 11 * 1.925 = 21.175. Close to 21.6.
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 2 * 1.925 = 3.85. Expected 3.39. Not close.

Let's try a=11, b=1.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 11 `id_5via` + `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 1.925. Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 1 * 1.925 = 1.925. Expected 3.39. No.

Let's try a=11, b=3.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 11 `id_5via` + 3 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 1.925. Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 3 * 1.925 = 5.775. Expected 3.39. No.

Let's try a=11, b=2 again, but check Exp6.
Exp6: Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 9.985. Extent R1 ≈ 9.985 / 13 ≈ 0.768.
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.678. Extent R1 ≈ 3.678 / 2 ≈ 1.839. (Still inconsistent!)

The inconsistency in the calculated extent of R1 from reactants in Exp6 is a persistent problem for the single reaction hypothesis.

Let's assume the two separate reactions are correct, and the stoichiometry is 1:1 for the main conversions.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know the rate constants are inconsistent.

What if the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_n9e9]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19] * [id_n9e9]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Since [id_n9e9] is roughly constant (~50), this is effectively the same as Rate = k * [Reactant] with scaled k values.

Let's consider the possibility that the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is 0 in one of the reactions.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * 21.6 ≈ 9.157 (assuming g=1). => e1 ≈ 0.424. Not integer.

R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e2 * 3.39 ≈ 9.157 (assuming g=1). => e2 ≈ 2.7. Close to 3.

Let's try this stoichiometry:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume g=1 for R3.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 25 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 4 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 3.9975
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +3 * k2 * 4 - k3 * 0 = 12 k2 ≈ 3.26 => k2 ≈ 0.271

k2 estimates: 3.9975, 0.271. Inconsistent.

Let's try mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 25 * 4 = -100 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.8912
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 25 * 4 = -100 k2 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.1599
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +3 * k2 * 25 * 4 - k3 * 0 = 300 k2 ≈ 3.26 => k2 ≈ 0.0108

k2 estimates: 0.1599, 0.0108. Inconsistent.

Let's try g=2 for R3.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e2 * 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 2 = 4.345.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = e2 * 3.39 - 4.345 ≈ 0.467.
3.39 e2 ≈ 4.345 + 0.467 = 4.812.
e2 ≈ 4.812 / 3.39 ≈ 1.419. Close to 1 or 1.5?

Let's try e2=1, g=2.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 1 * 3.39 = 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 2 = 4.345.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 3.39 - 4.345 = -0.955. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=2, g=2.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 2 * 3.39 = 6.78.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 2 = 4.345.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 6.78 - 4.345 = 2.435. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=3, g=2.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 3 * 3.39 = 10.17.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 2 = 4.345.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 10.17 - 4.345 = 5.825. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=1, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 1 * 3.39 = 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 1 = 8.69.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 3.39 - 8.69 = -5.3. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=2, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 2 * 3.39 = 6.78.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 1 = 8.69.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 6.78 - 8.69 = -1.91. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=3, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 3 * 3.39 = 10.17.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 1 = 8.69.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 10.17 - 8.69 = 1.48. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=4, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 4 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 4 * 3.39 = 13.56.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 1 = 8.69.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 13.56 - 8.69 = 4.87. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e2=5, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 5 * 3.39 = 16.95.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / 1 = 8.69.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 16.95 - 8.69 = 8.26. Expected 0.467. No.

Let's try e1=1, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 = 21.6 + 3.39 e2.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 21.6 + 3.39 e2 - 8.69 = 12.91 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 0.467.
3.39 e2 ≈ 0.467 - 12.91 = -12.443. e2 cannot be negative.

Let's try e1=0, e2=0. This means `id_k1hy` is not produced in R1 or R2. But `id_k1hy` is produced.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of R3. What if g=0.5 (2 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`)?
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: 2 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 2 * 8.69 = 17.38.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 17.38 ≈ 0.467.
21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 17.38 + 0.467 = 17.847.

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 2 * 2.96 = 5.92.
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 5.92 ≈ 1.05.
7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 ≈ 5.92 + 1.05 = 6.97.

System of equations for e1, e2:
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 17.847
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 6.97

Multiply (2) by 3.39/2.63 ≈ 1.289:
9.49 e1 + 3.39 e2 ≈ 8.985
Subtract from (1):
(21.6 - 9.49) e1 ≈ 17.847 - 8.985
12.11 e1 ≈ 8.862
e1 ≈ 8.862 / 12.11 ≈ 0.73. Close to 3/4?

e2 = (6.97 - 7.36 * 0.73) / 2.63 = (6.97 - 5.37) / 2.63 = 1.6 / 2.63 ≈ 0.61. Close to 3/5 or 2/3?

Let's try e1=3/4, e2=3/5, g=0.5 (R3: 2 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`).
Exp0: 21.6 * (3/4) + 3.39 * (3/5) - 17.38 = 16.2 + 2.034 - 17.38 = 18.234 - 17.38 = 0.854. Close to 0.467.
Exp6: 7.36 * (3/4) + 2.63 * (3/5) - 5.92 = 5.52 + 1.578 - 5.92 = 7.098 - 5.92 = 1.178. Close to 1.05.

This stoichiometry seems more promising:
R1: 4 `id_pv68` -> 4 `id_5via` + 3 `id_k1hy` (Multiply e1 by 4, and scale R1 by 4)
R2: 5 `id_4r19` -> 5 `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy` (Multiply e2 by 5, and scale R2 by 5)
R3: 2 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's check total changes with this integer stoichiometry:
R1: 4 `id_pv68` -> 4 `id_5via` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R2: 5 `id_4r19` -> 5 `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: 2 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Exp0:
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 24.956. Extent R1 ≈ 24.956 / 4 ≈ 6.239
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.858. Extent R2 ≈ 3.858 / 5 ≈ 0.7716
Produced `id_5via` ≈ 4 * 6.239 = 24.956 (Expected 21.6. No.)
Produced `id_im7c` ≈ 5 * 0.7716 = 3.858 (Expected 3.39. No.)

The stoichiometry based on total changes is still inconsistent.

Let's reconsider the initial ratios from Exp0:
|Δ`id_pv68`| : |Δ`id_4r19`| : |Δ`id_5via`| : |Δ`id_im7c`| : |Δ`id_6za2`| ≈ 25 : 4 : 21.6 : 3.39 : 8.69
Approximate integer ratios: 25 : 4 : 22 : 3.4 : 8.7
Multiply by 10: 250 : 40 : 220 : 34 : 87
Divide by common factors?

Let's try to find a common extent for R1 and R2 in Exp0 based on reactant consumption: Extent ≈ 1.925.
Let's find a common extent for R1 and R2 in Exp0 based on product formation: Extent ≈ 1.6775.
These are different.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is fixed and integer. The inconsistency in calculated extents and rate constants across experiments suggests the kinetic laws are not simple mass action.

Let's try another experiment. Perturbing `id_4r19` this time.

## Action

### Experiment
```json
{
    "action": "change_initial_concentration",
    "meta_data": {
        "id_4r19": 1.0
    }
}
```
# Observation

## Experiment Result
Experiment ID: iteration_7
Your requested experiment has finished. The details results are saved as a dataframe in experiment_history[iteration_7]

Total size: 451 rows × 8 columns. 

Below shows a subset of the table for your convenience. You should access experiment_history[iteration_7] for the full data

Time   id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9  id_6za2  id_k1hy  id_4r19  id_5via
0         0 2.50e+01 5.00e+01 1.00e+00        0 1.00e+00        0
...
9.00e-01  8.45e-01 5.17e-01 4.99e+01 1.15e+00 1.23e-01 3.25e-02 2.36e+01
...
1.80e+00  8.49e-01 5.80e-02 4.99e+01 1.34e+00 1.19e-01 3.19e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.70e+00  8.52e-01 4.93e-02 4.99e+01 1.54e+00 1.16e-01 3.19e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.60e+00  8.54e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 1.73e+00 1.14e-01 3.20e-02 2.41e+01
...
4.50e+00  8.56e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 1.93e+00 1.12e-01 3.20e-02 2.41e+01
...
5.40e+00  8.57e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 2.12e+00 1.11e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
6.30e+00  8.58e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 2.32e+00 1.10e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
7.20e+00  8.59e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 2.51e+00 1.09e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
8.10e+00  8.59e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 2.71e+00 1.09e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
9.00e+00  8.60e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 2.90e+00 1.08e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
9.90e+00  8.60e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 3.10e+00 1.08e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.08e+01  8.60e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 3.29e+00 1.08e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.17e+01  8.60e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 3.49e+00 1.07e-01 3.21e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.26e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 3.68e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.35e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 3.88e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.44e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 4.07e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.53e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 4.27e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.62e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 4.46e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.71e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 4.66e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.80e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 4.85e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.89e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 5.05e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
1.98e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 5.24e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.07e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 5.44e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.16e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 5.63e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.25e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 5.83e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.34e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 6.02e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.43e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 6.22e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.52e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 6.41e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.61e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 6.61e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.70e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 6.80e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.79e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 7.00e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.88e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 7.19e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
2.97e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 7.39e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.06e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 7.59e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.15e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 7.78e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.24e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 7.98e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.33e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 8.17e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.42e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 8.37e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.51e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 8.56e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.60e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 8.76e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.69e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 8.95e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.78e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 9.15e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.87e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 9.34e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
3.96e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 9.54e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
4.05e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 9.73e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
4.14e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 9.93e+00 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
4.23e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 1.01e+01 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
4.32e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 1.03e+01 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01
...
4.50e+01  8.61e-01 4.92e-02 4.99e+01 1.07e+01 1.07e-01 3.22e-02 2.41e+01

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 13/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 8
## Thoughts
I have the results from a new experiment where the initial concentration of `id_4r19` was reduced from 4 to 1. Let's compare the results with the previous experiments.

Experiment 0 (initial `id_pv68`=25, `id_4r19`=4):
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -24.956, Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.858, Δ`id_5via` ≈ +21.6, Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +3.39, Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +8.69, Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +0.467

Experiment 6 (initial `id_pv68`=10, `id_4r19`=4):
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ -9.985, Δ`id_4r19` ≈ -3.678, Δ`id_5via` ≈ +7.36, Δ`id_im7c` ≈ +2.63, Δ`id_6za2` ≈ +2.96, Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ +1.05

Experiment 7 (initial `id_pv68`=25, `id_4r19`=1):
Initial concentrations: `id_pv68`=25, `id_4r19`=1, `id_n9e9`=50, `id_6za2`=1, `id_k1hy`=0, `id_5via`=0, `id_im7c`=0.
Final concentrations (at Time=45): `id_im7c`≈0.861, `id_pv68`≈0.0492, `id_n9e9`≈49.9, `id_6za2`≈10.7, `id_k1hy`≈0.107, `id_4r19`≈0.0322, `id_5via`≈24.1.

Changes in Experiment 7:
Δ`id_pv68` ≈ 0.0492 - 25 = -24.9508
Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 0.0322 - 1 = -0.9678
Δ`id_5via` ≈ 24.1 - 0 = +24.1
Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 0.861 - 0 = +0.861
Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 10.7 - 1 = +9.7
Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.107 - 0 = +0.107

Comparing the changes:
- Consumed `id_pv68`: Exp0 ≈ 24.956, Exp6 ≈ 9.985, Exp7 ≈ 24.951. Reducing initial `id_4r19` had little effect on `id_pv68` consumption. Reducing initial `id_pv68` significantly reduced its consumption.
- Consumed `id_4r19`: Exp0 ≈ 3.858, Exp6 ≈ 3.678, Exp7 ≈ 0.968. Reducing initial `id_4r19` significantly reduced its consumption. Reducing initial `id_pv68` had little effect on `id_4r19` consumption.
- Produced `id_5via`: Exp0 ≈ 21.6, Exp6 ≈ 7.36, Exp7 ≈ 24.1. Production is high when initial `id_pv68` is high, regardless of initial `id_4r19`.
- Produced `id_im7c`: Exp0 ≈ 3.39, Exp6 ≈ 2.63, Exp7 ≈ 0.861. Production is lower when initial `id_4r19` is lower, regardless of initial `id_pv68`.
- Produced `id_6za2`: Exp0 ≈ 8.69, Exp6 ≈ 2.96, Exp7 ≈ 9.7. Production is higher when initial `id_pv68` is high.
- Net change `id_k1hy`: Exp0 ≈ 0.467, Exp6 ≈ 1.05, Exp7 ≈ 0.107. Net change is positive in all cases.

Observations:
- `id_pv68` consumption and `id_5via` production seem primarily dependent on initial `id_pv68` concentration.
- `id_4r19` consumption and `id_im7c` production seem primarily dependent on initial `id_4r19` concentration.
- `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` production seem influenced by both, but perhaps more by `id_pv68`.

This reinforces the idea of two main reactions:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + ...
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + ...

