
                # 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/level2/version4" level="2" version="4">
  <model id="id_wyxd">
    <listOfUnitDefinitions>
      <unitDefinition id="id_g6d6">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="1" scale="-3" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_6gyg">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="item" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
    </listOfUnitDefinitions>
    <listOfCompartments>
      <compartment id="id_a6c1" spatialDimensions="3" size="1" constant="true"/>
    </listOfCompartments>
    <listOfSpecies>
      <species id="id_ri7q" compartment="id_a6c1" initialConcentration="100" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_nzce" compartment="id_a6c1" initialConcentration="10" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_jz57" compartment="id_a6c1" initialConcentration="75" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
    </listOfSpecies>
  </model>
</sbml>


                ## Max iterations
                20

                Format your response according to the instructions in the system message.
                
## Thoughts
The initial SBML model defines three species (`id_ri7q`, `id_nzce`, `id_jz57`) and a compartment but contains no reactions. My goal is to identify the reactions governing the interactions between these species.

First, I need to understand the baseline behavior of the system. I will request an "observe" experiment to see how the concentrations of these species change over time under default conditions.

After obtaining the experimental data, I will simulate the current model (which has no reactions, so species concentrations should remain constant) and compare it to the experimental data. This comparison will reveal the net changes in species concentrations, giving clues 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: 10001 rows × 4 columns. 

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

Time   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57
0  1.00e+02 1.00e+01 7.50e+01
...
2.49e+01  1.59e+02 1.39e+01 5.56e+01
...
4.97e+01  2.04e+02 1.87e+01 4.96e+01
...
7.46e+01  2.40e+02 2.26e+01 4.64e+01
...
9.95e+01  2.68e+02 2.57e+01 4.45e+01
...
1.24e+02  2.89e+02 2.81e+01 4.34e+01
...
1.49e+02  3.06e+02 2.99e+01 4.26e+01
...
1.74e+02  3.19e+02 3.14e+01 4.21e+01
...
1.99e+02  3.30e+02 3.26e+01 4.17e+01
...
2.24e+02  3.38e+02 3.34e+01 4.15e+01
...
2.49e+02  3.44e+02 3.41e+01 4.13e+01
...
2.74e+02  3.49e+02 3.47e+01 4.11e+01
...
2.98e+02  3.52e+02 3.51e+01 4.10e+01
...
3.23e+02  3.55e+02 3.54e+01 4.09e+01
...
3.48e+02  3.58e+02 3.57e+01 4.09e+01
...
3.73e+02  3.60e+02 3.59e+01 4.08e+01
...
3.98e+02  3.61e+02 3.60e+01 4.08e+01
...
4.23e+02  3.62e+02 3.62e+01 4.08e+01
...
4.48e+02  3.63e+02 3.63e+01 4.07e+01
...
4.72e+02  3.64e+02 3.63e+01 4.07e+01
...
4.97e+02  3.64e+02 3.64e+01 4.07e+01
...
5.22e+02  3.64e+02 3.64e+01 4.07e+01
...
5.47e+02  3.65e+02 3.65e+01 4.07e+01
...
5.72e+02  3.65e+02 3.65e+01 4.07e+01
...
5.97e+02  3.65e+02 3.65e+01 4.07e+01
...
6.22e+02  3.65e+02 3.65e+01 4.07e+01
...
6.47e+02  3.65e+02 3.65e+01 4.07e+01
...
6.71e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
6.96e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
7.21e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
7.46e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
7.71e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
7.96e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
8.21e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
8.45e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
8.70e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
8.95e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
9.20e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
9.45e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
9.70e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
9.95e+02  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.02e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.04e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.07e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.09e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.12e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.14e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.17e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.19e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+01
...
1.22e+03  3.66e+02 3.66e+01 4.07e+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

The initial experiment (`iteration_0`) shows that `id_ri7q` and `id_nzce` increase, while `id_jz57` decreases, eventually reaching a steady state.
Initial concentrations: `id_ri7q=100`, `id_nzce=10`, `id_jz57=75`.
Final concentrations (approx): `id_ri7q=366`, `id_nzce=36.6`, `id_jz57=40.7`.
Changes: `delta_id_ri7q = +266`, `delta_id_nzce = +26.6`, `delta_id_jz57 = -34.3`.

A key observation is the ratio `delta_id_ri7q / delta_id_nzce = 266 / 26.6 = 10`. This suggests a coupled production or stoichiometric relationship.

I hypothesized a set of three reversible reactions that can account for these changes with integer stoichiometries:
1.  `R1: id_jz57 <=> 10 id_ri7q` (Reaction `J_to_10R`)
2.  `R2: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (Reaction `R_to_N`)
3.  `R3: id_jz57 <=> id_nzce` (Reaction `J_to_N`)

Let `e1`, `e2`, `e3` be the net forward extents of these reactions at equilibrium.
The system of equations for the changes is:
`delta_id_jz57 = -e1 - e3`
`delta_id_ri7q = 10*e1 - e2`
`delta_id_nzce = e2 + e3`

Substituting the observed deltas:
`-e1 - e3 = -34.3`
`10*e1 - e2 = 266`
`e2 + e3 = 26.6`

Solving this system yields:
`e3 = 26.6 - e2`
`-e1 - (26.6 - e2) = -34.3` => `-e1 + e2 = -7.7` => `e2 = e1 - 7.7`
`10*e1 - (e1 - 7.7) = 266` => `9*e1 + 7.7 = 266` => `9*e1 = 258.3` => `e1 = 28.7`
Then `e2 = 28.7 - 7.7 = 21`
And `e3 = 26.6 - 21 = 5.6`

All extents are positive, meaning the reactions proceed, on net, in the forward direction as written above.
This reaction network seems plausible. The stoichiometry `10 id_ri7q` in R1 is high but directly supported by the 10:1 ratio of changes between `id_ri7q` and `id_nzce` when linked through `id_jz57` and the other reactions.

I will now:
1.  Show the data from `experiment_history['iteration_0']`.
2.  Simulate the original `input_sbml_string` (which has no reactions) to confirm it shows no change in species concentrations.
3.  Construct a new SBML model by adding these three reversible reactions. I will use mass-action kinetics with placeholder rate constants, as the primary goal is to define the reaction network structure.
    -   `kf = 0.1` for all forward reactions.
    -   `kr = 0.01` for R2 and R3. For R1 (`10 id_ri7q -> id_jz57`), due to the high stoichiometric coefficient of `id_ri7q` (10), its concentration term `[id_ri7q]^10` will be extremely large. To prevent this reverse reaction from completely dominating or causing numerical issues with a standard `kr`, I'll use a very small `kr1` (e.g., `1e-25`) or ensure the forward rate is also adjusted. For now, I'll use placeholder values that allow the simulation to proceed. A more realistic model might require different kinetic forms or carefully tuned parameters.
4.  Simulate this new model and observe its behavior. It's not expected to perfectly match the experimental data quantitatively due to the guessed parameters, but it should qualitatively reproduce the increase/decrease of species and approach an equilibrium.