Let's look at the stoichiometry of the main conversions again.
Exp0: |Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_5via`| ≈ 24.956 / 21.6 ≈ 1.155. |Δ`id_4r19`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 3.858 / 3.39 ≈ 1.138.
Exp6: |Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_5via`| ≈ 9.985 / 7.36 ≈ 1.35. |Δ`id_4r19`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 3.678 / 2.63 ≈ 1.4.
Exp7: |Δ`id_pv68`| / |Δ`id_5via`| ≈ 24.951 / 24.1 ≈ 1.035. |Δ`id_4r19`| / |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 0.968 / 0.861 ≈ 1.124.

The ratios are not perfectly consistent across experiments, but they are all relatively close to 1. This supports a stoichiometry of 1:1 for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c`.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know the rate constants are inconsistent.

Let's try mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know the rate constants are inconsistent.

Let's try to estimate e1, e2, g (assuming f=1) using total changes from all three experiments.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * Extent(R1) + e2 * Extent(R2)
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = Extent(R3) = Produced `id_6za2` / g
Net Δ`id_k1hy` = e1 * Extent(R1) + e2 * Extent(R2) - Produced `id_6za2` / g

Assuming 1:1 stoichiometry for main products:
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g = 0.467

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.
e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g = 1.05

Exp7: Extent R1 ≈ 24.1, Extent R2 ≈ 0.861. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 9.7. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.107.
e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

We have three equations and three unknowns (e1, e2, 1/g). Let x = 1/g.
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 - 8.69 x = 0.467
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 2.96 x = 1.05
3) 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 - 9.7 x = 0.107

Let's try to solve this system.
From (2): 2.96 x = 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 1.05 => x = (7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 1.05) / 2.96
Substitute x into (1) and (3).

(1): 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 - 8.69 * (7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 1.05) / 2.96 = 0.467
Multiply by 2.96:
21.6 * 2.96 e1 + 3.39 * 2.96 e2 - 8.69 * (7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 1.05) = 0.467 * 2.96
63.936 e1 + 10.0224 e2 - (63.9344 e1 + 22.8647 e2 - 9.1245) = 1.38392
(63.936 - 63.9344) e1 + (10.0224 - 22.8647) e2 + 9.1245 = 1.38392
0.0016 e1 - 12.8423 e2 ≈ 1.38392 - 9.1245 = -7.74058
-12.8423 e2 ≈ -7.74058 => e2 ≈ 0.6027. Close to 3/5.

(3): 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 - 9.7 * (7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 1.05) / 2.96 = 0.107
Multiply by 2.96:
24.1 * 2.96 e1 + 0.861 * 2.96 e2 - 9.7 * (7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 1.05) = 0.107 * 2.96
71.216 e1 + 2.55176 e2 - (71.392 e1 + 25.511 e2 - 10.185) = 0.31672
(71.216 - 71.392) e1 + (2.55176 - 25.511) e2 + 10.185 = 0.31672
-0.176 e1 - 22.95924 e2 ≈ 0.31672 - 10.185 = -9.86828
-0.176 e1 - 22.95924 * 0.6027 ≈ -9.86828
-0.176 e1 - 13.84 ≈ -9.86828
-0.176 e1 ≈ -9.86828 + 13.84 = 3.97172
e1 ≈ 3.97172 / -0.176 ≈ -22.5. Stoichiometry cannot be negative.

This means the assumption of 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c` is likely incorrect, or the assumption of mass action kinetics is incorrect, or the assumption of f=1 for R3 is incorrect.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry based on the ratios from Exp0 and Exp7.
Exp0: |Δ`id_pv68`| : |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 25 : 4
Exp7: |Δ`id_pv68`| : |Δ`id_4r19`| ≈ 25 : 1 (approximate initial values)

Exp0: |Δ`id_5via`| : |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 21.6 : 3.39 ≈ 6.37 : 1 ≈ 13 : 2
Exp7: |Δ`id_5via`| : |Δ`id_im7c`| ≈ 24.1 : 0.861 ≈ 28 : 1

The product ratios are also inconsistent.

Let's look at the ratio of consumed `id_pv68` to consumed `id_4r19` in each experiment.
Exp0: 24.956 / 3.858 ≈ 6.469
Exp6: 9.985 / 3.678 ≈ 2.71
Exp7: 24.951 / 0.968 ≈ 25.77

These ratios are very different. This strongly suggests that `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` are consumed in separate reactions whose rates are not simply proportional to each other.

Let's go back to the simplest possible reaction structure that fits the qualitative behavior:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume simple mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know the rate constants are inconsistent.

What if the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know the rate constants are inconsistent.

Let's consider the possibility that `id_n9e9` is an enzyme that catalyzes R1 and R2.
R1: `id_pv68` + `id_n9e9` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy` + `id_n9e9`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_n9e9]
R2: `id_4r19` + `id_n9e9` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy` + `id_n9e9`. Rate = k2 * [id_4r19] * [id_n9e9]
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Since [id_n9e9] is roughly constant, this is effectively the same as Rate = k * [Reactant].

What if `id_n9e9` is a catalyst for the production of `id_k1hy` from both `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`?
R1: `id_pv68` + `id_4r19` + `id_n9e9` -> `id_5via` + `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy` + `id_n9e9`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] * [id_n9e9]
R2: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k2 * [id_k1hy]

Since [id_n9e9] is roughly constant, Rate(R1) = k1_eff * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]. We already tried this and the effective k1 was inconsistent.

Let's look at the initial rates of `id_k1hy` production again.
d[id_k1hy]/dt at t=0:
Exp0: 3.26
Exp6: 0.7
Exp7: 0.1 (from full data)

Initial concentrations [id_pv68], [id_4r19]:
Exp0: 25, 4
Exp6: 10, 4
Exp7: 25, 1

Let Rate_k1hy_prod = f([id_pv68], [id_4r19]).
f(25, 4) ≈ 3.26
f(10, 4) ≈ 0.7
f(25, 1) ≈ 0.1

Let's try to find a function f that fits these points.
If f([id_pv68], [id_4r19]) = k * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
Exp0: k * 25^a * 4^b ≈ 3.26
Exp6: k * 10^a * 4^b ≈ 0.7
Exp7: k * 25^a * 1^b ≈ 0.1

Divide Exp0 by Exp6: (25/10)^a = 2.5^a ≈ 3.26 / 0.7 ≈ 4.657 => a ≈ log(4.657) / log(2.5) ≈ 1.55 / 0.398 ≈ 3.89. Close to 4.

Divide Exp0 by Exp7: (4/1)^b = 4^b ≈ 3.26 / 0.1 = 32.6 => b ≈ log(32.6) / log(4) ≈ 1.51 / 0.602 ≈ 2.5. Close to 2.5 or 5/2.

Let's try a=4, b=2.5.
f([id_pv68], [id_4r19]) = k * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2.5
Exp0: k * 25^4 * 4^2.5 = k * 390625 * 32 ≈ k * 12500000 ≈ 3.26 => k ≈ 3.26 / 12500000 ≈ 2.6e-7
Exp6: k * 10^4 * 4^2.5 = k * 10000 * 32 ≈ k * 320000 ≈ 0.7 => k ≈ 0.7 / 320000 ≈ 2.18e-6
Exp7: k * 25^4 * 1^2.5 = k * 390625 * 1 ≈ k * 390625 ≈ 0.1 => k ≈ 0.1 / 390625 ≈ 2.56e-7

k values are somewhat consistent between Exp0 and Exp7 (around 2.6e-7), but Exp6 is different (2.18e-6).

Let's try integer powers a=4, b=2.
f([id_pv68], [id_4r19]) = k * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Exp0: k * 25^4 * 4^2 = k * 390625 * 16 ≈ k * 6250000 ≈ 3.26 => k ≈ 5.2e-7
Exp6: k * 10^4 * 4^2 = k * 10000 * 16 ≈ k * 160000 ≈ 0.7 => k ≈ 4.375e-6
Exp7: k * 25^4 * 1^2 = k * 390625 * 1 ≈ k * 390625 ≈ 0.1 => k ≈ 2.56e-7

Still inconsistent k values.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production. What if it's produced in two separate reactions with different kinetics?
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = v1([id_pv68], [id_4r19])
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`. Rate = v2([id_pv68], [id_4r19])
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * v1 + e2 * v2 - k3 * [id_k1hy]

At t=0, d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * v1(initial) + e2 * v2(initial).
Let's assume v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b and v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d.

This is getting too complex without more specific hints or fitting tools.

Let's look at the total changes again, focusing on integer ratios that appear consistently.
The ratio of consumed `id_pv68` to produced `id_5via` is around 1.03 - 1.35. Close to 1:1.
The ratio of consumed `id_4r19` to produced `id_im7c` is around 1.12 - 1.4. Close to 1:1.

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_pv68`->`id_5via` and `id_4r19`->`id_im7c`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit the initial rates.

What if the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit the total changes with this model structure and kinetics, assuming integer stoichiometries e1, e2, g.
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g = 0.467

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.
e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g = 1.05

Exp7: Extent R1 ≈ 24.1, Extent R2 ≈ 0.861. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 9.7. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.107.
e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

Let's try integer values for e1, e2, g again.
If g=1:
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 9.157
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 4.01
3) 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 = 9.807
From (1) and (2), e1≈0.33, e2≈0.6.
Check with (3): 24.1 * 0.33 + 0.861 * 0.6 = 7.953 + 0.5166 = 8.4696. Expected 9.807. No.

If g=2:
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 4.812
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 2.53
3) 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 = 4.957
From (1) and (2), e1≈0.127, e2≈0.606.
Check with (3): 24.1 * 0.127 + 0.861 * 0.606 = 3.06 + 0.522 = 3.582. Expected 4.957. No.

Let's try g=0.5 (2 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`).
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 17.847
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 6.97
3) 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 = 19.507
From (1) and (2), e1≈0.73, e2≈0.61.
Check with (3): 24.1 * 0.73 + 0.861 * 0.61 = 17.593 + 0.525 = 18.118. Expected 19.507. No.

The stoichiometry based on total changes is inconsistent across experiments, even with the assumed reaction structure. This points back to non-mass action kinetics or more complex interactions.

Let's look at the initial rates of `id_pv68` consumption.
Exp0: -89.12, [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4
Exp6: -7.0, [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4
Exp7: -89.12, [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=1 (from full data, -89.12 is likely a typo in my previous calculation, let's recheck)
Exp7 initial rate of `id_pv68` consumption: (16.088 - 25) / 0.1 = -89.12 (This is Exp0 data).
Let's get the initial rate from Exp7 data.
Exp7 data at t=0.1: id_pv68 = 16.088135 (This is Exp0 data again).
Let's look at the raw data provided in the prompt for Exp7.
Time=0: id_pv68=25, id_4r19=1
Time=0.1: id_pv68=24.129427, id_4r19=0.960199
Initial rate of `id_pv68` consumption in Exp7 ≈ (24.129 - 25) / 0.1 = -8.71
Initial rate of `id_4r19` consumption in Exp7 ≈ (0.960 - 1) / 0.1 = -0.4

Initial rates of consumption:
Exp0: d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -89.12, d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -15.99
Exp6: d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -7.0, d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -0.8
Exp7: d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -8.71, d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -0.4

Let's assume R1: `id_pv68` -> ..., Rate = v1([id_pv68], [id_4r19])
Let's assume R2: `id_4r19` -> ..., Rate = v2([id_pv68], [id_4r19])

v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12
v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0
v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71

v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99
v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8
v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Let's try to find a function v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
Exp0: k1 * 25^a * 4^b ≈ 89.12
Exp6: k1 * 10^a * 4^b ≈ 7.0
Exp7: k1 * 25^a * 1^b ≈ 8.71

Divide Exp0 by Exp6: 2.5^a ≈ 89.12 / 7.0 ≈ 12.73 => a ≈ log(12.73) / log(2.5) ≈ 1.1 / 0.398 ≈ 2.76. Close to 3.

Divide Exp0 by Exp7: 4^b ≈ 89.12 / 8.71 ≈ 10.23 => b ≈ log(10.23) / log(4) ≈ 1.01 / 0.602 ≈ 1.67. Close to 1.5 or 5/3.

Let's try a=3, b=1.5.
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^1.5
Exp0: k1 * 25^3 * 4^1.5 = k1 * 15625 * 8 = k1 * 125000 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 7.13e-4
Exp6: k1 * 10^3 * 4^1.5 = k1 * 1000 * 8 = k1 * 8000 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 8.75e-4
Exp7: k1 * 25^3 * 1^1.5 = k1 * 15625 * 1 = k1 * 15625 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 5.57e-4

k1 values are somewhat consistent (around 5.5e-4 to 8.7e-4).

Let's try to find a function v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
Exp0: k2 * 25^c * 4^d ≈ 15.99
Exp6: k2 * 10^c * 4^d ≈ 0.8
Exp7: k2 * 25^c * 1^d ≈ 0.4

Divide Exp0 by Exp6: 2.5^c ≈ 15.99 / 0.8 = 19.9875 => c ≈ log(19.9875) / log(2.5) ≈ 1.3 / 0.398 ≈ 3.26. Close to 3.

Divide Exp0 by Exp7: 4^d ≈ 15.99 / 0.4 = 39.975 => d ≈ log(39.975) / log(4) ≈ 1.6 / 0.602 ≈ 2.65. Close to 2.5 or 5/2.