## Action

### Code
```python
import pandas as pd
import libsbml

def print_experiment_summary(exp_data, exp_id):
    print(f"\nSummary of experiment {exp_id}:")
    print(f"Initial concentrations:\n{exp_data.head(1)}")
    print(f"Final concentrations:\n{exp_data.tail(1)}")
    # Calculate and print deltas
    initial = exp_data.iloc[0]
    final = exp_data.iloc[-1]
    delta = final - initial
    print(f"Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):\n{delta}")

# Access experimental data
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
print_experiment_summary(exp_data_iter0, 'iteration_0')

# 1. Simulate the initial empty model
print("\nSimulating the initial (empty) model:")
initial_model_sim = simulate(input_sbml_string)
print_experiment_summary(initial_model_sim, 'initial_model_simulation')

# 2. Create a new SBML model with the three proposed reactions
doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = doc.getModel()

# Helper to add reaction
def add_reaction(model, r_id, reactants, products, kf_val, kr_val, reversible=True):
    reaction = model.createReaction()
    reaction.setId(r_id)
    reaction.setReversible(reversible)
    reaction.setFast(False)

    for species_id, stoich in reactants.items():
        reactant = reaction.createReactant()
        reactant.setSpecies(species_id)
        reactant.setStoichiometry(stoich)
        reactant.setConstant(False)

    for species_id, stoich in products.items():
        product = reaction.createProduct()
        product.setSpecies(species_id)
        product.setStoichiometry(stoich)
        product.setConstant(False) # Products are not constant in this context

    kinetic_law = reaction.createKineticLaw()
    
    # Forward rate: kf * product_of_reactants
    kf_term = f"{kf_val}"
    for species_id, stoich in reactants.items():
        if stoich == 1:
            kf_term += f" * {species_id}"
        else:
            kf_term += f" * pow({species_id}, {stoich})"
            
    # Reverse rate: kr * product_of_products
    kr_term = f"{kr_val}"
    if reversible:
        for species_id, stoich in products.items():
            if stoich == 1:
                kr_term += f" * {species_id}"
            else:
                kr_term += f" * pow({species_id}, {stoich})"
        formula = f"{kf_term} - {kr_term}"
    else:
        formula = kf_term
        
    kinetic_law.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula))
    
    # Add parameters for kf and kr to the model if they are not species
    # For simplicity, using numerical values directly in formula string.
    # A more robust way is to define parameters kf, kr in the model and use their IDs.
    # However, the parseL3Formula should handle numerical values directly.

# Reaction 1: id_jz57 <=> 10 id_ri7q
# kf1 = 0.1, kr1 = 1e-25 (due to [id_ri7q]^10 term)
add_reaction(model, "R1_J_to_10R", 
             reactants={"id_jz57": 1}, 
             products={"id_ri7q": 10}, 
             kf_val=0.001, kr_val=1e-28) # Adjusted kf and kr for R1

# Reaction 2: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
# kf2 = 0.1, kr2 = 0.01
add_reaction(model, "R2_R_to_N", 
             reactants={"id_ri7q": 1}, 
             products={"id_nzce": 1}, 
             kf_val=0.1, kr_val=0.05) # Adjusted kr for R2

# Reaction 3: id_jz57 <=> id_nzce
# kf3 = 0.1, kr3 = 0.01
add_reaction(model, "R3_J_to_N", 
             reactants={"id_jz57": 1}, 
             products={"id_nzce": 1}, 
             kf_val=0.05, kr_val=0.01) # Adjusted kf, kr for R3


# Convert the modified model back to SBML string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_string = writer.writeSBMLToString(doc)
shared_variables.add("model_v1_sbml", updated_sbml_string)

print("\nSBML model with 3 reactions (model_v1_sbml):")
# print(updated_sbml_string) # Printing the full SBML is too verbose

# 3. Simulate the new model
print("\nSimulating the model with 3 reactions (model_v1):")
# The simulation function might require parameters to be explicitly defined in <listOfParameters>
# For now, assuming direct numerical values in kinetic laws are handled.
# If not, I'll need to add kf, kr as parameters in the SBML.
# The libsbml.parseL3Formula should handle this if the simulator supports it.

# Check if parameters need to be added explicitly
# For now, let's try simulating. If it fails or gives weird results,
# this might be due to parameters not being defined.
# The custom simulate function's behavior with inline parameters is key.

# Let's add parameters to be safe, as it's good practice.
doc_params = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_params = doc_params.getModel()

def add_parameter(model, param_id, value, constant=True):
    p = model.createParameter()
    p.setId(param_id)
    p.setValue(value)
    p.setConstant(constant)

# Add parameters for R1
add_parameter(model_params, "kf1", 0.001) # Adjusted from 0.1 due to high product concentration
add_parameter(model_params, "kr1", 1e-28) # Adjusted from 1e-25
# Add parameters for R2
add_parameter(model_params, "kf2", 0.1)
add_parameter(model_params, "kr2", 0.05) # Adjusted from 0.01
# Add parameters for R3
add_parameter(model_params, "kf3", 0.05) # Adjusted from 0.1
add_parameter(model_params, "kr3", 0.01)

# Re-add reactions using parameter IDs in kinetic laws
def add_reaction_with_params(model, r_id, reactants, products, kf_id, kr_id, reversible=True):
    reaction = model.createReaction()
    reaction.setId(r_id)
    reaction.setReversible(reversible)
    reaction.setFast(False)

    for species_id, stoich in reactants.items():
        reactant = reaction.createReactant()
        reactant.setSpecies(species_id)
        reactant.setStoichiometry(stoich)
        reactant.setConstant(False)

    for species_id, stoich in products.items():
        product = reaction.createProduct()
        product.setSpecies(species_id)
        product.setStoichiometry(stoich)
        product.setConstant(False)

    kinetic_law = reaction.createKineticLaw()
    
    kf_term = f"{kf_id}"
    for species_id, stoich in reactants.items():
        if stoich == 1:
            kf_term += f" * {species_id}"
        else:
            kf_term += f" * pow({species_id}, {stoich})"
            
    kr_term = f"{kr_id}"
    if reversible:
        for species_id, stoich in products.items():
            if stoich == 1:
                kr_term += f" * {species_id}"
            else:
                kr_term += f" * pow({species_id}, {stoich})"
        formula = f"{kf_term} - {kr_term}"
    else:
        formula = kf_term
        
    kinetic_law.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula))

add_reaction_with_params(model_params, "R1_J_to_10R", 
                         reactants={"id_jz57": 1}, products={"id_ri7q": 10}, 
                         kf_id="kf1", kr_id="kr1")
add_reaction_with_params(model_params, "R2_R_to_N", 
                         reactants={"id_ri7q": 1}, products={"id_nzce": 1}, 
                         kf_id="kf2", kr_id="kr2")
add_reaction_with_params(model_params, "R3_J_to_N", 
                         reactants={"id_jz57": 1}, products={"id_nzce": 1}, 
                         kf_id="kf3", kr_id="kr3")

updated_sbml_with_params = writer.writeSBMLToString(doc_params)
shared_variables.add("model_v1_sbml_params", updated_sbml_with_params) # Save this version

# Simulate the model with parameters defined
model_v1_sim = simulate(updated_sbml_with_params)
print_experiment_summary(model_v1_sim, 'model_v1_simulation (with params)')

# Store the model string for potential submission later
# For now, I am not submitting, just testing the hypothesis.
# If this simulation looks reasonable (qualitatively), I will refine or do more experiments.
# If it's bad, I'll rethink the reactions.
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout

Summary of experiment iteration_0:
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.911449  36.591131  40.656997  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.911449
id_nzce      26.591131
id_jz57     -34.343003
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

Simulating the initial (empty) model:

Summary of experiment initial_model_simulation:
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
       id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57    Time
10000    100.0     10.0     75.0  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q       0.0
id_nzce       0.0
id_jz57       0.0
Time       1219.0
dtype: float64

SBML model with 3 reactions (model_v1_sbml):

Simulating the model with 3 reactions (model_v1):

Summary of experiment model_v1_simulation (with params):
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q     id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  199.787497  388.683057  74.726826  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q      99.787497
id_nzce     378.683057
id_jz57      -0.273174
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

## 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. (model_v1_sbml, model_v1_sbml_params)

### 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

The previous simulation (model_v1) did not match the experimental data, particularly in the ratios of species changes. The key experimental observations are:
1.  `id_jz57` decreases.
2.  `id_ri7q` and `id_nzce` increase.
3.  The ratio `delta_id_ri7q / delta_id_nzce` is approximately 10.
4.  The concentration ratio `[id_ri7q] / [id_nzce]` starts at 10 (100/10), then increases (e.g., 159/13.9 = 11.43 at T=24.9), and finally settles back to 10 at equilibrium (365.91 / 36.591 = 10.00).

This behavior suggests two main processes:
a.  A "feed" reaction where `id_jz57` is consumed to produce `id_ri7q` (or `id_nzce`, but `id_ri7q` fits the ratio trend better).
b.  An "equilibration" reaction between `id_ri7q` and `id_nzce` that drives their concentration ratio towards 10.

Let's formalize this hypothesis (Model V2):

**Reaction 1 (R_equil): `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce`**
This reaction aims to establish `[id_ri7q] / [id_nzce] = 10` at equilibrium.
The kinetic law would be `kf_eq * [id_ri7q] - kr_eq * [id_nzce]`.
At equilibrium, `kf_eq * [id_ri7q]_eq = kr_eq * [id_nzce]_eq`.
So, `[id_ri7q]_eq / [id_nzce]_eq = kr_eq / kf_eq`.
We need `kr_eq / kf_eq = 10`. Let `kf_eq = k_e` and `kr_eq = 10 * k_e`.

**Reaction 2 (R_feed): `S_J * id_jz57 -> S_R * id_ri7q`** (or `S_N * id_nzce`)
This reaction consumes `id_jz57` and produces `id_ri7q` (or `id_nzce`). The observation that the `R/N` ratio *increases* initially suggests that `id_ri7q` is the primary product of `id_jz57` consumption, or `id_nzce` is consumed along with `id_jz57`. The former is simpler.
Let the reaction be `s_j * id_jz57 -> s_r * id_ri7q`.
The total amount of `([id_ri7q] + [id_nzce])` increases from `110` to `402.501`, a net production of `292.501`.
The amount of `id_jz57` consumed is `34.343`.
This implies that for each mole of `id_jz57` consumed, `292.501 / 34.343 = 8.517` moles are added to the `(id_ri7q + id_nzce)` pool.
`8.517` is very close to `8.5 = 17/2`.
This suggests a stoichiometry for the feed reaction like `2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q`.

Let's test this model structure:
1.  `R_feed: 2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` (irreversible, rate `k_feed * [id_jz57]^2`)
2.  `R_equil: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (reversible, rate `k_e * [id_ri7q] - 10*k_e * [id_nzce]`)

Calculation check:
- Initial: `J=75, R=100, N=10`. `R/N=10`. Pool `R+N=110`.
- `id_jz57` consumed: `34.343`.
- According to `R_feed`, if `34.343` of `J` is consumed, `(34.343/2) * 17 = 17.1715 * 17 = 291.9155` of `R` is produced.
- `R` after feed (before R_equil adjusts): `100 + 291.9155 = 391.9155`.
- `N` after feed (before R_equil adjusts): `10`.
- New pool `R+N = 391.9155 + 10 = 401.9155`.
- `R_equil` then distributes this pool such that `R_eq = 10 N_eq` and `R_eq + N_eq = 401.9155`.
  `11 N_eq = 401.9155` => `N_eq = 36.5377`.
  `R_eq = 365.377`.
- Experimental final values: `R_final = 365.91`, `N_final = 36.591`.
The calculated values `(365.377, 36.5377)` are very close to experimental `(365.91, 36.591)`, with errors around 0.14%. This is a strong support for this reaction structure and stoichiometry.

Rate constant estimation:
- For `R_equil`: `k_e` should be relatively fast. Let `k_e = 1.0` (so `kf_eq=1.0, kr_eq=10.0`).
- For `R_feed`: `d[J]/dt = -2 * k_feed * [J]^2`.
  `id_jz57` reduces from 75 to `75 - 34.343 = 40.657`. This is roughly half its initial amount.
  The time taken for this is observed to be in the range of 100-200 time units (e.g., at T=199, `id_jz57` is `~41.7` from the partial data, which is close to final).
  If `t_half_approx = 150` (time for `[J]` to go from 75 to 37.5), then `150 = 1 / (2 * k_feed * 75)`.
  `150 = 1 / (150 * k_feed)` => `k_feed = 1 / (150^2) = 1 / 22500 \approx 4.44 \times 10^{-5}$.
  Let's use `k_feed = 4.5e-5`.

I will now construct this SBML model (Model V2) and simulate it.

## Action

### Code
```python
import pandas as pd
import libsbml

def print_experiment_summary(exp_data, exp_id):
    print(f"\nSummary of experiment {exp_id}:")
    if exp_data is None or exp_data.empty:
        print("No data to summarize.")
        return
    print(f"Initial concentrations:\n{exp_data.head(1)}")
    print(f"Final concentrations:\n{exp_data.tail(1)}")
    initial = exp_data.iloc[0]
    final = exp_data.iloc[-1]
    delta = final - initial
    print(f"Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):\n{delta}")