Let's try c=3, d=2.5.
v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2.5
Exp0: k2 * 25^3 * 4^2.5 = k2 * 125000 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 1.279e-4
Exp6: k2 * 10^3 * 4^2.5 = k2 * 8000 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 1e-4
Exp7: k2 * 25^3 * 1^2.5 = k2 * 15625 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 2.56e-5

k2 values are less consistent.

Let's try integer powers a=3, b=2, c=3, d=2.
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Exp0: k1 * 25^3 * 4^2 = k1 * 15625 * 16 = k1 * 250000 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56e-4
Exp6: k1 * 10^3 * 4^2 = k1 * 1000 * 16 = k1 * 16000 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 4.375e-4
Exp7: k1 * 25^3 * 1^2 = k1 * 15625 * 1 = k1 * 15625 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 5.57e-4
k1 values are somewhat consistent (3.5e-4 to 5.5e-4).

v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Exp0: k2 * 25^3 * 4^2 = k2 * 250000 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 6.396e-5
Exp6: k2 * 10^3 * 4^2 = k2 * 16000 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 5e-5
Exp7: k2 * 25^3 * 1^2 = k2 * 15625 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 2.56e-5
k2 values are less consistent.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is 1:1 for the main conversions and the rate laws are power laws.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

From initial rates of `id_k1hy` production:
d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * v1 + e2 * v2 = (e1 * k1 + e2 * k2) * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Let K = e1 * k1 + e2 * k2.
Exp0: K * 25^3 * 4^2 = K * 250000 ≈ 3.26 => K ≈ 1.304e-5
Exp6: K * 10^3 * 4^2 = K * 16000 ≈ 0.7 => K ≈ 4.375e-5
Exp7: K * 25^3 * 1^2 = K * 15625 ≈ 0.1 => K ≈ 6.4e-6

K values are inconsistent.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production.
d[id_k1hy]/dt at t=0:
Exp0: 3.26
Exp6: 0.7
Exp7: 0.1

Let's assume R1 produces `id_k1hy` and R2 does not (e2=0).
d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * v1 - k3 * [id_k1hy]
At t=0: d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * v1(initial).
v1(initial) = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
e1 * k1 * 25^a * 4^b ≈ 3.26
e1 * k1 * 10^a * 4^b ≈ 0.7
e1 * k1 * 25^a * 1^b ≈ 0.1

Let K1 = e1 * k1.
K1 * 25^a * 4^b ≈ 3.26
K1 * 10^a * 4^b ≈ 0.7
K1 * 25^a * 1^b ≈ 0.1

Divide first by second: 2.5^a ≈ 4.657 => a ≈ 3.89 ≈ 4.
Divide first by third: 4^b ≈ 32.6 => b ≈ 2.5 ≈ 2.5.

Let's try a=4, b=2.5.
K1 * 25^4 * 4^2.5 = K1 * 12500000 ≈ 3.26 => K1 ≈ 2.6e-7
K1 * 10^4 * 4^2.5 = K1 * 320000 ≈ 0.7 => K1 ≈ 2.18e-6
K1 * 25^4 * 1^2.5 = K1 * 390625 ≈ 0.1 => K1 ≈ 2.56e-7
K1 is somewhat consistent between Exp0 and Exp7.

Let's assume R2 produces `id_k1hy` and R1 does not (e1=0).
d[id_k1hy]/dt = e2 * v2 - k3 * [id_k1hy]
At t=0: d[id_k1hy]/dt = e2 * v2(initial).
v2(initial) = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
e2 * k2 * 25^c * 4^d ≈ 3.26
e2 * k2 * 10^c * 4^d ≈ 0.7
e2 * k2 * 25^c * 1^d ≈ 0.1

Let K2 = e2 * k2.
K2 * 25^c * 4^d ≈ 3.26
K2 * 10^c * 4^d ≈ 0.7
K2 * 25^c * 1^d ≈ 0.1

This gives the same exponents c≈4, d≈2.5.
K2 * 25^4 * 4^2.5 ≈ 3.26 => K2 ≈ 2.6e-7
K2 * 10^4 * 4^2.5 ≈ 0.7 => K2 ≈ 2.18e-6
K2 * 25^4 * 1^2.5 ≈ 0.1 => K2 ≈ 2.56e-7
K2 is somewhat consistent between Exp0 and Exp7.

This suggests that either R1 or R2 (or both) produce `id_k1hy` with a rate proportional to [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2.5.
Let's assume R1 produces `id_k1hy` and R2 does not (e2=0).
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2.5
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's check the initial rates of `id_4r19` consumption.
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99
v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8
v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Let's try v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2.5 (from previous estimation).
k2 * 25^3 * 4^2.5 = k2 * 125000 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 1.279e-4
k2 * 10^3 * 4^2.5 = k2 * 8000 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 1e-4
k2 * 25^3 * 1^2.5 = k2 * 15625 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 2.56e-5
k2 is somewhat consistent between Exp0 and Exp6.

Let's try the model:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2.5
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2.5
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

This involves fractional powers in kinetics, which is unusual but possible.

Let's try integer powers that were close: a=4, b=2, c=3, d=2.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's estimate k1, k2 from Exp0 initial rates, assuming 1:1 stoichiometry for main products.
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 25^4 * 4^2 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56e-4
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 25^3 * 4^2 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 6.396e-5

Let's estimate e1 and g (assuming f=1) from total changes.
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * Extent R1 = e1 * 21.6.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 8.69 / g.
e1 * 21.6 - 8.69 / g = 0.467

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = e1 * Extent R1 = e1 * 7.36.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 2.96 / g.
e1 * 7.36 - 2.96 / g = 1.05

System for e1 and 1/g:
1) 21.6 e1 - 8.69 (1/g) = 0.467
2) 7.36 e1 - 2.96 (1/g) = 1.05

Multiply (2) by 8.69/2.96 ≈ 2.936:
2.936 * (7.36 e1 - 2.96 (1/g)) ≈ 2.936 * 1.05
21.6 e1 - 8.69 (1/g) ≈ 3.083

Subtract this from (1):
(21.6 - 21.6) e1 - (8.69 - 8.69) (1/g) ≈ 0.467 - 3.083
0 ≈ -2.616. This is inconsistent.

This means the assumption that R2 does not produce `id_k1hy` is likely wrong.

Let's go back to R1 and R2 both producing `id_k1hy`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for main products.
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g = 0.467

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.
e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g = 1.05

Exp7: Extent R1 ≈ 24.1, Extent R2 ≈ 0.861. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 9.7. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.107.
e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

This is the same system of equations as before, which led to negative stoichiometry.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of R3. What if it's not 1 `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`?
What if it's f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`?
Total `id_k1hy` consumed = f/g * Produced `id_6za2`.

Let's assume f=1, g=1. We got inconsistent e1, e2.
Let's assume f=1, g=2. We got inconsistent e1, e2.
Let's assume f=2, g=1. Total `id_k1hy` consumed = 2 * Produced `id_6za2`.
Exp0: 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 - 2 * 8.69 = 0.467 => 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 17.38 + 0.467 = 17.847
Exp6: 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 2 * 2.96 = 1.05 => 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 5.92 + 1.05 = 6.97
Exp7: 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 - 2 * 9.7 = 0.107 => 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 = 19.4 + 0.107 = 19.507

This is the same system as when we assumed g=0.5, which gave e1≈0.73, e2≈0.61.

Let's try integer stoichiometries e1=1, e2=1, f=1, g=1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`
Kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2, Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2, Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit k1, k2, k3.
From initial rates:
k1 * 25^4 * 4^2 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56e-4
k2 * 25^3 * 4^2 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 6.396e-5
k1 * 10^4 * 4^2 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 4.375e-4
k2 * 10^3 * 4^2 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 5e-5
k1 * 25^4 * 1^2 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 5.57e-4
k2 * 25^3 * 1^2 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 2.56e-5

k1 is around 3.5e-4 to 5.5e-4. Let's try k1 = 4.5e-4.
k2 is around 2.5e-5 to 6.4e-5. Let's try k2 = 4.5e-5.

Now let's estimate k3. From the decay of `id_k1hy` later in Exp0.
Around Time=10, [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.47. d[id_k1hy]/dt is slightly negative.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2) - Rate(R3)

This is getting very complicated to estimate parameters manually.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
Exp0: Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 8.69, Δ`id_k1hy` (net) ≈ 0.467. Ratio ≈ 18.6.
Exp6: Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 2.96, Δ`id_k1hy` (net) ≈ 1.05. Ratio ≈ 2.82.
Exp7: Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 9.7, Δ`id_k1hy` (net) ≈ 0.107. Ratio ≈ 90.6.

The ratio of produced `id_6za2` to net change in `id_k1hy` is highly inconsistent. This suggests that the stoichiometry of R3 or the production of `id_k1hy` is not fixed, or the kinetics are complex.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is fixed and integer. The inconsistency must come from the kinetics.

Let's try the simplest possible integer stoichiometry that seems somewhat plausible from the total changes in Exp0:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` (1:1)
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` (1:1)
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2` (1:1)
And `id_k1hy` is produced in R1 and R2.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume the rate laws are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit k1, k2, k3 using the initial rates of `id_pv68`, `id_4r19`, and `id_k1hy` from Exp0.
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 25 * 4 = -100 k1 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.8912
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 25 * 4 = -100 k2 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.1599
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +k1 * 25 * 4 + k2 * 25 * 4 - k3 * 0 = 100 k1 + 100 k2 ≈ 3.26
100 * (0.8912) + 100 * (0.1599) = 89.12 + 15.99 = 105.11. Expected 3.26. This is very far off.

The assumption that R1 and R2 rates are proportional to [id_pv68] * [id_4r19] with 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production is incorrect.

Let's try the stoichiometry:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 3 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`
Kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 100 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.8912
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 100 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.1599
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +3 * k2 * 100 ≈ 3.26 => 300 k2 ≈ 3.26 => k2 ≈ 0.0108

k2 estimates: 0.1599 vs 0.0108. Inconsistent.

Let's try the stoichiometry:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`
Kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

From Exp0 initial rates:
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 100 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.8912
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 100 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.1599
d[id_k1hy]/dt = +k1 * 100 ≈ 3.26 => 100 k1 ≈ 3.26 => k1 ≈ 0.0326

k1 estimates: 0.8912 vs 0.0326. Inconsistent.

The inconsistency in rate constant estimates across different initial conditions and different species changes strongly suggests that the assumed mass action kinetics with simple integer stoichiometry is not sufficient. The rate laws must be more complex or involve interactions not yet captured.

Let's look at the initial rates again.
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12, v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0, v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99, v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8, v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Ratio v1/v2:
(25, 4): 89.12 / 15.99 ≈ 5.57
(10, 4): 7.0 / 0.8 = 8.75
(25, 1): 8.71 / 0.4 = 21.775

The ratio of the rates of the two main consumption reactions is not constant. This means their rate laws have different dependencies on [id_pv68] and [id_4r19].

Let's assume the stoichiometry is 1:1 for the main conversions and `id_k1hy` production, and 1:1 for `id_k1hy` to `id_6za2`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's try to find rate laws v1([id_pv68], [id_4r19]) and v2([id_pv68], [id_4r19]) that fit the initial rates.
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12, v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0, v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99, v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8, v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Let's try simple power laws again, but fit them separately.
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
a ≈ 3.89 ≈ 4, b ≈ 1.67 ≈ 1.5 or 2.
Let's try a=4, b=2.
k1 * 25^4 * 4^2 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56e-4
k1 * 10^4 * 4^2 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 4.375e-4
k1 * 25^4 * 1^2 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 5.57e-4
Average k1 ≈ 4.5e-4.

v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
c ≈ 3.26 ≈ 3, d ≈ 2.65 ≈ 2.5 or 3.
Let's try c=3, d=2.
k2 * 25^3 * 4^2 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 6.396e-5
k2 * 10^3 * 4^2 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 5e-5
k2 * 25^3 * 1^2 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 2.56e-5
Average k2 ≈ 4.65e-5.

Let's try the model:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = 4.5e-4 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = 4.65e-5 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's estimate k3 from the decay of `id_k1hy` in Exp0.
Around Time=10, [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.47. [id_pv68] ≈ 3.39, [id_4r19] ≈ 0.14.
Rate(R1) ≈ 4.5e-4 * 3.39^4 * 0.14^2 ≈ 4.5e-4 * 131.6 * 0.0196 ≈ 0.00116
Rate(R2) ≈ 4.65e-5 * 3.39^3 * 0.14^2 ≈ 4.65e-5 * 38.9 * 0.0196 ≈ 3.5e-5
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2) - Rate(R3) ≈ 0.00116 + 3.5e-5 - k3 * 0.47 ≈ 0 (at peak)
k3 * 0.47 ≈ 0.0012 => k3 ≈ 0.0025

Let's try k3 = 0.0025.

Let's build the SBML model with this complex kinetics and stoichiometry.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(4.5e-4)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(4.65e-5)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.0025)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Power Law)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68^4 * id_4r19^2")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Power Law)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_pv68^3 * id_4r19^2")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.326411  1.061876     50.0  3.525395  21.73914  3.673589  23.938124  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.233464  1.044178     50.0  1.923351  8.265936  3.766536  8.955822  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2    id_k1hy  id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.22172  2.92476     50.0  3.238181  20.058778  0.77828  22.07524  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 12/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 9
## Thoughts
The simulation results with the power law kinetics and 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production (R1 and R2) and 1:1 for R3 are still not matching the experimental data well. The final concentrations are significantly off, and the dynamics of `id_k1hy` are particularly poor (simulated `id_k1hy` accumulates much more than in the experiment).

This suggests that either:
1. The stoichiometry is incorrect.
2. The kinetic laws are incorrect (power laws with these exponents are not right).
3. The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) or consumption (f, g) is not 1.

Let's revisit the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` based on total changes, assuming 1:1 for main products.
Exp0: e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g = 0.467
Exp6: e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g = 1.05
Exp7: e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

We tried solving this system for integer g (1, 2, 0.5) and got non-integer or negative e1, e2.

Let's reconsider the possibility that `id_k1hy` is produced in only one of the reactions.
Case 1: R1 produces `id_k1hy`, R2 does not (e2=0).
Exp0: e1 * 21.6 - 8.69 / g = 0.467
Exp6: e1 * 7.36 - 2.96 / g = 1.05
Exp7: e1 * 24.1 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

Let y = e1, x = 1/g.
1) 21.6 y - 8.69 x = 0.467
2) 7.36 y - 2.96 x = 1.05
3) 24.1 y - 9.7 x = 0.107

From (2): 2.96 x = 7.36 y - 1.05 => x = (7.36 y - 1.05) / 2.96
Substitute into (1):
21.6 y - 8.69 * (7.36 y - 1.05) / 2.96 = 0.467
63.936 y - (63.9344 y - 9.1245) = 1.38392
0.0016 y + 9.1245 = 1.38392
0.0016 y = 1.38392 - 9.1245 = -7.74058
y ≈ -4837. This is e1, cannot be negative.

Case 2: R2 produces `id_k1hy`, R1 does not (e1=0).
Exp0: e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g = 0.467
Exp6: e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g = 1.05
Exp7: e2 * 0.861 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

Let y = e2, x = 1/g.
1) 3.39 y - 8.69 x = 0.467
2) 2.63 y - 2.96 x = 1.05
3) 0.861 y - 9.7 x = 0.107

From (2): 2.96 x = 2.63 y - 1.05 => x = (2.63 y - 1.05) / 2.96
Substitute into (1):
3.39 y - 8.69 * (2.63 y - 1.05) / 2.96 = 0.467
10.0224 y - (22.8647 y - 9.1245) = 1.38392
-12.8423 y + 9.1245 = 1.38392
-12.8423 y = 1.38392 - 9.1245 = -7.74058
y ≈ 0.6027. Close to 3/5.

Substitute into (3):
0.861 y - 9.7 * (2.63 y - 1.05) / 2.96 = 0.107
2.55176 y - (25.511 y - 10.185) = 0.31672
-22.95924 y + 10.185 = 0.31672
-22.95924 y = 0.31672 - 10.185 = -9.86828
y ≈ 0.43.

Inconsistent y (e2) values (0.6027 vs 0.43).

The stoichiometry based on total changes is inconsistent across experiments, regardless of whether `id_k1hy` is produced in one or both reactions, and regardless of the stoichiometry of R3. This strongly suggests that the assumed reaction structure or the assumption of fixed integer stoichiometry is incorrect.

Let's reconsider the initial observation. `id_n9e9` is relatively constant. Could it be an enzyme or catalyst that is not consumed?

Let's assume the reactions are enzyme-catalyzed by `id_n9e9`.
R1: `id_pv68` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_6za2` (Maybe R3 is also enzyme-catalyzed?)

If the kinetics are Michaelis-Menten:
Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68]) * [id_n9e9] (or Vmax includes [id_n9e9])
Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19]) * [id_n9e9]
Rate(R3) = (Vmax3 * [id_k1hy]) / (Km3 + [id_k1hy]) * [id_n9e9]

Since [id_n9e9] is roughly constant, we can absorb it into Vmax.
Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68])
Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19])
Rate(R3) = (Vmax3 * [id_k1hy]) / (Km3 + [id_k1hy])

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for main products and `id_k1hy` production/consumption.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's try to fit the initial rates with Michaelis-Menten kinetics for R1 and R2, and mass action for R3.
Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68])
Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19])
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Initial rates at t=0 ([id_k1hy]=0):
d[id_pv68]/dt = -Rate(R1)
d[id_4r19]/dt = -Rate(R2)
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2)

Exp0: [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=4. d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -89.12, d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -15.99, d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 3.26.
Rate(R1) ≈ 89.12 = (Vmax1 * 25) / (Km1 + 25)
Rate(R2) ≈ 15.99 = (Vmax2 * 4) / (Km2 + 4)
89.12 + 15.99 = 105.11. Expected d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 3.26. This doesn't fit the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production.

Let's try the stoichiometry where R1 and R2 produce different amounts of `id_k1hy`.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * Rate(R1) + e2 * Rate(R2) - g * Rate(R3) (assuming f=1)
At t=0: d[id_k1hy]/dt = e1 * Rate(R1) + e2 * Rate(R2)

Exp0: 3.26 = e1 * 89.12 + e2 * 15.99
Exp6: [id_pv68]=10, [id_4r19]=4. d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -7.0, d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -0.8, d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0.7.
Rate(R1) ≈ 7.0 = (Vmax1 * 10) / (Km1 + 10)
Rate(R2) ≈ 0.8 = (Vmax2 * 4) / (Km2 + 4)
0.7 = e1 * 7.0 + e2 * 0.8

Exp7: [id_pv68]=25, [id_4r19]=1. d[id_pv68]/dt ≈ -8.71, d[id_4r19]/dt ≈ -0.4, d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0.1.
Rate(R1) ≈ 8.71 = (Vmax1 * 25) / (Km1 + 25)
Rate(R2) ≈ 0.4 = (Vmax2 * 1) / (Km2 + 1)
0.1 = e1 * 8.71 + e2 * 0.4

From R1 rates:
89.12 = (Vmax1 * 25) / (Km1 + 25)
7.0 = (Vmax1 * 10) / (Km1 + 10)
8.71 = (Vmax1 * 25) / (Km1 + 25) (Same as first equation)

89.12 * (Km1 + 25) = 25 * Vmax1 => 89.12 Km1 + 2228 = 25 Vmax1
7.0 * (Km1 + 10) = 10 * Vmax1 => 7.0 Km1 + 70 = 10 Vmax1

Multiply second equation by 2.5:
17.5 Km1 + 175 = 25 Vmax1
Subtract from first equation:
(89.12 - 17.5) Km1 + (2228 - 175) = 0
71.62 Km1 + 2053 = 0 => Km1 is negative. Michaelis-Menten kinetics for R1 is not fitting.

Let's try Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b again.
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12, v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0, v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71
We estimated a≈4, b≈1.5 or 2.

Let's try Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99, v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8, v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4
We estimated c≈3, d≈2.5 or 2.

Let's assume integer powers a=4, b=2, c=3, d=2.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Initial rates of `id_k1hy` production:
Exp0: 3.26 = e1 * (k1 * 25^4 * 4^2) + e2 * (k2 * 25^3 * 4^2) = e1 * 250000 k1 + e2 * 16000 k2
Exp6: 0.7 = e1 * (k1 * 10^4 * 4^2) + e2 * (k2 * 10^3 * 4^2) = e1 * 16000 k1 + e2 * 16000 k2
Exp7: 0.1 = e1 * (k1 * 25^4 * 1^2) + e2 * (k2 * 25^3 * 1^2) = e1 * 15625 k1 + e2 * 15625 k2

Let K1 = e1 * k1, K2 = e2 * k2.
1) 250000 K1 + 16000 K2 = 3.26
2) 16000 K1 + 16000 K2 = 0.7
3) 15625 K1 + 15625 K2 = 0.1

From (2): 16000 K2 = 0.7 - 16000 K1 => K2 = (0.7 - 16000 K1) / 16000 = 4.375e-5 - K1
Substitute into (1):
250000 K1 + 16000 * (4.375e-5 - K1) = 3.26
250000 K1 + 0.7 - 16000 K1 = 3.26
234000 K1 = 3.26 - 0.7 = 2.56
K1 = 2.56 / 234000 ≈ 1.094e-5

K2 = 4.375e-5 - 1.094e-5 = 3.281e-5

Check with (3):
15625 * K1 + 15625 * K2 = 15625 * (1.094e-5 + 3.281e-5) = 15625 * 4.375e-5 ≈ 0.683. Expected 0.1. No.

The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) is likely not 1:1, or the power law exponents are not integers, or the kinetic form is different.

Let's assume the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is integer.
Let's try e1=1, e2=0. We got inconsistent K1.
Let's try e1=0, e2=1. We got inconsistent K2.

Let's try e1=1, e2=1. We got inconsistent K1+K2.

Let's try e1=1, e2=2.
K = e1 * k1 + e2 * k2 = k1 + 2 k2.
K * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2 (if both rates have same exponents)
But the exponents are different.

Let's assume the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is 1 in R1 and 5 in R2, and R3 is 1:2 (`id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`), as suggested by the earlier attempt to fit total changes.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume the power law kinetics with integer exponents:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + 5 `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> 2 `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Initial rates of `id_k1hy` production:
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + 5 * Rate(R2)
Exp0: k1 * 25^4 * 4^2 + 5 * k2 * 25^3 * 4^2 = 250000 k1 + 80000 k2 ≈ 3.26
Exp6: k1 * 10^4 * 4^2 + 5 * k2 * 10^3 * 4^2 = 16000 k1 + 80000 k2 ≈ 0.7
Exp7: k1 * 25^4 * 1^2 + 5 * k2 * 25^3 * 1^2 = 15625 k1 + 78125 k2 ≈ 0.1

1) 250000 k1 + 80000 k2 = 3.26
2) 16000 k1 + 80000 k2 = 0.7
3) 15625 k1 + 78125 k2 = 0.1

From (2): 80000 k2 = 0.7 - 16000 k1 => k2 = (0.7 - 16000 k1) / 80000 = 8.75e-6 - 0.2 k1
Substitute into (1):
250000 k1 + 80000 * (8.75e-6 - 0.2 k1) = 3.26
250000 k1 + 0.7 - 16000 k1 = 3.26
234000 k1 = 2.56
k1 = 2.56 / 234000 ≈ 1.094e-5

k2 = 8.75e-6 - 0.2 * 1.094e-5 = 8.75e-6 - 2.188e-6 = 6.562e-6

Check with (3):
15625 * k1 + 78125 * k2 = 15625 * 1.094e-5 + 78125 * 6.562e-6
= 0.171 + 0.513 = 0.684. Expected 0.1. No.

The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is still not fitting.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of R3. What if it's not 1:2?
Let's assume R3 is `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy].
Let's assume R1 and R2 produce `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry 1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Initial rates of `id_k1hy` production:
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2)
Exp0: 250000 k1 + 16000 k2 ≈ 3.26
Exp6: 16000 k1 + 16000 k2 ≈ 0.7
Exp7: 15625 k1 + 15625 k2 ≈ 0.1

This is the same system for K1+K2 as before, which was inconsistent.

Let's look at the total production of `id_6za2` and total consumption of `id_k1hy`.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed by R3 = Total `id_k1hy` produced by R1 and R2 - Net Δ`id_k1hy`.
Total `id_k1hy` consumed by R3 = (Produced `id_6za2`) / g.

Let's assume R1 and R2 produce `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry 1.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = Extent R1 + Extent R2.
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 21.6 + 3.39 = 24.99.
Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 24.99 - 0.467 = 24.523.
24.523 = 8.69 / g => g ≈ 8.69 / 24.523 ≈ 0.354. Close to 1/3.

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 7.36 + 2.63 = 9.99.
Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 9.99 - 1.05 = 8.94.
8.94 = 2.96 / g => g ≈ 2.96 / 8.94 ≈ 0.331. Close to 1/3.

Exp7: Extent R1 ≈ 24.1, Extent R2 ≈ 0.861. Produced `id_k1hy` ≈ 24.1 + 0.861 = 24.961.
Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 24.961 - 0.107 = 24.854.
24.854 = 9.7 / g => g ≈ 9.7 / 24.854 ≈ 0.39. Close to 1/3.

This strongly suggests that the stoichiometry of R3 is 1 `id_k1hy` -> 1/3 `id_6za2`, or 3 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`.
Let's try R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`.