# Create Model V2
doc_v2 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v2 = doc_v2.getModel()

# Add parameters
param_k_feed = model_v2.createParameter()
param_k_feed.setId("k_feed")
param_k_feed.setValue(4.5e-5) # Estimated value
param_k_feed.setConstant(True)

param_kf_eq = model_v2.createParameter()
param_kf_eq.setId("kf_eq")
param_kf_eq.setValue(1.0) # Chosen value for fast equilibrium
param_kf_eq.setConstant(True)

param_kr_eq = model_v2.createParameter()
param_kr_eq.setId("kr_eq")
param_kr_eq.setValue(10.0) # kf_eq * 10
param_kr_eq.setConstant(True)

# Reaction 1 (R_feed): 2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q
r_feed = model_v2.createReaction()
r_feed.setId("R_feed")
r_feed.setReversible(False) # Assuming irreversible based on J consumption
r_feed.setFast(False)

reactant_J = r_feed.createReactant()
reactant_J.setSpecies("id_jz57")
reactant_J.setStoichiometry(2)
reactant_J.setConstant(False)

product_R = r_feed.createProduct()
product_R.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
product_R.setStoichiometry(17)
product_R.setConstant(False)

kl_feed = r_feed.createKineticLaw()
kl_feed.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_feed * pow(id_jz57, 2)"))

# Reaction 2 (R_equil): id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
r_equil = model_v2.createReaction()
r_equil.setId("R_equil")
r_equil.setReversible(True)
r_equil.setFast(False) # Or True, if simulator handles it specifically

reactant_R_eq = r_equil.createReactant()
reactant_R_eq.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
reactant_R_eq.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_R_eq.setConstant(False)

product_N_eq = r_equil.createProduct()
product_N_eq.setSpecies("id_nzce")
product_N_eq.setStoichiometry(1)
product_N_eq.setConstant(False)

kl_equil = r_equil.createKineticLaw()
kl_equil.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("kf_eq * id_ri7q - kr_eq * id_nzce"))

# Convert to SBML string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v2_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(doc_v2)
shared_variables.add("model_v2_sbml", model_v2_sbml)

print("Model V2 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v2_sbml")
# print(model_v2_sbml) # Avoid printing large string

# Simulate Model V2
print("\nSimulating Model V2:")
model_v2_sim_results = simulate(model_v2_sbml)
print_experiment_summary(model_v2_sim_results, "model_v2_simulation")

# For comparison, print summary of experimental data again
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
print_experiment_summary(exp_data_iter0, 'iteration_0 (Experimental)')

# Analyze R/N ratio from simulation
if model_v2_sim_results is not None and not model_v2_sim_results.empty:
    model_v2_sim_results['R_N_ratio'] = model_v2_sim_results['id_ri7q'] / model_v2_sim_results['id_nzce']
    print("\n[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V2 simulation:")
    # Print ratio at a few time points: initial, an intermediate, and final
    print(f"T=0: {model_v2_sim_results['R_N_ratio'].iloc[0]}")
    # Find an intermediate time point, e.g., around T=25 or T=50
    time_points_for_ratio = [0, 25, 50, 100, 200, model_v2_sim_results['Time'].iloc[-1]]
    for t_approx in time_points_for_ratio:
        closest_time_idx = (model_v2_sim_results['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        actual_time = model_v2_sim_results['Time'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        ratio_at_time = model_v2_sim_results['R_N_ratio'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        print(f"Approx T={t_approx}, Actual T={actual_time:.2f}: Ratio={ratio_at_time:.2f}")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model V2 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v2_sbml

Simulating Model V2:

Summary of experiment model_v2_simulation:
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce   id_jz57    Time
10000  616.744066  61.673947  8.127293  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     516.744066
id_nzce      51.673947
id_jz57     -66.872707
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

Summary of experiment iteration_0 (Experimental):
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.911449  36.591131  40.656997  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.911449
id_nzce      26.591131
id_jz57     -34.343003
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V2 simulation:
T=0: 10.0
Approx T=0, Actual T=0.00: Ratio=10.00
Approx T=25, Actual T=24.99: Ratio=10.02
Approx T=50, Actual T=49.98: Ratio=10.01
Approx T=100, Actual T=99.96: Ratio=10.00
Approx T=200, Actual T=200.04: Ratio=10.00
Approx T=1219.0, Actual T=1219.00: Ratio=10.00

## 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. (model_v1_sbml, model_v1_sbml_params, model_v2_sbml)

### 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 Model V2 simulation results show:
-   Final `id_jz57`: 8.12 (Experimental: 40.65) -> Model V2 consumes too much `id_jz57`.
-   Final `id_ri7q`: 616.74 (Experimental: 365.91) -> Model V2 produces too much `id_ri7q`.
-   Final `id_nzce`: 61.67 (Experimental: 36.59) -> Model V2 produces too much `id_nzce`.
-   The `R/N` ratio in Model V2 simulation quickly goes to 10 and stays there. However, the experimental data (from Iteration 1 analysis) showed the ratio `[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce]` starts at 10, *increases* (e.g., 159/13.9 = 11.43 at T=24.9), and then settles back to 10. This transient increase in the R/N ratio is not captured by Model V2, where `R_equil` is fast and maintains the ratio close to 10 throughout.

The overconsumption of `id_jz57` suggests that the feed reaction `2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` is either not the only reaction involving `id_jz57`, or it should be reversible, or its rate is too high/sustained for too long.

The fact that the experimental `R/N` ratio *transiently increases above 10* means that `id_ri7q` is produced faster than `id_nzce`, or `id_nzce` is consumed, before the `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` equilibrium (driving towards `R/N=10`) fully kicks in or catches up.

Let's reconsider the stoichiometry based on the *actual* final amounts.
Experimental: `J_final = 40.657`, `R_final = 365.911`, `N_final = 36.591`.
`delta_J = -34.343`
`delta_R = +265.911`
`delta_N = +26.591`

The ratio `delta_R / delta_N = 265.911 / 26.591 = 10.0000...` This is a very strong clue.
This suggests that the *net change* in R and N maintains a 10:1 ratio.

If we have `R_equil: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` with `kr/kf = 10`, this reaction itself conserves `id_ri7q + 10*id_nzce` (if we write it as `id_ri7q <=> 10 id_nzce'`). Or, if it's `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` and at equilibrium `[R] = 10[N]`, then the total pool `[R] + [N]` is what's being fed.

Let's assume the equilibrium `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` with `[R_eq] = 10 [N_eq]` is correct.
This means `kr_eq / kf_eq = 10`. So, `kf_eq * [R] - kr_eq * [N]`. Let `kf_eq = k_e`, `kr_eq = 10 k_e`.

Now, consider the source of `R` and `N`.
The total "R-N combined units" produced, weighted by their equilibrium, is `delta_R + delta_N = 265.911 + 26.591 = 292.502`.
This amount is produced from `34.343` of `id_jz57`.
The ratio is `292.502 / 34.343 = 8.517`. This is the `17/2` ratio again.

So, the reaction could be `2 id_jz57 -> X` where `X` then distributes into `R` and `N` to maintain the 10:1 ratio.
If `X` is `17 id_ri7q`, then `R_equil` converts some `id_ri7q` to `id_nzce`.
`2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` (Rate `k1 * [J]^sJ1`)
`id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (Rate `kf_eq * [R] - kr_eq * [N]`)

Why did Model V2 overconsume `id_jz57`?
The reaction `2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` was irreversible. If `id_jz57` is consumed until it's nearly gone, then the final `delta_J` would be close to `-75`. But it's `-34.343`. This strongly suggests the feed reaction is reversible or inhibited.

Let's make `R_feed` reversible: `2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q`.
`Rate = kf_feed * [J]^2 - kr_feed * [R]^17`.
The `[R]^17` term is problematic. High-order terms like this are often kinetically unrealistic and can cause extreme sensitivity or stiffness.

Alternative: The feed reaction produces an intermediate, or `id_jz57` is part of an equilibrium.
What if `id_jz57` is in equilibrium with something else, and that equilibrium sets its final concentration?
E.g., `id_jz57 <=> Inactive_J` (not possible, no new species).
Or `id_jz57 <=> Product_P` where `Product_P` is `id_ri7q` or `id_nzce`.

Consider the transient R/N ratio increase.
Experimental data:
T=0: R=100, N=10, R/N=10
T=24.9: R=159, N=13.9, R/N=11.43
T=49.7: R=204, N=18.7, R/N=10.91
T=final: R=365.9, N=36.59, R/N=10.0

This means that initially, `id_ri7q` is produced *relative* to `id_nzce` at a ratio greater than 10:1 from the consumption of `id_jz57`, OR `id_nzce` is consumed.
Then, the reaction `id_ri7q -> id_nzce` (as part of `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` to reach 10:1) catches up.

Let's try this set of reactions (Model V3):
1.  **R1: `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q`** (Rate `k1 * [id_jz57]`)
    This reaction primarily produces `id_ri7q` from `id_jz57`. This would cause `[id_ri7q]` to increase, and thus the `R/N` ratio to increase initially.
2.  **R2: `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce`** (Rate `k2f * [id_ri7q] - k2r * [id_nzce]`)
    This equilibrates `id_ri7q` and `id_nzce`. For `[R_eq] = 10 [N_eq]`, we need `k2r / k2f = 10`. So, `k2f = k_e`, `k2r = 10 k_e`.
3.  **R3: `id_jz57 <=> id_nzce`** (Rate `k3f * [id_jz57] - k3r * [id_nzce]`)
    This reaction could also contribute to `id_nzce` production and `id_jz57` consumption, and importantly, it could be responsible for `id_jz57` not being fully consumed by making R1 effectively reversible or limited. If R1 is `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q` and R3 is `id_nzce -> id_jz57` (reverse part of an equilibrium), this could work.

Let's analyze the stoichiometry of net changes with these reactions:
`delta_J = - (extent_R1) - (extent_R3_fwd - extent_R3_rev)`
`delta_R = + (extent_R1) - (extent_R2_fwd - extent_R2_rev)`
`delta_N = + (extent_R2_fwd - extent_R2_rev) + (extent_R3_fwd - extent_R3_rev)`

We know `delta_R = 10 * delta_N` at the end.
`extent_R1 - net_extent_R2 = 10 * (net_extent_R2 + net_extent_R3)`
`extent_R1 = 11 * net_extent_R2 + 10 * net_extent_R3`

This is getting complicated. Let's simplify.
The system reaches an equilibrium where `id_jz57` is not zero.
This implies all reactions involving `id_jz57` must be reversible or balanced.

Hypothesis (Model V3):
1.  **`id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q` (R1)**
    Rate: `k1f * [J] - k1r * [R]`
2.  **`id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (R2)**
    Rate: `k2f * [R] - k2r * [N]`
    With `k2r/k2f = 10` (so `[R_eq] = 10 [N_eq]`).

At equilibrium:
`k1f [J_eq] = k1r [R_eq]` => `[J_eq] / [R_eq] = k1r / k1f`
`k2f [R_eq] = k2r [N_eq]` => `[R_eq] / [N_eq] = k2r / k2f = 10`

So, `[R_eq] = 10 [N_eq]`.
And `[J_eq] = (k1r/k1f) * 10 * [N_eq]`.

Experimental equilibrium values:
`J_eq = 40.657`
`R_eq = 365.911`
`N_eq = 36.591`

Check: `R_eq / N_eq = 365.911 / 36.591 = 10.000`. This is consistent with R2.
Now for R1:
`J_eq / R_eq = 40.657 / 365.911 = 0.11111... = 1/9`.
So, `k1r / k1f = 1/9`. This means `k1f = 9 * k1r`.

This model structure is simple and consistent with the equilibrium values.
**Model V3 proposed reactions:**
1.  `id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q` with `k1f = 9k`, `k1r = k` (e.g., `k1f=0.9, k1r=0.1`)
2.  `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` with `k2f = k'`, `k2r = 10k'` (e.g., `k2f=1.0, k2r=10.0`)

To get the transient R/N ratio > 10:
Reaction `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q` (forward part of R1) produces `id_ri7q`.
Reaction `id_ri7q -> id_nzce` (forward part of R2) consumes `id_ri7q` to make `id_nzce`.
If `k1f` is relatively fast compared to `k2f` initially, or if `id_ri7q` builds up before `id_nzce` production by R2 fully compensates.

Let's try to set the magnitudes of `k` and `k'`.
The overall timescale is a few hundred time units.
If `k_e` (for R2) is large, R2 equilibrates quickly.
If `k` (for R1) is smaller, R1 is slower.

Let `k2f = 1.0`, `k2r = 10.0`. (Fast equilibration for R-N)
Let `k1f = 0.09`, `k1r = 0.01`. (Slower feed and re-equilibration for J-R)
The choice of `k1f` being smaller than `k2f` might allow `id_ri7q` to be converted to `id_nzce` efficiently, potentially keeping R/N close to 10.
To get R/N > 10 transiently, `id_ri7q` production from `id_jz57` should "outpace" its conversion to `id_nzce` plus its reconversion to `id_jz57`.

The rate of change of R/N is complex.
`d(R/N)/dt = (N dR/dt - R dN/dt) / N^2`
`dR/dt = k1f [J] - k1r [R] - k2f [R] + k2r [N]`
`dN/dt = k2f [R] - k2r [N]`

Initially, `R=100, N=10, J=75`.
`dR/dt = 0.09*75 - 0.01*100 - 1.0*100 + 10.0*10 = 6.75 - 1 - 100 + 100 = 5.75`
`dN/dt = 1.0*100 - 10.0*10 = 100 - 100 = 0`
`d(R/N)/dt` would be `(10 * 5.75 - 100 * 0) / 100 = 57.5 / 100 = 0.575 > 0`.
This means the R/N ratio will initially increase with these rate constants. This is promising!

Let's simulate Model V3.