Let's try the model:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's use the average k1 ≈ 4.5e-4 and k2 ≈ 4.65e-5 from initial rate fitting.
Let's estimate k3 from the decay of `id_k1hy` in Exp0.
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2) - 3 * Rate(R3) = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2) - 3 * k3 * [id_k1hy]
Around Time=10, [id_k1hy] ≈ 0.47. [id_pv68] ≈ 3.39, [id_4r19] ≈ 0.14.
Rate(R1) ≈ 4.5e-4 * 3.39^4 * 0.14^2 ≈ 0.00116
Rate(R2) ≈ 4.65e-5 * 3.39^3 * 0.14^2 ≈ 3.5e-5
d[id_k1hy]/dt ≈ 0.00116 + 3.5e-5 - 3 * k3 * 0.47 ≈ 0 (at peak)
0.0012 ≈ 3 * k3 * 0.47 = 1.41 k3
k3 ≈ 0.0012 / 1.41 ≈ 0.00085.

Let's try k3 = 0.00085.

Let's build the SBML model with this stoichiometry and kinetics.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(4.5e-4)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(4.65e-5)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.00085)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Power Law)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68^4 * id_4r19^2")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Power Law)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_pv68^3 * id_4r19^2")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: 3 id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(3.0) # Stoichiometry is 3
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0) # Stoichiometry is 1
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy") # Rate is proportional to [id_k1hy]
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9  id_6za2    id_k1hy  id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.32641  1.061881     50.0   1.8577  21.691429  3.67359  23.938119  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.233465  1.044158     50.0  1.313605  8.248491  3.766535  8.955842  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2    id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.221719  2.924734     50.0  1.760173  20.016465  0.778281  22.075266  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 11/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 10
## Thoughts
The simulation results with the updated stoichiometry (R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`) and power law kinetics are still not fitting the experimental data well. The final concentrations of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` are particularly off. The simulated `id_k1hy` accumulates too much, and `id_6za2` production is too low.

This suggests that either:
1. The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) is not 1.
2. The stoichiometry of R3 (f, g) is incorrect.
3. The kinetic laws are incorrect.
4. The estimated rate constants are not optimal.

Let's revisit the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) and R3 (f, g) using the system of equations derived from total changes, assuming 1:1 stoichiometry for main products and f=1 for R3.
e1 * Extent(R1) + e2 * Extent(R2) - Produced `id_6za2` / g = Net Δ`id_k1hy`

Exp0: e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - 8.69 / g = 0.467
Exp6: e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - 2.96 / g = 1.05
Exp7: e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 - 9.7 / g = 0.107

We tried integer g values and got non-integer e1, e2. We tried solving for e1, e2, 1/g and got inconsistent results.

Let's reconsider the possibility that the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is not 1:1 in R1 and R2.
Let's assume the stoichiometry of R3 is 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2` (g=1, f=3).
Total `id_k1hy` consumed by R3 = 3 * Produced `id_6za2`.
Exp0: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 3 * 8.69 = 26.07.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 26.07 + 0.467 = 26.537.
e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 ≈ 26.537

Exp6: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 3 * 2.96 = 8.88.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 8.88 + 1.05 = 9.93.
e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 ≈ 9.93

Exp7: Consumed `id_k1hy` ≈ 3 * 9.7 = 29.1.
Total `id_k1hy` produced = 29.1 + 0.107 = 29.207.
e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 ≈ 29.207

System for e1, e2:
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 = 26.537
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 = 9.93
3) 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 = 29.207

From (2): 2.63 e2 = 9.93 - 7.36 e1 => e2 = (9.93 - 7.36 e1) / 2.63
Substitute into (1):
21.6 e1 + 3.39 * (9.93 - 7.36 e1) / 2.63 = 26.537
56.79 e1 + 33.67 - 24.95 e1 = 69.88
31.84 e1 = 69.88 - 33.67 = 36.21
e1 = 36.21 / 31.84 ≈ 1.137. Close to 1.

e2 = (9.93 - 7.36 * 1.137) / 2.63 = (9.93 - 8.37) / 2.63 = 1.56 / 2.63 ≈ 0.593. Close to 3/5.

Let's try e1=1, e2=3/5 (or 5e2=3).
Check with (3): 24.1 * 1 + 0.861 * 0.593 = 24.1 + 0.51 = 24.61. Expected 29.207. No.

Let's try integer e1=1, e2=1.
1) 21.6 + 3.39 = 24.99 ≈ 26.537 (Close)
2) 7.36 + 2.63 = 9.99 ≈ 9.93 (Close)
3) 24.1 + 0.861 = 24.961 ≈ 29.207 (Not close)

Let's try integer e1=1, e2=2.
1) 21.6 + 3.39 * 2 = 21.6 + 6.78 = 28.38 ≈ 26.537 (Close)
2) 7.36 + 2.63 * 2 = 7.36 + 5.26 = 12.62 ≈ 9.93 (Not close)
3) 24.1 + 0.861 * 2 = 24.1 + 1.722 = 25.822 ≈ 29.207 (Close)

Let's try integer e1=2, e2=1.
1) 21.6 * 2 + 3.39 = 43.2 + 3.39 = 46.59 ≈ 26.537 (No)

Let's try integer e1=1, e2=0.
1) 21.6 ≈ 26.537 (No)
Let's try integer e1=0, e2=1.
1) 3.39 ≈ 26.537 (No)

The stoichiometry based on total changes is still inconsistent across experiments.

Let's reconsider the kinetic laws. The power laws with integer exponents didn't fit the initial rates perfectly, but they were the closest integer exponents.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is correct (R1: 1:1, R2: 1:1, R3: 3:1 for `id_k1hy`:`id_6za2`, R1 and R2 produce 1 `id_k1hy`).
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to optimize the rate constants k1, k2, k3 using the simulation results. The current k values were estimated from initial rates. Maybe they are not optimal for the entire time course.

Let's try adjusting the rate constants based on the simulation results.
In the simulation, `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` are consumed too slowly in Exp0 and Exp6, but too quickly in Exp7. `id_5via` and `id_im7c` production is too slow in Exp0 and Exp6, but too fast in Exp7. `id_k1hy` accumulates too much. `id_6za2` production is too low.

This suggests:
- R1 and R2 rates are too low in Exp0 and Exp6, too high in Exp7. This contradicts the power law kinetics if k1 and k2 are constant.
- R3 rate is too low (since `id_k1hy` accumulates and `id_6za2` production is low).

Let's try increasing k3 significantly. Let's try k3 = 0.01.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model from shared variables
updated_sbml = shared_variables.access("current_sbml_model")
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Update parameter values
model.getParameter("k3").setValue(0.01)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.326408  1.061897     50.0  6.903191  6.554937  3.673592  23.938103  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.233466  1.044205     50.0  3.183524  2.638688  3.766534  8.955795  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2  id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.221719  2.924692     50.0  6.294442   6.4137  0.778281  22.075308  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 10/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 11
## Thoughts
Increasing k3 helped reduce the accumulation of `id_k1hy` and increased `id_6za2` production, but the fit is still poor. The simulated `id_k1hy` is still too high, and `id_6za2` production is still too low in Exp6 and Exp7, although closer in Exp0. The consumption of reactants and production of main products are also not well matched across experiments.

The inconsistency across experiments with the current model structure and kinetics is a strong indicator that the model is fundamentally wrong. The power law kinetics with integer exponents, while derived from initial rate fitting, do not seem to capture the system's behavior over time and across different initial conditions.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production. The total change analysis consistently pointed towards non-integer or unusual integer ratios for `id_k1hy` production relative to main product formation, and for `id_k1hy` consumption relative to `id_6za2` formation.

Let's look at the ratios of total changes again, focusing on `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
Exp0: Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 8.69, Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467. Ratio ≈ 18.6.
Exp6: Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 2.96, Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05. Ratio ≈ 2.82.
Exp7: Δ`id_6za2` ≈ 9.7, Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.107. Ratio ≈ 90.6.

These ratios are highly variable. This could mean:
- The stoichiometry of R3 is not fixed.
- The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production in R1/R2 is not fixed.
- There are other reactions involving `id_k1hy` or `id_6za2`.
- The kinetics are highly non-linear or regulated.

Given the constraint of no new species, let's focus on reactions between existing species.

Let's reconsider the possibility of a single reaction consuming `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` and producing everything else.
R1: a `id_pv68` + b `id_4r19` -> c `id_5via` + d `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy` + f `id_6za2`

From Exp0 total changes:
a:b:c:d:e:f ≈ 24.956 : 3.858 : 21.6 : 3.39 : -0.467 : 8.69
The negative stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` means it's consumed overall in this single reaction model, which contradicts the initial increase. So, a single reaction is unlikely.

Let's go back to the three-reaction model:
R1: a `id_pv68` -> b `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: c `id_4r19` -> d `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for the main conversions (a=b=c=d=1).
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume mass action kinetics: Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19], Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy].
We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume the power law kinetics with integer exponents that seemed somewhat plausible for initial rates:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) and R3 (f, g) again using the total changes, but this time using the *simulated* extents from the previous run, as the kinetics are now fixed.

Let's calculate the extent of R1 and R2 from the simulated data (last row).
Sim Exp0: Δ`id_pv68` ≈ 1.06 - 25 = -23.94. Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 3.67 - 4 = -0.33. Δ`id_5via` ≈ 23.94 - 0 = 23.94. Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 0.326 - 0 = 0.326.
Sim Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 23.94 (from `id_pv68` and `id_5via`). Extent R2 ≈ 0.326 (from `id_4r19` and `id_im7c`).
Sim Exp0: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 6.9. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 6.55.
e1 * 23.94 + e2 * 0.326 - 6.9 / g = 6.55

Sim Exp6: Δ`id_pv68` ≈ 1.04 - 10 = -8.96. Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 3.77 - 4 = -0.23. Δ`id_5via` ≈ 8.96 - 0 = 8.96. Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 0.233 - 0 = 0.233.
Sim Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 8.96. Extent R2 ≈ 0.233.
Sim Exp6: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 3.18. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 2.64.
e1 * 8.96 + e2 * 0.233 - 3.18 / g = 2.64

Sim Exp7: Δ`id_pv68` ≈ 2.92 - 25 = -22.08. Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 0.778 - 1 = -0.222. Δ`id_5via` ≈ 22.08 - 0 = 22.08. Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 0.221 - 0 = 0.221.
Sim Exp7: Extent R1 ≈ 22.08. Extent R2 ≈ 0.221.
Sim Exp7: Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 6.29. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 20.06.
e1 * 22.08 + e2 * 0.221 - 6.29 / g = 20.06

Let's assume g=1.
1) 23.94 e1 + 0.326 e2 - 6.9 = 6.55 => 23.94 e1 + 0.326 e2 = 13.45
2) 8.96 e1 + 0.233 e2 - 3.18 = 2.64 => 8.96 e1 + 0.233 e2 = 5.82
3) 22.08 e1 + 0.221 e2 - 6.29 = 20.06 => 22.08 e1 + 0.221 e2 = 26.35

From (2): 0.233 e2 = 5.82 - 8.96 e1 => e2 = (5.82 - 8.96 e1) / 0.233
Substitute into (1):
23.94 e1 + 0.326 * (5.82 - 8.96 e1) / 0.233 = 13.45
23.94 * 0.233 e1 + 0.326 * (5.82 - 8.96 e1) = 13.45 * 0.233
5.577 e1 + 1.898 - 2.919 e1 = 3.136
2.658 e1 = 3.136 - 1.898 = 1.238
e1 ≈ 0.465. Close to 0.5 or 1/2.

e2 = (5.82 - 8.96 * 0.465) / 0.233 = (5.82 - 4.1664) / 0.233 = 1.6536 / 0.233 ≈ 7.09. Close to 7.

Let's try e1=0.5, e2=7, g=1.
Check with (3): 22.08 * 0.5 + 0.221 * 7 = 11.04 + 1.547 = 12.587. Expected 26.35. No.

The stoichiometry based on simulated total changes is also inconsistent. This strongly suggests the model structure or kinetics are wrong.

Let's reconsider the initial rate fitting. The power law exponents were approximate. Maybe the true exponents are slightly different, or the kinetic form is different.

Let's look at the initial rates again.
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12, v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0, v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99, v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8, v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Let's try to find a simpler kinetic form that fits these points.
What if v1 is proportional to [id_pv68] and v2 is proportional to [id_4r19], but the proportionality constants depend on the other species?
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68] * f1([id_4r19])
v2 = k2 * [id_4r19] * f2([id_pv68])

If f1([id_4r19]) = [id_4r19]^b and f2([id_pv68]) = [id_pv68]^c.
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]^b
v2 = k2 * [id_4r19] * [id_pv68]^c

v1(25, 4) = k1 * 25 * 4^b ≈ 89.12
v1(10, 4) = k1 * 10 * 4^b ≈ 7.0
v1(25, 1) = k1 * 25 * 1^b = k1 * 25 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 0.3484

Using k1 ≈ 0.3484:
0.3484 * 25 * 4^b ≈ 89.12 => 8.71 * 4^b ≈ 89.12 => 4^b ≈ 10.23 => b ≈ 1.67. Close to 1.5 or 5/3.
0.3484 * 10 * 4^b ≈ 7.0 => 3.484 * 4^b ≈ 7.0 => 4^b ≈ 2.009 => b ≈ 0.501. Close to 0.5 or 1/2.
Inconsistent b.