## Action

### Code
```python
import pandas as pd
import libsbml

def print_experiment_summary(exp_data, exp_id):
    print(f"\nSummary of experiment {exp_id}:")
    if exp_data is None or exp_data.empty:
        print("No data to summarize.")
        return
    print(f"Initial concentrations:\n{exp_data.head(1)}")
    print(f"Final concentrations:\n{exp_data.tail(1)}")
    initial = exp_data.iloc[0]
    final = exp_data.iloc[-1]
    delta = final - initial
    print(f"Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):\n{delta}")

# Create Model V3
doc_v3 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v3 = doc_v3.getModel()

# Add parameters for Model V3
# R1: id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q
param_k1f = model_v3.createParameter()
param_k1f.setId("k1f")
param_k1f.setValue(0.09) # k1f = 9 * k1r
param_k1f.setConstant(True)

param_k1r = model_v3.createParameter()
param_k1r.setId("k1r")
param_k1r.setValue(0.01)
param_k1r.setConstant(True)

# R2: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
param_k2f = model_v3.createParameter()
param_k2f.setId("k2f")
param_k2f.setValue(1.0)  # k2r = 10 * k2f
param_k2f.setConstant(True)

param_k2r = model_v3.createParameter()
param_k2r.setId("k2r")
param_k2r.setValue(10.0)
param_k2r.setConstant(True)

# Reaction 1 (R1_JR): id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q
r1_jr = model_v3.createReaction()
r1_jr.setId("R1_JR")
r1_jr.setReversible(True)
r1_jr.setFast(False)

reactant_J_r1 = r1_jr.createReactant()
reactant_J_r1.setSpecies("id_jz57")
reactant_J_r1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_J_r1.setConstant(False)

product_R_r1 = r1_jr.createProduct()
product_R_r1.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
product_R_r1.setStoichiometry(1)
product_R_r1.setConstant(False)

kl_r1 = r1_jr.createKineticLaw()
kl_r1.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1f * id_jz57 - k1r * id_ri7q"))

# Reaction 2 (R2_RN): id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
r2_rn = model_v3.createReaction()
r2_rn.setId("R2_RN")
r2_rn.setReversible(True)
r2_rn.setFast(False)

reactant_R_r2 = r2_rn.createReactant()
reactant_R_r2.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
reactant_R_r2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_R_r2.setConstant(False)

product_N_r2 = r2_rn.createProduct()
product_N_r2.setSpecies("id_nzce")
product_N_r2.setStoichiometry(1)
product_N_r2.setConstant(False)

kl_r2 = r2_rn.createKineticLaw()
kl_r2.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2f * id_ri7q - k2r * id_nzce"))

# Convert to SBML string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v3_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(doc_v3)
shared_variables.add("model_v3_sbml", model_v3_sbml)

print("Model V3 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v3_sbml")

# Simulate Model V3
print("\nSimulating Model V3:")
model_v3_sim_results = simulate(model_v3_sbml)
print_experiment_summary(model_v3_sim_results, "model_v3_simulation")

# For comparison, print summary of experimental data again
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
print_experiment_summary(exp_data_iter0, 'iteration_0 (Experimental)')

# Analyze R/N ratio from Model V3 simulation
if model_v3_sim_results is not None and not model_v3_sim_results.empty:
    model_v3_sim_results['R_N_ratio'] = model_v3_sim_results['id_ri7q'] / model_v3_sim_results['id_nzce']
    print("\n[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V3 simulation:")
    
    # Print ratio at key time points from experimental data for comparison
    # Experimental time points from partial data: T=0, T=24.9, T=49.7, T=final
    # Experimental R/N: 10, 11.43, 10.91, 10.0
    
    time_points_for_ratio = [0, 24.9, 49.7, 100, 200, exp_data_iter0['Time'].iloc[-1]]
    print(f"Target Experimental R/N: T=0 (10.0), T=24.9 (11.43), T=49.7 (10.91), T=final (10.0)")
    
    for t_approx in time_points_for_ratio:
        # Find closest time in simulation data
        if model_v3_sim_results['Time'].empty:
            print(f"Simulation results for Time are empty at t_approx={t_approx}")
            continue
        closest_time_idx = (model_v3_sim_results['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        actual_time = model_v3_sim_results['Time'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        ratio_at_time = model_v3_sim_results['R_N_ratio'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        
        # Find corresponding experimental R/N if available
        exp_closest_time_idx = (exp_data_iter0['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        exp_actual_time = exp_data_iter0['Time'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_r_val = exp_data_iter0['id_ri7q'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_n_val = exp_data_iter0['id_nzce'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_ratio_at_time = "N/A"
        if exp_n_val != 0:
             exp_ratio_at_time = f"{exp_r_val / exp_n_val:.2f}"
        
        print(f"Sim @ T~{t_approx:.1f} (actual T={actual_time:.2f}): Ratio={ratio_at_time:.2f} "
              f"(Exp @ T~{exp_actual_time:.2f}: Ratio={exp_ratio_at_time})")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model V3 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v3_sbml

Simulating Model V3:

Summary of experiment model_v3_simulation:
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  152.752294  15.275229  16.972477  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q      52.752294
id_nzce       5.275229
id_jz57     -58.027523
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

Summary of experiment iteration_0 (Experimental):
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.911449  36.591131  40.656997  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.911449
id_nzce      26.591131
id_jz57     -34.343003
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V3 simulation:
Target Experimental R/N: T=0 (10.0), T=24.9 (11.43), T=49.7 (10.91), T=final (10.0)
Sim @ T~0.0 (actual T=0.00): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~0.00: Ratio=10.00)
Sim @ T~24.9 (actual T=24.87): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~24.87: Ratio=11.45)
Sim @ T~49.7 (actual T=49.74): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~49.74: Ratio=10.94)
Sim @ T~100.0 (actual T=99.96): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~99.96: Ratio=10.42)
Sim @ T~200.0 (actual T=200.04): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~200.04: Ratio=10.12)
Sim @ T~1219.0 (actual T=1219.00): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~1219.00: Ratio=10.00)

## 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. (model_v1_sbml, model_v1_sbml_params, model_v2_sbml, model_v3_sbml)

### 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

Model V3 simulation results:
-   **Final concentrations**:
    -   `id_jz57`: Sim 16.97 vs Exp 40.66 (Model consumes too much `id_jz57`)
    -   `id_ri7q`: Sim 152.75 vs Exp 365.91 (Model produces too little `id_ri7q`)
    -   `id_nzce`: Sim 15.27 vs Exp 36.59 (Model produces too little `id_nzce`)
-   **R/N ratio**:
    -   The simulation maintains R/N at 10.00 throughout.
    -   The experimental data shows R/N starting at 10, increasing to ~11.45, then decreasing back to 10.
    -   My initial manual calculation `dN/dt = 0` at T=0 for Model V3 parameters was correct, which should have led to an R/N increase. The simulation not showing this suggests the `k2f=1.0, k2r=10.0` for `R <=> N` is too fast relative to `k1f=0.09, k1r=0.01` for `J <=> R`, effectively clamping the R/N ratio to 10 almost immediately.

The equilibrium ratios `k1r/k1f = 1/9` (for `J_eq/R_eq`) and `k2r/k2f = 10` (for `R_eq/N_eq`) are derived from the experimental final state and should be correct for the *final equilibrium*. The issue is the dynamics and the overall amount of conversion.

Model V3 structure:
1.  `id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q` (params `k1f`, `k1r`)
2.  `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (params `k2f`, `k2r`)

The total amount of material in the system `J+R+N` is conserved in terms of "potential" to form these species.
Initial total: `75+100+10 = 185`.
Final total: `40.657 + 365.911 + 36.591 = 443.159`.
This is not a closed system with respect to these three species alone; there must be a source or sink, or the stoichiometry is more complex. The problem statement says "You do not need to add new species." This implies that the reactions should only involve `id_jz57`, `id_ri7q`, `id_nzce`.

If the sum of concentrations changes, it means the reactions are not 1:1 interconversions for all species.
Example: `A -> B + C` or `A + B -> C`.

Let's re-examine the change in total moles:
`delta_total = 443.159 - 185 = 258.159`.
This increase must come from a reaction that has more products than reactants, e.g., `X -> Y + Z` or `X -> 2Y`.

Consider the stoichiometry from Model V2 again:
`2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` (Feed)
`id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (Equilibration, `R_eq = 10 N_eq`)

This structure *does* change the total number of moles: `2 J` (2 moles) become `17 R` (17 moles).
The problem with Model V2 was that `id_jz57` was over-consumed because the feed reaction was irreversible and not limited.

What if the feed reaction `2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q` is reversible?
Rate: `k_f * [J]^2 - k_r * [R]^17`.
The `[R]^17` term is still a major concern for realism and simulation stability.

Alternative: What if `id_jz57` is not a direct reactant in its "elemental" form for the high-stoichiometry step?
Could there be a simpler reaction that creates an "active" form of J, or R, or N, and *that* active form participates in a high-stoichiometry reaction? But we cannot add new species.

Let's reconsider the transient R/N ratio.
To get R/N > 10 transiently, `id_ri7q` must be produced preferentially or `id_nzce` consumed preferentially at some stage, and the `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` equilibration (driving R/N to 10) must be slow enough to allow this transient state to be observed.

If `k2f` (for `id_ri7q -> id_nzce`) is smaller, the equilibration `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` will be slower.
In Model V3, I used `k2f=1.0, k2r=10.0`. Let's try reducing these, e.g., `k2f=0.1, k2r=1.0`.
This will make the R2 reaction 10 times slower.
The R1 reaction (`id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q`) parameters were `k1f=0.09, k1r=0.01`.
If R1 is faster than R2, then `id_ri7q` can build up from `id_jz57` before R2 converts it to `id_nzce`.

Let's try Model V3 again (let's call it Model V3.1) with adjusted rate constants for R2 to see if we can get the transient R/N behavior. The equilibrium ratios `k1r/k1f = 1/9` and `k2r/k2f = 10` must hold.
The issue with Model V3 was not just the R/N transient, but also the final amounts were way off. This means the simple 1:1 interconversions of Model V3 are not sufficient to explain the large increase in `R` and `N` and the specific decrease in `J`. The total amount of substance increased, which Model V3 cannot do.

This brings me back to a reaction like `X -> mY` where `m > 1`.
The `2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` from Model V2 was good for the *amount* of `R+N` produced per `J` consumed.
The problem was that `J` was consumed too much, implying this reaction should be reversible or limited.

Let's combine:
1.  **R_feed: `2 id_jz57 <=> S_R id_ri7q + S_N id_nzce`**
    This is the reaction that changes the total amount of substance.
    The net change `delta_J = -34.343`, `delta_R = +265.911`, `delta_N = +26.591`.
    If one instance of this reaction occurs (consuming 2 `id_jz57`), it produces `S_R` of `id_ri7q` and `S_N` of `id_nzce`.
    The ratio of production `S_R / S_N` should be related to the observed `delta_R / delta_N = 10`.
    So, let's assume this reaction produces `R` and `N` in a 10:1 molar ratio directly.
    **R_feed: `2 id_jz57 <=> 10X id_ri7q + X id_nzce`** (This is not quite right, let's simplify)
    What if the main production is `id_ri7q`, and then `id_ri7q` equilibrates with `id_nzce`?
    **R_feed: `A id_jz57 <=> B id_ri7q`**
    **R_equil: `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce`** (with `[R_eq]=10[N_eq]`)

From experimental data:
`delta_J = -34.343`
`delta_R_total_from_J = delta_R + delta_N_converted_to_R_equivalent = 265.911 + (26.591 * 10) = 265.911 + 265.91 = 531.822` (This is wrong)
The total pool `R+N` increases by `delta_R + delta_N = 265.911 + 26.591 = 292.502`.
This increase comes from `34.343` of `J`.
Ratio `(delta_R + delta_N) / (-delta_J) = 292.502 / 34.343 = 8.517 \approx 17/2`.
This strongly suggests that for every 2 moles of `J` consumed, 17 moles of `(R+N)` are produced.
So, the stoichiometry of the "feed" part is `2 J -> 17 "R/N pool"`.

How is this "R/N pool" distributed?
If the feed is `2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q`, and then `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (R/N=10 equil), this was Model V2.
Model V2 overconsumed `J`. So, `2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q` needs to be reversible.
Forward rate: `kf * [J]^2`. Reverse rate: `kr * [R]^17`.
The `[R]^17` is the main problem.

What if the stoichiometry is simpler, but one of the species acts catalytically or is part of a cycle that's not fully represented? The problem says "discover the missing reactions", not "discover missing species".

Let's reconsider the transient R/N > 10.
This means `id_ri7q` is produced faster than `id_nzce` can be formed from it, or `id_nzce` is consumed.
If `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q` is a reaction, and `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (R/N=10) is another.
To get the final amounts right, we need a "multiplying" reaction.

Could the reactions be:
1.  `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q` (R1) (causes R/N to increase initially if R2 is slower)
2.  `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (R2) (equilibrates R and N to 10:1)
3.  `id_ri7q -> id_ri7q + id_ri7q` (autocatalytic production of R, or R stimulates its own production from a precursor we can't see). This is ` -> id_ri7q` effectively if the precursor is constant. Or `id_jz57 + id_ri7q -> 2 id_ri7q` (J converted to R, catalyzed by R). This is `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q` with rate `k[J][R]`.
This doesn't explain the large increase in total molecules from J.

What if the high stoichiometry is on `id_jz57`?
E.g., `17 id_jz57 <=> 2 id_ri7q`. This would mean J is consumed a lot to make a little R. Opposite of what's observed.

Let's assume the `2 J -> 17 (R+N pool)` idea is fundamentally correct for the mass balance, and the `R_eq = 10 N_eq` is also correct for the equilibrium state of R and N.
The issue is how to make `2 J <=> 17 R` (followed by `R <=> N`) reversible without `[R]^17`.
Perhaps the reverse reaction is not elementary.
`2 id_jz57 -> X_intermediate` (fast, irreversible)
`X_intermediate -> 17 id_ri7q` (reversible, but X is not allowed)

Could the system be simpler, and my interpretation of `delta_R / delta_N = 10` as `R_eq = 10 N_eq` from a single reaction `R <=> N` be too narrow?
What if the reactions are:
1.  `id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q` (R1)
2.  `id_jz57 <=> id_nzce` (R3)

At equilibrium:
`k1f [J] = k1r [R]` => `J/R = k1r/k1f`
`k3f [J] = k3r [N]` => `J/N = k3r/k3f`
So `R/N = (k1f/k1r) / (k3f/k3r)`. We need this to be 10.
`R_eq/N_eq = (k1f * k3r) / (k1r * k3f) = 10`.

And `J_eq/R_eq = 40.657 / 365.911 = 1/9`. So `k1r/k1f = 1/9`.
And `J_eq/N_eq = 40.657 / 36.591 = 1.111... = 10/9`. So `k3r/k3f = 10/9`.

Substitute into R/N ratio:
`10 = (9/1) * (k3r/k3f) = 9 * (10/9) = 10`. This is consistent.

So, the equilibrium can be satisfied by:
**Model V4:**
1.  **R1: `id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q`**
    Equilibrium: `[Jeq]/[Req] = 1/9`. So `k1f/k1r = 9`. Let `k1f = 0.09, k1r = 0.01`.
2.  **R3: `id_jz57 <=> id_nzce`**
    Equilibrium: `[Jeq]/[Neq] = 10/9`. So `k3f/k3r = 9/10`. Let `k3f = 0.09, k3r = 0.1`. (Or `k3f=0.009, k3r=0.01` to make it slower than R1).

This model consists of only 1:1 reactions. It cannot explain the increase in total molecules.
`J_init+R_init+N_init = 75+100+10 = 185`
`J_final+R_final+N_final = 40.66+365.91+36.59 = 443.16`
This model (V4) will conserve `J+R+N`. So it cannot be correct.

I must have a reaction that increases molecule count.
The simplest is `A -> B + C` or `A -> 2B`.
Given species `J, R, N`.
Possible reactions:
`J -> R + N`
`J -> 2R`
`J -> 2N`
`R -> J + N` (unlikely, R increases)
`N -> J + R` (unlikely, N increases)

Let's test **`id_jz57 -> id_ri7q + id_nzce` (R_split)**.
This produces R and N in a 1:1 molar ratio. But we need `delta_R / delta_N = 10`.
So this reaction alone is not enough. It must be coupled with `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (R_equil, R/N=10).

Consider Model V5:
1.  **R_feed: `id_jz57 -> id_ri7q`** (Rate `k_feed * [J]`)
    This is the "multiplying" step if we assume J is a precursor that can generate many R.
    This is essentially `source -> R` using `J` as a proxy for the source.
    But `J` is consumed.
    The stoichiometry `2 J -> 17 R` (or `17 (R+N)`) is very compelling from the mass balance.
    Let's assume it's `2 id_jz57 -> 17 id_ri7q` (R_prod).
    And this reaction must be reversible to prevent over-consumption of J.
    `R_prod: 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q`
    Rate: `kf_prod * [J]^2 - kr_prod * [R]^17`.
    The `[R]^17` is the sticking point.

What if the system is trying to reach an equilibrium for `2J <=> 17R` but the reverse reaction is kinetically hindered or follows a different path?
If the reverse reaction `17R -> 2J` is very slow or zero, then `J` would be consumed too much, unless `kf_prod` is very small or `J` runs out.
The final `J` is `40.657`. This is not zero. So the net forward reaction `2J -> 17R` must stop.
This happens if:
a) It's reversible: `kf [J]^2 = kr [R]^17` at equilibrium.
   `[J]^2 / [R]^17 = kr/kf = constant`.
   `(40.657)^2 / (365.911)^17 = kr/kf`. This `[R]^17` is astronomically large. `kr` would need to be tiny or `kf` huge.

b) An inhibitor is produced, or a substrate (other than J) is consumed (not allowed).

Let's reconsider the transient R/N ratio. It goes up to 11.45 then down to 10.
This implies:
-   A process produces R (e.g., from J).
-   A process converts R to N (to achieve R/N=10). This must be somewhat slower than the R production to allow R/N to rise first.
-   The J consumption stops when J is around 40.

This implies the J-consuming reaction is reversible.
What if the stoichiometry is not fixed integers like 2 and 17, but these are emergent from multiple reactions?

Let's try a simpler "multiplying" reaction that is reversible:
**Model V5:**
1.  **R_gen: `id_jz57 <=> id_ri7q + id_ri7q` (i.e. `id_jz57 <=> 2 id_ri7q`)**
    Rate: `k_gen_f * [J] - k_gen_r * [R]^2`.
    This reaction increases molecule count.
    At equilibrium: `k_gen_f [J_eq] = k_gen_r [R_eq]^2`.
    So `[J_eq] / [R_eq]^2 = k_gen_r / k_gen_f`.
    `40.657 / (365.911)^2 = 40.657 / 133890 = 3.0366e-4`. This is a plausible value for `k_gen_r / k_gen_f`.
    Let `k_gen_f = 1`, `k_gen_r = 3.0366e-4`.

2.  **R_equil: `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce`**
    Rate: `k_eq_f * [R] - k_eq_r * [N]`.
    Equilibrium: `[R_eq] / [N_eq] = k_eq_r / k_eq_f = 10`.
    Let `k_eq_f = 0.1`, `k_eq_r = 1.0`. (Making this slower than R_gen's forward component to see R/N rise).
    Or, to get R/N to rise, `k_eq_f` (R->N) should be slow, and `k_gen_f` (J->2R) should be fast enough.

Let's test Model V5.
Parameters:
`k_gen_f = 0.1` (Chosen to set timescale)
`k_gen_r = k_gen_f * (J_eq / R_eq^2) = 0.1 * 3.0366e-4 = 3.0366e-5`.
`k_eq_r = 1.0` (Chosen to set timescale for R/N equilibration, and ensure R/N=10)
`k_eq_f = k_eq_r / 10 = 0.1`.

Initial check for R/N increase:
`dR/dt = 2 * (k_gen_f [J] - k_gen_r [R]^2) - (k_eq_f [R] - k_eq_r [N])`
`dN/dt = k_eq_f [R] - k_eq_r [N]`
At T=0: J=75, R=100, N=10.
`k_gen_f [J] = 0.1 * 75 = 7.5`
`k_gen_r [R]^2 = 3.0366e-5 * (100)^2 = 3.0366e-5 * 10000 = 0.30366`
Net R_gen = `7.5 - 0.30366 = 7.19634` (flux to R)
`k_eq_f [R] = 0.1 * 100 = 10`
`k_eq_r [N] = 1.0 * 10 = 10`
Net R_equil = `10 - 10 = 0` (flux R to N)

`dR/dt = 2 * 7.19634 - 0 = 14.39268`
`dN/dt = 0`
`d(R/N)/dt = (N dR/dt - R dN/dt) / N^2 = (10 * 14.39268 - 100 * 0) / 100 = 1.439 > 0`.
So, R/N should increase initially. This model structure is promising.

This model (V5: `J <=> 2R`, `R <=> N`) seems to satisfy:
-   Increase in total molecules.
-   Correct equilibrium ratios for J, R, N.
-   Potential for transient R/N > 10.

The stoichiometry `J <=> 2R` means 1 mole of J produces 2 moles of R.
`delta_J = -34.343`.
This would produce `2 * 34.343 = 68.686` moles of R.
The observed `delta_R + delta_N = 292.502`.
The `J <=> 2R` reaction alone doesn't produce enough R+N.
`292.502 / 34.343 = 8.517`. This means each J consumed generates 8.517 (R+N) units.
So, the reaction should be more like `J -> 8.5 R` or `2J -> 17R`.

I am stuck on the `[R]^17` term if I use `2J <=> 17R`.
Is there a way to write `2J <=> 17R` without high order kinetics?
Not if it's an elementary reaction. If it's a multi-step process where intermediates are not explicitly modeled (pseudo-steady state), then complex rate laws can emerge. However, we are asked to find reactions.

What if the "17" is not for `id_ri7q` but for a combination?
`2 id_jz57 <=> X id_ri7q + Y id_nzce` where `X+Y = 17`.
And we also need `X/Y` to be related to the 10:1 R/N ratio.
If this reaction directly produces R and N in a 10:1 ratio, then `X = 10Y`.
`10Y + Y = 17 => 11Y = 17 => Y = 17/11`. `X = 170/11`. These are not integers.
Stoichiometries should be integers.

This implies that the production `2J -> 17R` (or similar) happens, and *then* `R` equilibrates to `N`.
So, `R_prod: 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q`
`R_equil: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (with R/N=10)

How to make `R_prod` reversible without `[R]^17`?
Could the reverse reaction be `17 id_ri7q -> 2 id_jz57` but with a different kinetic law, e.g. Michaelis-Menten like if R saturates an enzyme that converts it back to J? Or product inhibition?
The problem asks for SBML reactions. Standard mass-action is implied unless specified.

Let's try one more time with Model V2's stoichiometry but make it reversible and see if a very small `kr_feed` can work.
**Model V6 (Reversible Model V2):**
1.  **R_feed: `2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q`**
    Rate: `kf_feed * [J]^2 - kr_feed * [R]^17`
    Equilibrium: `kf_feed * [J_eq]^2 = kr_feed * [R_eq]^17`
    `kr_feed / kf_feed = [J_eq]^2 / [R_eq]^17 = (40.657)^2 / (365.911)^17`
    `J_eq^2 = 1653.00`
    `R_eq^17 = (3.659e2)^17 = (3.659)^17 * 10^34`.
    `log10(R_eq) = log10(365.911) = 2.5633`.
    `log10(R_eq^17) = 17 * 2.5633 = 43.5761`. So `R_eq^17 approx 10^43.57`.
    `kr_feed / kf_feed = 1653 / (10^43.57) approx 1.6e3 / (3.7e43) approx 4e-41`. This is an extremely small ratio.
    Let `kf_feed = 4.5e-5` (from Model V2's estimate for forward rate).
    Then `kr_feed = 4.5e-5 * 4e-41 = 1.8e-45`. This might be too small for simulators to handle numerically without issues.

2.  **R_equil: `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce`**
    Rate: `kf_eq * [R] - kr_eq * [N]`
    Equilibrium: `[R_eq] / [N_eq] = 10`. So `kr_eq / kf_eq = 10`.
    To get transient R/N > 10, `kf_eq` (R->N) should be somewhat slow.
    Let `kf_eq = 0.1`, `kr_eq = 1.0`. (Slower than Model V3's R2, faster than Model V5's R_equil forward rate).

Initial check for R/N increase with these R_equil rates:
`dR_from_equil/dt = - (0.1 * R - 1.0 * N)`
`dN/dt = (0.1 * R - 1.0 * N)`
At T=0: R=100, N=10.
`0.1*100 - 1.0*10 = 10 - 10 = 0`.
So `dN/dt` is initially 0. `id_ri7q` is produced by R_feed. So R/N should increase.

This Model V6 seems to be the most consistent with all observations, provided the numerics of `[R]^17` and tiny `kr_feed` don't break the simulation.

I will try to simulate Model V6. If it fails due to numerical reasons, I might have to submit a model that gets the equilibrium right but not the exact stoichiometry if it involves such high powers. However, the `2J -> 17R` stoichiometry is very strongly suggested by the changes.

## Action

### Code
```python
import pandas as pd
import libsbml
import numpy as np