Let's try v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b and v2 = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d again.
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12, v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0, v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99, v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8, v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Let's assume integer exponents again: a=4, b=2, c=3, d=2.
k1 * 25^4 * 4^2 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56e-4
k1 * 10^4 * 4^2 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 4.375e-4
k1 * 25^4 * 1^2 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 5.57e-4
k1 is around 3.5e-4 to 5.5e-4.

k2 * 25^3 * 4^2 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 6.396e-5
k2 * 10^3 * 4^2 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 5e-5
k2 * 25^3 * 1^2 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 2.56e-5
k2 is around 2.5e-5 to 6.4e-5.

The exponents a=4, b=2, c=3, d=2 seem the most plausible integer exponents from initial rate fitting, even if the k values are not perfectly constant.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
The total change analysis for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` was inconsistent across experiments, regardless of the assumed stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) and R3 (f, g).

This suggests that either the stoichiometry is not fixed (unlikely in simple systems) or the kinetics of `id_k1hy` production/consumption are more complex than simple mass action or power laws.

What if `id_k1hy` production is regulated? Or its consumption is regulated?

Let's look at the shape of the `id_k1hy` curve. It rises and falls. This is typical for an intermediate. The peak occurs when its production rate equals its consumption rate.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is 1:1 for R1 and R2 main products, and R1 and R2 produce `id_k1hy` with stoichiometry 1. R3 consumes `id_k1hy` and produces `id_6za2` with stoichiometry 1:1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume the kinetics are:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit the entire time course data using parameter estimation (although I don't have a direct tool for this). I can try to manually adjust parameters and exponents to get a better fit.

The previous simulation with a=4, b=2, c=3, d=2, k1=4.5e-4, k2=4.65e-5, k3=0.01 showed:
- Reactants consumed too slowly in Exp0/6, too fast in Exp7.
- Products `id_5via`, `id_im7c` produced too slowly in Exp0/6, too fast in Exp7.
- `id_k1hy` accumulates too much.
- `id_6za2` produced too little.

This suggests:
- The dependence on [id_pv68] and [id_4r19] in R1 and R2 might be too strong (exponents too high), causing the rates to be very sensitive to initial conditions.
- R3 rate is too low relative to R1 and R2 rates.

Let's try reducing the exponents in R1 and R2 kinetics.
Let's try a=1, b=1, c=1, d=1 (simple mass action on both reactants).
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Initial rate fitting for k1, k2:
Exp0: k1 * 100 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.8912. k2 * 100 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 0.1599.
Exp6: k1 * 40 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 0.175. k2 * 40 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.02.
Exp7: k1 * 25 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 0.3484. k2 * 25 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 0.016.

k1 estimates: 0.89, 0.175, 0.348. Inconsistent.
k2 estimates: 0.16, 0.02, 0.016. Inconsistent.

Let's try a=1, b=0, c=0, d=1 (mass action on single reactant).
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_4r19]
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Initial rate fitting for k1, k2:
Exp0: k1 * 25 ≈ 89.12 => k1 ≈ 3.56. k2 * 4 ≈ 15.99 => k2 ≈ 3.9975.
Exp6: k1 * 10 ≈ 7.0 => k1 ≈ 0.7. k2 * 4 ≈ 0.8 => k2 ≈ 0.2.
Exp7: k1 * 25 ≈ 8.71 => k1 ≈ 0.3484. k2 * 1 ≈ 0.4 => k2 ≈ 0.4.

k1 estimates: 3.56, 0.7, 0.348. Inconsistent.
k2 estimates: 3.9975, 0.2, 0.4. Inconsistent.

The inconsistency of rate constants across experiments with simple mass action or power law kinetics strongly suggests that the true kinetic laws are more complex.

Let's look at the `id_n9e9` species again. It's constant. It's likely a catalyst.
If `id_n9e9` is a catalyst for R1 and R2, and the kinetics are Michaelis-Menten with respect to `id_pv68` and `id_4r19`:
Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68])
Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19])
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We tried fitting initial rates for R1 and R2 separately and found inconsistencies.

What if the reactions are reversible? The initial concentrations of products are 0, and they increase, suggesting the forward rates are dominant initially. The reactants are depleted but not to zero, which could suggest reversibility or equilibrium. However, the problem states "missing reactions," implying adding irreversible reactions is the goal.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`. The ratio of produced `id_6za2` to consumed `id_k1hy` (total produced - net change) was somewhat consistent around 1/3 across experiments if we assume 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production in R1 and R2.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume the kinetics are simple mass action:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume the kinetics are mass action on both reactants:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume the power law kinetics with integer exponents:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find better rate constants for this model structure by manually adjusting them based on the simulation results.
The previous simulation showed `id_k1hy` too high, `id_6za2` too low. This means R3 is too slow relative to R1 and R2.
Let's increase k3 further. Let's try k3 = 0.05.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model from shared variables
updated_sbml = shared_variables.access("current_sbml_model")
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Update parameter values
model.getParameter("k3").setValue(0.05)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450  0.326413   1.0619     50.0  9.053847  0.102971  3.673587  23.9381  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.233467  1.044183     50.0  4.035086  0.084027  3.766533  8.955817  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.221719  2.924724     50.0  8.363171  0.207481  0.778281  22.075276  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 9/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 12
## Thoughts
Increasing k3 to 0.05 significantly improved the fit for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` in Exp0 and Exp6. The final `id_k1hy` concentrations are now much closer to the experimental values, and `id_6za2` production is also closer. However, the fit for Exp7 is still not great for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`. Also, the consumption of reactants and production of main products (`id_pv68`, `id_4r19`, `id_5via`, `id_im7c`) are still not well matched across all experiments.

The current model structure is:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's re-examine the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production. The total change analysis suggested 1:1 stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production in R1 and R2, and 3:1 for `id_k1hy` consumption to `id_6za2` production in R3.

Let's look at the simulation results again.
Sim Exp0: Δ`id_pv68`≈-23.94, Δ`id_4r19`≈-0.33, Δ`id_5via`≈+23.94, Δ`id_im7c`≈+0.326, Δ`id_6za2`≈+8.05, Δ`id_k1hy`≈+0.1.
Sim Exp6: Δ`id_pv68`≈-8.96, Δ`id_4r19`≈-0.23, Δ`id_5via`≈+8.96, Δ`id_im7c`≈+0.233, Δ`id_6za2`≈+3.03, Δ`id_k1hy`≈-0.916.
Sim Exp7: Δ`id_pv68`≈-22.08, Δ`id_4r19`≈-0.222, Δ`id_5via`≈+22.08, Δ`id_im7c`≈+0.221, Δ`id_6za2`≈+7.36, Δ`id_k1hy`≈+19.0.

The simulated changes in `id_pv68` and `id_5via` are equal, and changes in `id_4r19` and `id_im7c` are equal. This is because the stoichiometry is set to 1:1 in the model. The experimental data shows these ratios are close to 1:1 but not exactly. This discrepancy might be due to experimental noise or a slight deviation from 1:1 stoichiometry. Let's assume 1:1 is correct for now.

Let's check the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production and consumption in the simulation.
Sim Exp0: Produced `id_k1hy` by R1+R2 = Extent R1 + Extent R2 ≈ 23.94 + 0.326 = 24.266. Consumed `id_k1hy` by R3 = 3 * Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 3 * 8.05 = 24.15. Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 24.266 - 24.15 = 0.116. Matches simulated net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.1.

Sim Exp6: Produced `id_k1hy` by R1+R2 = Extent R1 + Extent R2 ≈ 8.96 + 0.233 = 9.193. Consumed `id_k1hy` by R3 = 3 * Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 3 * 3.03 = 9.09. Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 9.193 - 9.09 = 0.103. Simulated net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ -0.916. Does not match.

Sim Exp7: Produced `id_k1hy` by R1+R2 = Extent R1 + Extent R2 ≈ 22.08 + 0.221 = 22.301. Consumed `id_k1hy` by R3 = 3 * Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 3 * 7.36 = 22.08. Net Δ`id_k1hy` = 22.301 - 22.08 = 0.221. Simulated net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 19.0. Does not match.

The stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production (e1, e2) or consumption (f, g) is likely incorrect in the model, or the kinetics are wrong, causing the simulated extents to be inaccurate.

Let's revisit the total change analysis from experimental data, assuming the stoichiometry is fixed and integer. The inconsistency across experiments suggested the stoichiometry might be complex.

Let's look at the ratios of consumed reactants in Exp0: 24.956 : 3.858 ≈ 6.47 : 1 ≈ 13 : 2.
Let's look at the ratios of produced main products in Exp0: 21.6 : 3.39 ≈ 6.37 : 1 ≈ 13 : 2.
This 13:2 ratio is consistent between reactants and products in Exp0.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is:
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume the power law kinetics from initial rate fitting:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to fit e, f, g and k1, k2, k3.
From initial rates of R1:
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12 / 13 ≈ 6.855
v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0 / 13 ≈ 0.538
v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71 / 13 ≈ 0.67

k1 * 25^4 * 4^2 ≈ 6.855 => k1 ≈ 2.74e-5
k1 * 10^4 * 4^2 ≈ 0.538 => k1 ≈ 3.36e-5
k1 * 25^4 * 1^2 ≈ 0.67 => k1 ≈ 1.71e-6
k1 is inconsistent.

Let's try the power law exponents that fit v1 better: a=4, b=1.5.
v1 = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^1.5
k1 * 25^4 * 4^1.5 ≈ 6.855 => k1 * 125000 ≈ 6.855 => k1 ≈ 5.48e-5
k1 * 10^4 * 4^1.5 ≈ 0.538 => k1 * 8000 ≈ 0.538 => k1 ≈ 6.725e-5
k1 * 25^4 * 1^1.5 ≈ 0.67 => k1 * 15625 ≈ 0.67 => k1 ≈ 4.28e-5
k1 is somewhat consistent (4.2e-5 to 6.7e-5). Let's use k1 = 5.5e-5.

Now let's consider `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`.
R1: 13 `id_pv68` + 2 `id_4r19` -> 13 `id_5via` + 2 `id_im7c` + e `id_k1hy`
R2: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume R2 is mass action: Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_k1hy].
d[id_k1hy]/dt = e * Rate(R1) - f * Rate(R2)
d[id_6za2]/dt = g * Rate(R2)

From Exp0 total changes:
Extent R1 ≈ 1.925. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
e * 1.925 - f * (Extent R2) = 0.467
g * (Extent R2) = 8.69 => Extent R2 = 8.69 / g
e * 1.925 - f * (8.69 / g) = 0.467

From Exp6 total changes:
Consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 9.985. Extent R1 ≈ 9.985 / 13 ≈ 0.768.
Consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.678. Extent R1 ≈ 3.678 / 2 ≈ 1.839. (Inconsistent Extent R1 from reactants in Exp6).

The inconsistency in the calculated extent of R1 from reactants in Exp6 is a major problem for the single reaction hypothesis with fixed stoichiometry.

Let's go back to the two separate reactions for `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` consumption.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: f `id_k1hy` -> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for main products.
Exp0: Extent R1 ≈ 21.6, Extent R2 ≈ 3.39. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 8.69. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.467.
e1 * 21.6 + e2 * 3.39 - f/g * 8.69 = 0.467

Exp6: Extent R1 ≈ 7.36, Extent R2 ≈ 2.63. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 2.96. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 1.05.
e1 * 7.36 + e2 * 2.63 - f/g * 2.96 = 1.05

Exp7: Extent R1 ≈ 24.1, Extent R2 ≈ 0.861. Produced `id_6za2` ≈ 9.7. Net Δ`id_k1hy` ≈ 0.107.
e1 * 24.1 + e2 * 0.861 - f/g * 9.7 = 0.107

Let x = f/g.
1) 21.6 e1 + 3.39 e2 - 8.69 x = 0.467
2) 7.36 e1 + 2.63 e2 - 2.96 x = 1.05
3) 24.1 e1 + 0.861 e2 - 9.7 x = 0.107

We tried solving this system for integer g (or f/g) and integer e1, e2 and found inconsistencies.

Let's reconsider the possibility of fractional stoichiometry for `id_k1hy` production or consumption.
Based on the total change analysis, the ratio of produced `id_6za2` to consumed `id_k1hy` (total produced - net change) was around 1/3 if R1 and R2 produce 1 `id_k1hy`. This suggests R3 is 3 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume the kinetics are simple mass action:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume the kinetics are mass action on both reactants:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know this doesn't fit initial rates.

Let's assume the power law kinetics with integer exponents:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find better rate constants for this model structure and stoichiometry (R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1).
The previous simulation with k1=4.5e-4, k2=4.65e-5, k3=0.05 showed better fit for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` in Exp0 and Exp6, but not Exp7.

Let's try to adjust k1 and k2 to better fit the consumption of reactants and production of main products.
In Sim Exp0, `id_pv68` and `id_5via` are consumed/produced too slowly. `id_4r19` and `id_im7c` are consumed/produced too slowly.
In Sim Exp6, `id_pv68` and `id_5via` are consumed/produced too slowly. `id_4r19` and `id_im7c` are consumed/produced too slowly.
In Sim Exp7, `id_pv68` and `id_5via` are consumed/produced too slowly. `id_4r19` and `id_im7c` are consumed/produced too slowly.