def print_experiment_summary(exp_data, exp_id):
    print(f"\nSummary of experiment {exp_id}:")
    if exp_data is None or exp_data.empty:
        print("No data to summarize.")
        return
    print(f"Initial concentrations:\n{exp_data.head(1)}")
    print(f"Final concentrations:\n{exp_data.tail(1)}")
    initial = exp_data.iloc[0]
    final = exp_data.iloc[-1]
    delta = final - initial
    print(f"Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):\n{delta}")

# Create Model V6
doc_v6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v6 = doc_v6.getModel()

# Experimental equilibrium values for calculation
J_eq = 40.656997
R_eq = 365.911449
N_eq = 36.591131

# Parameters for Model V6
# R_feed: 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q
param_kf_feed = model_v6.createParameter()
param_kf_feed.setId("kf_feed")
kf_feed_val = 4.5e-5 # From Model V2 estimate
param_kf_feed.setValue(kf_feed_val)
param_kf_feed.setConstant(True)

param_kr_feed = model_v6.createParameter()
param_kr_feed.setId("kr_feed")
# kr_feed / kf_feed = J_eq^2 / R_eq^17
# Use np.longdouble for precision with R_eq^17 if possible, though intermediate may still overflow standard floats
# Python floats are typically double precision (64-bit)
# R_eq_pow17 = np.power(np.longdouble(R_eq), 17) # This can be extremely large
# ratio_J2_R17 = np.longdouble(J_eq)**2 / R_eq_pow17
# kr_feed_val = kf_feed_val * float(ratio_J2_R17) # Convert back to float for SBML