This suggests k1 and k2 are too low overall. Let's try increasing k1 and k2.
Let's try k1 = 4.5e-3, k2 = 4.65e-4, k3 = 0.05. (10x increase)

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model from shared variables
updated_sbml = shared_variables.access("current_sbml_model")
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Update parameter values
model.getParameter("k1").setValue(4.5e-3)
model.getParameter("k2").setValue(4.65e-4)
model.getParameter("k3").setValue(0.05)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.404259  0.49992     50.0  9.278954  0.067478  3.595741  24.50008  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy  id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450  0.31132  0.49155     50.0  4.256831  0.049278  3.68868  9.50845  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.294505  1.446055     50.0  8.909504  0.119937  0.705495  23.553945  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 8/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 13
## Thoughts
Increasing k1 and k2 by 10x improved the fit for the main products and reactants in Exp0 and Exp7, but made it worse in Exp6. The fit for `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` is still not great across all experiments.

The current model structure and kinetics:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

The inconsistency across experiments strongly suggests that the power law exponents or the kinetic form is incorrect. The exponents 4, 2, 3, 2 were derived from initial rate fitting, which might not be representative of the entire time course or different initial conditions.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production. The total change analysis was inconsistent.

Let's look at the initial rates of `id_k1hy` production again:
Exp0: 3.26
Exp6: 0.7
Exp7: 0.1

Let's assume the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production is 1 in R1 and 1 in R2.
d[id_k1hy]/dt = Rate(R1) + Rate(R2)

Let's try to find simpler kinetic forms for R1 and R2 that fit these initial rates.
If Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b and Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d.
(k1 * 25^a * 4^b) + (k2 * 25^c * 4^d) ≈ 3.26
(k1 * 10^a * 4^b) + (k2 * 10^c * 4^d) ≈ 0.7
(k1 * 25^a * 1^b) + (k2 * 25^c * 1^d) ≈ 0.1

This is a system of non-linear equations for k1, k2, a, b, c, d. Hard to solve manually.

Let's consider the possibility that `id_n9e9` is directly involved in the kinetics, not just as a constant factor. However, its concentration is constant, so it would only scale the rate constants.

Let's look at the ratios of initial rates again.
v1(25, 4) ≈ 89.12, v1(10, 4) ≈ 7.0, v1(25, 1) ≈ 8.71
v2(25, 4) ≈ 15.99, v2(10, 4) ≈ 0.8, v2(25, 1) ≈ 0.4

Ratio v1/v2:
(25, 4): 5.57
(10, 4): 8.75
(25, 1): 21.775

The ratio is not constant.

Let's try to find a simpler model that fits the qualitative behavior and some quantitative aspects.
The 1:1 stoichiometry for main products seems plausible. The intermediate `id_k1hy` is produced and consumed. `id_6za2` is a final product.

Let's assume the stoichiometry is:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's try simple mass action kinetics again, but try to find rate constants that provide a better overall fit, even if they don't perfectly match initial rates.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to adjust k1, k2, k3 manually.
From previous attempts, k1 and k2 around 0.1-1, k3 around 0.1-1.

Let's try k1=0.5, k2=0.5, k3=0.5.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.5)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.5)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.5)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2       id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0  4.230132e-09     50.0  29.999962  1.104036e-07  6.768212e-10     25.0  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2       id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0  1.692197e-09     50.0  14.999944  5.330147e-08  6.768788e-10     10.0  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2       id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      1.0  4.230207e-09     50.0  26.999963  9.898374e-08  1.692083e-10     25.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 7/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 14
## Thoughts
The simulation with simple mass action kinetics (Rate = k * [Reactant]) and 1:1 stoichiometry for all reactions shows very poor agreement with the experimental data. The reactants are consumed almost completely, and the products reach levels corresponding to complete conversion, which is not observed in the experiments. The dynamics of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` are also completely off.

This confirms that simple mass action kinetics on single reactants is not sufficient.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2`. The total change analysis suggested R3 might be 3 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`.

Let's try the stoichiometry:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's try mass action kinetics on both reactants for R1 and R2, and mass action for R3.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know the rate constants from initial rate fitting were inconsistent. However, let's try to find some rate constants that provide a better overall fit.
From previous attempts, k1 around 0.1-1, k2 around 0.01-0.1, k3 around 0.01-0.1.

Let's try k1=0.5, k2=0.1, k3=0.05.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.5)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.1)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.05)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action on both reactants)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action on both reactants)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_pv68 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: 3 id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(3.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0      5.0     50.0  8.989195  0.032414  1.380832e-10     20.0  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy  id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      2.0  1.882940e-15     50.0  4.994758  0.015725      2.0     10.0  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      1.0     20.0     50.0  2.997489  0.007532  8.385836e-18      5.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 6/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 15
## Thoughts
The simulation with mass action kinetics on both reactants (Rate = k * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]) and stoichiometry R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1 shows poor agreement. The reactants are consumed too much or too little depending on the experiment, and the products are also off. The `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` dynamics are not well captured.

The inconsistency across experiments with various simple kinetic forms and stoichiometries suggests that the underlying mechanism is more complex. The initial rate analysis pointed towards power law kinetics with non-integer or unusual integer exponents. The total change analysis pointed towards complex or inconsistent stoichiometry.

Let's reconsider the power law kinetics with the stoichiometry R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1.
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find better rate constants for this model. The previous attempt with k1=4.5e-3, k2=4.65e-4, k3=0.05 showed some improvement in `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` for Exp0 and Exp6, but not Exp7. The main products/reactants were still off.

Let's try to adjust the rate constants again, focusing on getting the final concentrations of the main species right in Exp0.
Exp0 final: `id_pv68`≈0.044, `id_4r19`≈0.142, `id_5via`≈21.56, `id_im7c`≈3.39.
Sim Exp0 final: `id_pv68`≈0.499, `id_4r19`≈3.59, `id_5via`≈24.5, `id_im7c`≈0.404.

Simulated `id_pv68` and `id_4r19` are too high (not consumed enough). Simulated `id_5via` is too high, `id_im7c` is too low. This is inconsistent with the stoichiometry. If `id_pv68` consumption is low, `id_5via` production should also be low (1:1 stoichiometry). This suggests the stoichiometry in the model is not being followed in the simulation, which is strange.

Let's check the SBML structure again. The stoichiometry is set correctly. The kinetic law defines the rate of the reaction. The change in species concentration is rate * stoichiometry.

Let's re-examine the simulation output carefully.
Sim Exp0: Δ`id_pv68` ≈ 0.499 - 25 = -24.5. Δ`id_5via` ≈ 24.5 - 0 = 24.5. Ratio ≈ 1:1.
Sim Exp0: Δ`id_4r19` ≈ 3.59 - 4 = -0.41. Δ`id_im7c` ≈ 0.404 - 0 = 0.404. Ratio ≈ 1:1.
The 1:1 stoichiometry for main products/reactants is being followed in the simulation.

The issue is that the *amount* of consumption/production is not matching the experiment.
In Sim Exp0, consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 24.5, Exp0 consumed `id_pv68` ≈ 24.956. Close.
In Sim Exp0, consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 0.41, Exp0 consumed `id_4r19` ≈ 3.858. Very different.

This means Rate(R2) is too low in the simulation compared to Rate(R1).
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^2

Let's look at the ratio of rates: Rate(R1) / Rate(R2) = (k1/k2) * [id_pv68]
Initial ratio in Exp0: (k1/k2) * 25.
Initial ratio in Exp6: (k1/k2) * 10.
Initial ratio in Exp7: (k1/k2) * 25.

Initial rate of consumption ratio:
Exp0: 89.12 / 15.99 ≈ 5.57
Exp6: 7.0 / 0.8 = 8.75
Exp7: 8.71 / 0.4 = 21.775

The ratio of consumption rates is not proportional to [id_pv68]. This means the power law exponents are likely wrong, or the kinetic form is different.

Let's try to find integer exponents that better fit the ratio of initial rates.
Ratio ≈ ([id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b) / ([id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d) = [id_pv68]^(a-c) * [id_4r19]^(b-d)
Let A = a-c, B = b-d.
Ratio ≈ K * [id_pv68]^A * [id_4r19]^B

Exp0: K * 25^A * 4^B ≈ 5.57
Exp6: K * 10^A * 4^B ≈ 8.75
Exp7: K * 25^A * 1^B ≈ 21.775

Divide Exp0 by Exp6: (25/10)^A = 2.5^A ≈ 5.57 / 8.75 ≈ 0.636 => A ≈ log(0.636) / log(2.5) ≈ -0.197 / 0.398 ≈ -0.495. Close to -0.5 or -1/2.

Divide Exp0 by Exp7: (4/1)^B = 4^B ≈ 5.57 / 21.775 ≈ 0.255 => B ≈ log(0.255) / log(4) ≈ -0.593 / 0.602 ≈ -0.985. Close to -1.

So, A ≈ -0.5, B ≈ -1.
a-c ≈ -0.5, b-d ≈ -1.

Let's try integer exponents for a, b, c, d such that a-c = -1 and b-d = -1.
If a=3, c=4. If b=1, d=2.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^1
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2

Let's check the ratio: Rate(R1)/Rate(R2) = (k1/k2) * [id_pv68]^-1 * [id_4r19]^-1.
Ratio ≈ K * [id_pv68]^-1 * [id_4r19]^-1
Exp0: K * 25^-1 * 4^-1 = K / 100 ≈ 5.57 => K ≈ 557
Exp6: K * 10^-1 * 4^-1 = K / 40 ≈ 8.75 => K ≈ 350
Exp7: K * 25^-1 * 1^-1 = K / 25 ≈ 21.775 => K ≈ 544

K values are somewhat consistent (350 to 557).

Let's try the model:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^1
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's estimate k1, k2 from Exp0 initial rates.
d[id_pv68]/dt = -k1 * 25^3 * 4^1 = -k1 * 62500 ≈ -89.12 => k1 ≈ 0.00142
d[id_4r19]/dt = -k2 * 25^4 * 4^2 = -k2 * 6250000 ≈ -15.99 => k2 ≈ 2.55e-6

Let's estimate k3 from the total change analysis (g=1/3, f=1, R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`).
k3 ≈ 0.05 (from previous simulation attempt).

Let's build the SBML model with this new kinetics.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.00142)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(2.55e-6)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.05)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Power Law)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68^3 * id_4r19^1")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Power Law)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_pv68^4 * id_4r19^2")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: 3 id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(3.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  1.710959  1.832714     50.0  9.220906  0.215526  2.289041  23.167286  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.336665  1.442267     50.0  3.913318  0.154443  3.663335  8.557733  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.422838  3.585712     50.0  8.156178  0.368592  0.577162  21.414288  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 5/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 16
## Thoughts
The simulation results with the updated power law kinetics (R1: [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^1, R2: [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2) and stoichiometry (R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1) show some improvement in fitting the final concentrations of main products/reactants in Exp0 and Exp7, but the fit for Exp6 is still poor. The `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` dynamics are also not well captured across all experiments.

The inconsistency across experiments with various model structures, stoichiometries, and kinetic forms suggests that the true mechanism is quite complex or involves interactions not yet considered.

Let's revisit the initial rate analysis and total change analysis. The power law exponents and stoichiometry ratios derived were inconsistent across experiments. This could be due to:
1. The true kinetic form is not a simple power law or mass action.
2. The stoichiometry is not fixed (e.g., depends on concentrations, or there are parallel reactions with different stoichiometries).
3. There are unmodeled regulatory mechanisms (e.g., activation or inhibition by other species).

Given the constraint of no new species, let's consider more complex kinetic forms or regulatory interactions between existing species. `id_n9e9` is a constant species, making it a prime candidate for a catalyst or regulator.

Let's consider the possibility that `id_n9e9` acts as an enzyme, and the kinetics are Michaelis-Menten.
R1: `id_pv68` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_5via` + e1 `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` --(`id_n9e9`)--> `id_im7c` + e2 `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` --(`id_n9e9`)--> g `id_6za2`

Let's assume 1:1 stoichiometry for main products and `id_k1hy` production/consumption (e1=1, e2=1, g=1, f=1).
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68])
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = (Vmax2 * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_4r19])
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = (Vmax3 * [id_k1hy]) / (Km3 + [id_k1hy])

We tried fitting initial rates for R1 and R2 separately with Michaelis-Menten and found inconsistencies.

What if the Michaelis-Menten kinetics involve both reactants for R1 and R2?
Rate(R1) = (Vmax1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]) / (Km1 + [id_pv68] * [id_4r19])
Rate(R2) = (Vmax2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]) / (Km2 + [id_pv68] * [id_4r19])

This seems overly complex and less standard.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry of R3. The total change analysis suggested R3 might be 3 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`.

Let's try the model:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^a * [id_4r19]^b
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^c * [id_4r19]^d
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find integer exponents a, b, c, d that provide a better fit than (4, 2) and (3, 2).
The initial rate ratio analysis suggested a-c ≈ -0.5 and b-d ≈ -1.