# Simpler: log scale to check magnitude
# log10_R_eq_pow17 = 17 * np.log10(R_eq) # approx 43.57
# log10_J_eq_sq = 2 * np.log10(J_eq)     # approx 3.21
# log10_ratio = log10_J_eq_sq - log10_R_eq_pow17 # approx 3.21 - 43.57 = -40.36
# ratio_val = 10**(-40.36) # approx 4.36e-41
# kr_feed_val = kf_feed_val * ratio_val # 4.5e-5 * 4.36e-41 = 1.96e-45

# Let's calculate kr_feed_val carefully
# J_eq^2 = 40.656997^2 = 1653.00066
# R_eq^17 = 365.911449^17. This is the tricky one.
# log(R_eq) = ln(365.911449) = 5.90238
# log(R_eq^17) = 17 * 5.90238 = 100.34046
# R_eq^17 = exp(100.34046). This is e^100, which is huge.
# Python's default float precision might struggle here.
# Let's use the ratio directly: (J_eq/R_eq)^2 * R_eq^(-15)
# (J_eq/R_eq) = 40.656997 / 365.911449 = 0.11111111... = 1/9
# (J_eq/R_eq)^2 = (1/9)^2 = 1/81
# kr_feed / kf_feed = (1/81) * (1/R_eq^15)
# kr_feed_val = kf_feed_val * (1/81) * (1/ (365.911449**15))
# 365.911449**15 is still massive.
# log10(365.911449^15) = 15 * 2.5633 = 38.4495
# So 365.911449^15 is approx 10^38.45 = 2.8e38
# kr_feed_val = (4.5e-5 / 81) * (1 / 2.8e38) = (5.55e-7) * (3.5e-39) = 1.9e-45

kr_feed_val = 1.96e-45 # Using the more precise calculation result
param_kr_feed.setValue(kr_feed_val)
param_kr_feed.setConstant(True)

# R_equil: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
param_kf_eq = model_v6.createParameter()
param_kf_eq.setId("kf_eq")
kf_eq_val = 0.1 # Slower R->N conversion to see R/N rise
param_kf_eq.setValue(kf_eq_val)
param_kf_eq.setConstant(True)

param_kr_eq = model_v6.createParameter()
param_kr_eq.setId("kr_eq")
kr_eq_val = 1.0 # So kr_eq/kf_eq = 10
param_kr_eq.setValue(kr_eq_val)
param_kr_eq.setConstant(True)

# Reaction 1 (R_feed): 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q
r_feed = model_v6.createReaction()
r_feed.setId("R_feed")
r_feed.setReversible(True)
r_feed.setFast(False)

reactant_J = r_feed.createReactant()
reactant_J.setSpecies("id_jz57")
reactant_J.setStoichiometry(2)
reactant_J.setConstant(False)

product_R_feed = r_feed.createProduct()
product_R_feed.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
product_R_feed.setStoichiometry(17)
product_R_feed.setConstant(False)

kl_feed = r_feed.createKineticLaw()
# Using pow(X, Y) for X^Y
kl_feed.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("kf_feed * pow(id_jz57, 2) - kr_feed * pow(id_ri7q, 17)"))

# Reaction 2 (R_equil): id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
r_equil = model_v6.createReaction()
r_equil.setId("R_equil")
r_equil.setReversible(True)
r_equil.setFast(False)

reactant_R_eq = r_equil.createReactant()
reactant_R_eq.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
reactant_R_eq.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_R_eq.setConstant(False)

product_N_eq = r_equil.createProduct()
product_N_eq.setSpecies("id_nzce")
product_N_eq.setStoichiometry(1)
product_N_eq.setConstant(False)

kl_equil = r_equil.createKineticLaw()
kl_equil.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("kf_eq * id_ri7q - kr_eq * id_nzce"))

# Convert to SBML string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v6_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(doc_v6)
shared_variables.add("model_v6_sbml", model_v6_sbml)

print("Model V6 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v6_sbml")

# Simulate Model V6
print("\nSimulating Model V6:")
model_v6_sim_results = simulate(model_v6_sbml) # This might fail or take long
print_experiment_summary(model_v6_sim_results, "model_v6_simulation")

# For comparison, print summary of experimental data again
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
print_experiment_summary(exp_data_iter0, 'iteration_0 (Experimental)')

# Analyze R/N ratio from Model V6 simulation
if model_v6_sim_results is not None and not model_v6_sim_results.empty:
    model_v6_sim_results['R_N_ratio'] = model_v6_sim_results['id_ri7q'] / model_v6_sim_results['id_nzce']
    print("\n[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V6 simulation:")
    time_points_for_ratio = [0, 24.9, 49.7, 100, 200, exp_data_iter0['Time'].iloc[-1]]
    print(f"Target Experimental R/N: T=0 (10.0), T=24.9 (11.43), T=49.7 (10.91), T=final (10.0)")
    for t_approx in time_points_for_ratio:
        if model_v6_sim_results['Time'].empty:
            print(f"Simulation results for Time are empty at t_approx={t_approx}")
            continue
        closest_time_idx = (model_v6_sim_results['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        actual_time = model_v6_sim_results['Time'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        ratio_at_time = model_v6_sim_results['R_N_ratio'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        exp_closest_time_idx = (exp_data_iter0['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        exp_actual_time = exp_data_iter0['Time'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_r_val = exp_data_iter0['id_ri7q'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_n_val = exp_data_iter0['id_nzce'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_ratio_at_time = "N/A"
        if exp_n_val != 0 and not np.isnan(exp_n_val) and not np.isnan(exp_r_val):
             exp_ratio_at_time = f"{exp_r_val / exp_n_val:.2f}"
        print(f"Sim @ T~{t_approx:.1f} (actual T={actual_time:.2f}): Ratio={ratio_at_time:.2f} "
              f"(Exp @ T~{exp_actual_time:.2f}: Ratio={exp_ratio_at_time})")
else:
    print("Model V6 simulation produced no results or empty dataframe.")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model V6 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v6_sbml

Simulating Model V6:

Summary of experiment model_v6_simulation:
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.927063  36.592706  40.585909  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.927063
id_nzce      26.592706
id_jz57     -34.414091
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

Summary of experiment iteration_0 (Experimental):
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.911449  36.591131  40.656997  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.911449
id_nzce      26.591131
id_jz57     -34.343003
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V6 simulation:
Target Experimental R/N: T=0 (10.0), T=24.9 (11.43), T=49.7 (10.91), T=final (10.0)
Sim @ T~0.0 (actual T=0.00): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~0.00: Ratio=10.00)
Sim @ T~24.9 (actual T=24.87): Ratio=10.16 (Exp @ T~24.87: Ratio=11.45)
Sim @ T~49.7 (actual T=49.74): Ratio=10.09 (Exp @ T~49.74: Ratio=10.94)
Sim @ T~100.0 (actual T=99.96): Ratio=10.04 (Exp @ T~99.96: Ratio=10.42)
Sim @ T~200.0 (actual T=200.04): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~200.04: Ratio=10.12)
Sim @ T~1219.0 (actual T=1219.00): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~1219.00: Ratio=10.00)

## 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. (model_v1_sbml, model_v1_sbml_params, model_v2_sbml, model_v3_sbml, model_v6_sbml)

### 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

Model V6 simulation results are very promising:
-   **Final concentrations**:
    -   `id_jz57`: Sim 40.59 vs Exp 40.66 (Excellent match)
    -   `id_ri7q`: Sim 365.93 vs Exp 365.91 (Excellent match)
    -   `id_nzce`: Sim 36.59 vs Exp 36.59 (Excellent match)
    The equilibrium state is almost perfectly replicated. This confirms that the stoichiometry `2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q` for the feed and `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` (with R/N=10) for equilibration, along with the derived rate constants, correctly describes the final state.

-   **R/N ratio transient**:
    -   Simulated R/N at T~24.9 is 10.16 (Exp: 11.45)
    -   Simulated R/N at T~49.7 is 10.09 (Exp: 10.94)
    The model *does* show an increase in the R/N ratio, but it's much smaller than the experimental data. The peak in the simulation is lower and it returns to 10 faster.
    This suggests that the rate of `id_ri7q` production from `id_jz57` (via `R_feed`) relative to the rate of `id_ri7q` conversion to `id_nzce` (via `R_equil`) needs adjustment.

To make the R/N peak higher and last longer:
1.  Make `R_feed` (specifically `kf_feed`) faster, OR
2.  Make `R_equil` (specifically `kf_eq`, the `id_ri7q -> id_nzce` part) slower.

Current parameters for `R_equil`: `kf_eq = 0.1`, `kr_eq = 1.0`.
If we make `kf_eq` even slower, say `kf_eq = 0.01`, then `kr_eq` must be `0.1` to maintain `kr_eq/kf_eq = 10`.
This would make the equilibration of `id_ri7q` to `id_nzce` ten times slower. This should allow `id_ri7q` to accumulate more from `R_feed` before being converted to `id_nzce`, leading to a higher transient R/N ratio.

The `kf_feed = 4.5e-5` determines the overall timescale of `id_jz57` consumption. The experimental data shows `id_jz57` drops significantly by T=100-200.
The half-life for `2J -> ...` with rate `k[J]^2` is `1/(2*k*J0)`.
If `J0=75`, `k=4.5e-5`, `t_half = 1/(2 * 4.5e-5 * 75) = 1/(6.75e-3) = 148`. This matches the observed timescale for `J` consumption reasonably well, so `kf_feed` is likely in the right ballpark.

Let's try adjusting `R_equil` parameters (Model V6.1):
-   `kf_feed = 4.5e-5` (unchanged)
-   `kr_feed = 1.96e-45` (unchanged)
-   `kf_eq = 0.01` (was 0.1)
-   `kr_eq = 0.1` (was 1.0)

This change should not affect the final equilibrium concentrations, only the dynamics of reaching it, particularly for the R/N ratio.

I will implement this as Model V6.1 (or effectively, just update parameters in what was called Model V6 structure).

## Action

### Code
```python
import pandas as pd
import libsbml
import numpy as np

def print_experiment_summary(exp_data, exp_id):
    print(f"\nSummary of experiment {exp_id}:")
    if exp_data is None or exp_data.empty:
        print("No data to summarize.")
        return
    print(f"Initial concentrations:\n{exp_data.head(1)}")
    print(f"Final concentrations:\n{exp_data.tail(1)}")
    initial = exp_data.iloc[0]
    final = exp_data.iloc[-1]
    delta = final - initial
    print(f"Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):\n{delta}")

# Create Model V6.1 (Modified R_equil parameters from V6)
doc_v6_1 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string) # Start from fresh base
model_v6_1 = doc_v6_1.getModel()

# Parameters for Model V6.1
# R_feed: 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q (parameters unchanged from V6)
param_kf_feed = model_v6_1.createParameter()
param_kf_feed.setId("kf_feed")
kf_feed_val = 4.5e-5
param_kf_feed.setValue(kf_feed_val)
param_kf_feed.setConstant(True)

param_kr_feed = model_v6_1.createParameter()
param_kr_feed.setId("kr_feed")
kr_feed_val = 1.96e-45 # Calculated to match equilibrium
param_kr_feed.setValue(kr_feed_val)
param_kr_feed.setConstant(True)

# R_equil: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce (parameters modified for slower equilibration)
param_kf_eq = model_v6_1.createParameter()
param_kf_eq.setId("kf_eq")
kf_eq_val = 0.01 # Was 0.1 in V6. Slower R->N conversion.
param_kf_eq.setValue(kf_eq_val)
param_kf_eq.setConstant(True)

param_kr_eq = model_v6_1.createParameter()
param_kr_eq.setId("kr_eq")
kr_eq_val = 0.1  # Was 1.0 in V6. kr_eq/kf_eq = 0.1/0.01 = 10.
param_kr_eq.setValue(kr_eq_val)
param_kr_eq.setConstant(True)

# Reaction 1 (R_feed): 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q
r_feed = model_v6_1.createReaction()
r_feed.setId("R_feed")
r_feed.setReversible(True)
r_feed.setFast(False)

reactant_J = r_feed.createReactant()
reactant_J.setSpecies("id_jz57")
reactant_J.setStoichiometry(2)
reactant_J.setConstant(False)

product_R_feed = r_feed.createProduct()
product_R_feed.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
product_R_feed.setStoichiometry(17)
product_R_feed.setConstant(False)

kl_feed = r_feed.createKineticLaw()
kl_feed.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("kf_feed * pow(id_jz57, 2) - kr_feed * pow(id_ri7q, 17)"))

# Reaction 2 (R_equil): id_ri7q <=> id_nzce
r_equil = model_v6_1.createReaction()
r_equil.setId("R_equil")
r_equil.setReversible(True)
r_equil.setFast(False)

reactant_R_eq = r_equil.createReactant()
reactant_R_eq.setSpecies("id_ri7q")
reactant_R_eq.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_R_eq.setConstant(False)

product_N_eq = r_equil.createProduct()
product_N_eq.setSpecies("id_nzce")
product_N_eq.setStoichiometry(1)
product_N_eq.setConstant(False)

kl_equil = r_equil.createKineticLaw()
kl_equil.setMath(libsbml.parseL3Formula("kf_eq * id_ri7q - kr_eq * id_nzce"))

# Convert to SBML string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v6_1_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(doc_v6_1)
shared_variables.add("model_v6_1_sbml", model_v6_1_sbml)

print("Model V6.1 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v6_1_sbml")

# Simulate Model V6.1
print("\nSimulating Model V6.1:")
model_v6_1_sim_results = simulate(model_v6_1_sbml)
print_experiment_summary(model_v6_1_sim_results, "model_v6_1_simulation")

# For comparison, print summary of experimental data again
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
print_experiment_summary(exp_data_iter0, 'iteration_0 (Experimental)')

# Analyze R/N ratio from Model V6.1 simulation
if model_v6_1_sim_results is not None and not model_v6_1_sim_results.empty:
    model_v6_1_sim_results['R_N_ratio'] = model_v6_1_sim_results['id_ri7q'] / model_v6_1_sim_results['id_nzce']
    print("\n[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V6.1 simulation:")
    time_points_for_ratio = [0, 24.9, 49.7, 100, 200, exp_data_iter0['Time'].iloc[-1]]
    print(f"Target Experimental R/N: T=0 (10.0), T=24.9 (11.43), T=49.7 (10.91), T=final (10.0)")
    for t_approx in time_points_for_ratio:
        if model_v6_1_sim_results['Time'].empty:
            print(f"Simulation results for Time are empty at t_approx={t_approx}")
            continue
        closest_time_idx = (model_v6_1_sim_results['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        actual_time = model_v6_1_sim_results['Time'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        # Ensure nzce is not zero and values are not NaN before division
        sim_r_val = model_v6_1_sim_results['id_ri7q'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        sim_n_val = model_v6_1_sim_results['id_nzce'].iloc[closest_time_idx]
        ratio_at_time_str = "N/A (div by zero or NaN)"
        if sim_n_val != 0 and not np.isnan(sim_n_val) and not np.isnan(sim_r_val):
            ratio_at_time_str = f"{sim_r_val / sim_n_val:.2f}"

        exp_closest_time_idx = (exp_data_iter0['Time'] - t_approx).abs().idxmin()
        exp_actual_time = exp_data_iter0['Time'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_r_val = exp_data_iter0['id_ri7q'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_n_val = exp_data_iter0['id_nzce'].iloc[exp_closest_time_idx]
        exp_ratio_at_time_str = "N/A"
        if exp_n_val != 0 and not np.isnan(exp_n_val) and not np.isnan(exp_r_val):
             exp_ratio_at_time_str = f"{exp_r_val / exp_n_val:.2f}"
        
        print(f"Sim @ T~{t_approx:.1f} (actual T={actual_time:.2f}): Ratio={ratio_at_time_str} "
              f"(Exp @ T~{exp_actual_time:.2f}: Ratio={exp_ratio_at_time_str})")
else:
    print("Model V6.1 simulation produced no results or empty dataframe.")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model V6.1 SBML string created and saved to shared_variables.model_v6_1_sbml

Simulating Model V6.1:

Summary of experiment model_v6_1_simulation:
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.927065  36.592706  40.585909  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.927065
id_nzce      26.592706
id_jz57     -34.414091
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

Summary of experiment iteration_0 (Experimental):
Initial concentrations:
   id_ri7q  id_nzce  id_jz57  Time
0    100.0     10.0     75.0   0.0
Final concentrations:
          id_ri7q    id_nzce    id_jz57    Time
10000  365.911449  36.591131  40.656997  1219.0
Changes in concentrations (Final - Initial):
id_ri7q     265.911449
id_nzce      26.591131
id_jz57     -34.343003
Time       1219.000000
dtype: float64

[id_ri7q]/[id_nzce] ratio from Model V6.1 simulation:
Target Experimental R/N: T=0 (10.0), T=24.9 (11.43), T=49.7 (10.91), T=final (10.0)
Sim @ T~0.0 (actual T=0.00): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~0.00: Ratio=10.00)
Sim @ T~24.9 (actual T=24.87): Ratio=11.88 (Exp @ T~24.87: Ratio=11.45)
Sim @ T~49.7 (actual T=49.74): Ratio=11.08 (Exp @ T~49.74: Ratio=10.94)
Sim @ T~100.0 (actual T=99.96): Ratio=10.44 (Exp @ T~99.96: Ratio=10.42)
Sim @ T~200.0 (actual T=200.04): Ratio=10.01 (Exp @ T~200.04: Ratio=10.12)
Sim @ T~1219.0 (actual T=1219.00): Ratio=10.00 (Exp @ T~1219.00: Ratio=10.00)

## 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. (model_v1_sbml, model_v1_sbml_params, model_v2_sbml, model_v3_sbml, model_v6_sbml, model_v6_1_sbml)

### 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

Model V6.1 simulation results are excellent:
-   **Final concentrations**: Still an excellent match with experimental data, as expected since the equilibrium conditions were preserved.
    -   `id_jz57`: Sim 40.59 vs Exp 40.66
    -   `id_ri7q`: Sim 365.93 vs Exp 365.91
    -   `id_nzce`: Sim 36.59 vs Exp 36.59

-   **R/N ratio transient**: This is now much better.
    -   Sim @ T~24.9: Ratio=11.88 (Exp @ T~24.87: Ratio=11.45) - Very close.
    -   Sim @ T~49.7: Ratio=11.08 (Exp @ T~49.74: Ratio=10.94) - Very close.
    -   Sim @ T~100.0: Ratio=10.44 (Exp @ T~99.96: Ratio=10.42) - Excellent match.
    -   Sim @ T~200.0: Ratio=10.01 (Exp @ T~200.04: Ratio=10.12) - Good, simulation returns to 10 a bit faster.

The model `model_v6_1_sbml` (which includes reactions `2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q` and `id_ri7q <=> id_nzce` with the latest set of parameters) seems to capture the system's behavior very well, including both the final equilibrium state and the transient dynamics of the R/N ratio. The high-order term `pow(id_ri7q, 17)` and the very small `kr_feed` did not prevent the simulator from running and producing good results.

Given the close match to the available experimental data (from `iteration_0`), this model is a strong candidate for the true system. No further experiments seem immediately necessary unless there's a specific aspect to probe further, but the current model explains the observed phenomena comprehensively.

I am confident in this model structure and parameters. I will prepare to submit this model.

The reactions are:
1.  `R_feed: 2 id_jz57 <=> 17 id_ri7q`
    Kinetic Law: `kf_feed * pow(id_jz57, 2) - kr_feed * pow(id_ri7q, 17)`
    Parameters: `kf_feed = 4.5e-5`, `kr_feed = 1.96e-45`
2.  `R_equil: id_ri7q <=> id_nzce`
    Kinetic Law: `kf_eq * id_ri7q - kr_eq * id_nzce`
    Parameters: `kf_eq = 0.01`, `kr_eq = 0.1`

The SBML string for this model is stored in `shared_variables.access("model_v6_1_sbml")`.

## Action

### Submit
```python
final_sbml = shared_variables.access("model_v6_1_sbml")
print("Final SBML model (model_v6_1_sbml) is ready for submission.")
# print(final_sbml) # Optional: print if needed, but it's long
```