Let's try a-c = -1 and b-d = -1 (as attempted before).
If a=3, c=4, b=1, d=2.
R1: Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^1
R2: Rate = k2 * [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2

Let's try to adjust k1, k2, k3 manually with this model structure and stoichiometry (R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1).
Previous attempt with k1=0.00142, k2=2.55e-6, k3=0.05 showed some fit.

Let's try increasing k1 and k2 slightly to improve reactant consumption and product formation.
Let's try k1 = 0.002, k2 = 3e-6, k3 = 0.05.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.002)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(3e-6)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.05)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Power Law)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68^3 * id_4r19^1")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Power Law)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_pv68^4 * id_4r19^2")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: 3 id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(3.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  1.492727  1.480472     50.0  9.276993  0.181275  2.507273  23.519528  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  0.284936  1.211682     50.0  3.980092  0.132979  3.715064  8.788318  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy  id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450   0.3702  2.91977     50.0  8.379028  0.313344   0.6298  22.08023  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 4/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 17
## Thoughts
Adjusting k1 and k2 slightly improved the fit for some species in some experiments, but the overall fit is still not satisfactory. The model with power law kinetics (R1: [id_pv68]^3 * [id_4r19]^1, R2: [id_pv68]^4 * [id_4r19]^2) and stoichiometry (R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1) is not consistently reproducing the experimental data across different initial conditions.

The persistent inconsistency suggests that the assumed kinetic laws or stoichiometry are incorrect. The initial rate analysis and total change analysis provided conflicting or complex results regarding the exponents and stoichiometry.

Given the limited iterations remaining and the difficulty in manually fitting complex non-linear kinetics and stoichiometry, it's possible that the true mechanism involves a simpler kinetic form or stoichiometry that I haven't correctly identified, or a combination of factors.

Let's reconsider the simplest plausible stoichiometry:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume simple mass action kinetics:
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

We know this doesn't fit the initial rates across experiments. However, sometimes a simpler model with optimized parameters can provide a reasonable fit even if it doesn't perfectly capture initial rates.

Let's try to find rate constants k1, k2, k3 that minimize the error across all three experiments for this simple mass action model. This is essentially a parameter estimation problem. Without a dedicated tool, I'll have to guess and check.

Based on the initial rates, k1 was around 0.3-3, k2 around 0.2-4, k3 around 0.1-1.

Let's try k1=0.5, k2=0.5, k3=0.5 again (as in Iteration 13), and see the results. We already did this, and the fit was poor.

Let's try to adjust the rate constants based on the simulation results from Iteration 13.
Sim Exp0: Reactants consumed too much, products too much. `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` too much.
Sim Exp6: Reactants consumed too much, products too much. `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` too much.
Sim Exp7: Reactants consumed too much, products too much. `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` too much.

This suggests that all rates (k1, k2, k3) are too high in the simple mass action model. Let's try reducing them.
Let's try k1=0.1, k2=0.1, k3=0.1. (as in Iteration 2, but with the correct stoichiometry).

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.1)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.1)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.1)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.955564  0.277726     50.0  28.22809  1.449721  0.044436  24.722274  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  3.955564  0.111091     50.0  14.144593  0.699864  0.044436  9.888909  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.988891  0.277726     50.0  25.411388  1.299749  0.011109  24.722274  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 3/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 18
## Thoughts
The simulation with simple mass action kinetics (Rate = k * [Reactant]) and 1:1 stoichiometry for all reactions, with k1=0.1, k2=0.1, k3=0.1, shows a poor fit. The reactants are consumed too slowly, and products are produced too slowly in Exp0 and Exp6. In Exp7, `id_4r19` is consumed too much, and `id_im7c` is produced too much. The `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` dynamics are also not well captured.

The inconsistency across experiments with various simple models strongly suggests that the true mechanism is more complex. The initial rate analysis and total change analysis pointed towards complex or inconsistent stoichiometry and kinetics.

Given the limited iterations remaining, it's unlikely I can pinpoint the exact complex kinetic laws and stoichiometry through manual trial and error. However, I need to submit a model.

Let's reconsider the most consistent observations:
- `id_pv68` consumption and `id_5via` production are linked.
- `id_4r19` consumption and `id_im7c` production are linked.
- `id_k1hy` is an intermediate produced from R1 and/or R2 and consumed to produce `id_6za2`.
- `id_n9e9` is constant, suggesting it might be a catalyst.

Let's assume the simplest plausible reaction structure with 1:1 stoichiometry for the main conversions and `id_k1hy` production/consumption:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

Let's assume the kinetics are mass action on both reactants, as this showed some promise in capturing the coupled nature of the reactions, even if the rate constants were inconsistent.
Rate(R1) = k1 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R2) = k2 * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]
Rate(R3) = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find rate constants that provide the best *overall* fit across the three experiments for this model structure. This is a manual parameter fitting attempt.

Based on previous attempts, k1 around 0.1-0.5, k2 around 0.01-0.1, k3 around 0.01-0.1.

Let's try k1=0.3, k2=0.05, k3=0.05.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.3)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.05)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.05)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action on both reactants)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action on both reactants)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_pv68 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.981238  1.112575     50.0  25.415827  3.452835  0.018762  23.887425  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
      id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9  id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450  1.666667  6.730762e-15     50.0  11.3663  1.300366  2.333333     10.0  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c  id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      1.0     19.0     50.0  7.226711  0.773288  1.657250e-13      6.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 2/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 19
## Thoughts
The simulation with mass action kinetics on both reactants (Rate = k * [id_pv68] * [id_4r19]) and 1:1 stoichiometry for all reactions, with k1=0.3, k2=0.05, k3=0.05, still shows a poor fit. The final concentrations are significantly off across all experiments.

Given the limited iterations remaining and the persistent inconsistency with various model structures and kinetics, it is highly probable that the true biological mechanism is more complex than simple mass action or power law kinetics with fixed integer stoichiometry. It might involve:
- More complex rate laws (e.g., Michaelis-Menten with multiple substrates, inhibition, activation).
- Non-integer stoichiometry.
- Reversible reactions.
- Unmodeled regulatory processes.

Without further experiments or the ability to perform parameter estimation with more complex models, it's challenging to pinpoint the exact mechanism.

However, I must submit a model. The simplest model that captures the basic flow of species (reactants -> intermediate -> products) is the three-reaction model with 1:1 stoichiometry. While simple mass action didn't fit well, it's a standard starting point. The mass action on both reactants showed some ability to capture the coupled nature, even if the fit was poor.

Let's consider the possibility that the stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` production or consumption is not 1:1. The total change analysis hinted at complex ratios, but they were inconsistent.

Let's try one last attempt with the simple mass action kinetics (Rate = k * [Reactant]) and 1:1 stoichiometry for R1 and R2, but adjust the stoichiometry of R3 based on the most consistent observation from total change analysis: 3 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2`.

R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k1 * [id_pv68]
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`. Rate = k2 * [id_4r19]
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`. Rate = k3 * [id_k1hy]

Let's try to find rate constants that provide the best overall fit for this model.
Based on initial rates, k1 around 0.3-3, k2 around 0.2-4, k3 around 0.01-0.1.

Let's try k1=0.5, k2=0.5, k3=0.05.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.5)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.5)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.05)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: 3 id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(3.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the updated model with Exp0 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp0 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp0 = sbml_doc_exp0.getModel()
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp0.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp0 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp0))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp6 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp6 = sbml_doc_exp6.getModel()
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(10)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(4)
model_exp6.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp6 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp6))

# Simulate the updated model with Exp7 initial conditions
sbml_doc_exp7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(updated_sbml)
model_exp7 = sbml_doc_exp7.getModel()
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_im7c").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_pv68").setInitialConcentration(25)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_n9e9").setInitialConcentration(50)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_6za2").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_k1hy").setInitialConcentration(0)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_4r19").setInitialConcentration(1)
model_exp7.getSpecies("id_5via").setInitialConcentration(0)
sim_data_exp7 = simulate(libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_exp7))


# Access the experimental data
exp_data_0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
exp_data_6 = experiment_history['iteration_6']
exp_data_7 = experiment_history['iteration_7']


# Compare simulation results with experimental data (last row)
print("Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_0.tail(1))
print("\nExp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp0.tail(1))

print("\nExp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_6.tail(1))
print("\nExp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp6.tail(1))

print("\nExp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):")
print(exp_data_7.tail(1))
print("\nExp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):")
print(sim_data_exp7.tail(1))

# Store the updated SBML
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model", updated_sbml)
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Exp 0 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c  id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  3.391126  0.04401  49.532653  9.689138  0.467347  0.141527  21.564864  45.0

Exp 0 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0  4.245282e-09     50.0  10.650506  0.048508  6.792451e-10     25.0  45.0

Exp 6 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19   id_5via  Time
450  2.628802  0.015013  48.950426  3.960714  1.049574  0.321623  7.356185  45.0

Exp 6 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2   id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      4.0  1.706552e-09     50.0  5.658861  0.023418  6.826210e-10     10.0  45.0

Exp 7 - Experimental Data (last row):
      id_im7c   id_pv68    id_n9e9    id_6za2   id_k1hy   id_4r19    id_5via  Time
450  0.860862  0.049163  49.893024  10.707218  0.106976  0.032162  24.089975  45.0

Exp 7 - Simulation Data (last row):
     id_im7c       id_pv68  id_n9e9   id_6za2  id_k1hy       id_4r19  id_5via  Time
450      1.0  4.262658e-09     50.0  9.652172  0.04349  1.705063e-10     25.0  45.0

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 1/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6, iteration_7)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 20
## Thoughts
The simulation with simple mass action kinetics (Rate = k * [Reactant]) and stoichiometry R1: 1:1:1, R2: 1:1:1, R3: 3:1, with k1=0.5, k2=0.5, k3=0.05, shows a poor fit. The reactants are consumed almost completely, and the main products reach levels corresponding to complete conversion, which is not observed experimentally. The `id_k1hy` and `id_6za2` dynamics are also not well captured.

Given the persistent inconsistency across various simple models and the limited iterations remaining, it is clear that the true biological mechanism is more complex. The initial rate and total change analyses provided conflicting clues about stoichiometry and kinetics, suggesting non-linear dependencies or complex stoichiometry.

Without the ability to perform more experiments or use advanced parameter fitting techniques for complex models, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact mechanism. However, I must submit a model.

The simplest model that captures the observed species relationships (reactants consumed, intermediate produced and consumed, products formed) is the three-reaction model. The stoichiometry of 3 `id_k1hy` -> 1 `id_6za2` showed some consistency in the total change analysis, even if the production stoichiometry of `id_k1hy` was less clear.

Let's submit the model with the stoichiometry:
R1: `id_pv68` -> `id_5via` + `id_k1hy`
R2: `id_4r19` -> `id_im7c` + `id_k1hy`
R3: 3 `id_k1hy` -> `id_6za2`

For kinetics, simple mass action on single reactants is the most basic form. While it didn't fit well, it's a standard assumption in the absence of more information. Let's use the rate constants that seemed to provide the "least bad" fit in the last attempt with this stoichiometry: k1=0.5, k2=0.5, k3=0.05.

This model is likely an oversimplification of the true system, but it represents my best hypothesis based on the limited data and tools available.

## Action

### Submit
```python
import libsbml

# Load the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove existing reactions and parameters
while model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    model.removeReaction(0)
while model.getNumParameters() > 0:
    model.removeParameter(0)

# Add parameters
p1 = model.createParameter()
p1.setId("k1")
p1.setValue(0.5)
p1.setConstant(True)

p2 = model.createParameter()
p2.setId("k2")
p2.setValue(0.5)
p2.setConstant(True)

p3 = model.createParameter()
p3.setId("k3")
p3.setValue(0.05)
p3.setConstant(True)

# Create Reaction 1: id_pv68 -> id_5via + id_k1hy
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("reaction1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_pv68")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False)

product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_5via")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False)

product2_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product2_r1.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r1.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 1 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_pv68")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast1)

# Create Reaction 2: id_4r19 -> id_im7c + id_k1hy
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("reaction2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant1_r2.setSpecies("id_4r19")
reactant1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r2.setConstant(False)

product1_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product1_r2.setSpecies("id_im7c")
product1_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r2.setConstant(False)

product2_r2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2_r2.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
product2_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product2_r2.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 2 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_4r19")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast2)

# Create Reaction 3: 3 id_k1hy -> id_6za2
reaction3 = model.createReaction()
reaction3.setId("reaction3")
reaction3.setReversible(False)
reaction3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3 = reaction3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_k1hy")
reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(3.0)
reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)

product1_r3 = reaction3.createProduct()
product1_r3.setSpecies("id_6za2")
product1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r3.setConstant(False)

# Add kinetic law for reaction 3 (Mass Action)
kinetic_law3 = reaction3.createKineticLaw()
math_ast3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_k1hy")
kinetic_law3.setMath(math_ast3)

# Write the updated SBML
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
final_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)
```
