
                # 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/version3" level="2" version="3">
  <model id="id_bifm">
    <listOfUnitDefinitions>
      <unitDefinition id="id_dp7b">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" scale="-6"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_iz0z">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" scale="-6"/>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="-1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_n9p3">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" scale="-6"/>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="-1"/>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="-1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_va0a">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="-1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
    </listOfUnitDefinitions>
    <listOfCompartments>
      <compartment id="id_wmdb" size="1"/>
      <compartment id="id_xpsc" size="1"/>
    </listOfCompartments>
    <listOfSpecies>
      <species id="id_hura" compartment="id_xpsc" initialConcentration="0.1"/>
      <species id="id_0e6o" compartment="id_xpsc" initialConcentration="0.1"/>
      <species id="id_v92z" compartment="id_wmdb" initialConcentration="1.5"/>
    </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_hura`, `id_0e6o`, and `id_v92z`, with initial concentrations 0.1, 0.1, and 1.5 respectively. There are no reactions defined in the model.

My first step is 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. This data will be crucial for identifying potential reactions.

After obtaining the experimental data, I will compare it to a simulation of the current (empty) model. Since there are no reactions, the simulation will show constant concentrations. Any changes observed in the experiment will indicate the presence of reactions.

## 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: 1001 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_hura  id_0e6o  id_v92z
0  1.00e-01 1.00e-01 1.50e+00
...
2.00e-01  1.03e-01 2.97e-01 1.28e+00
...
4.00e-01  1.06e-01 2.99e-01 1.26e+00
...
6.00e-01  1.10e-01 3.00e-01 1.24e+00
...
8.00e-01  1.13e-01 3.01e-01 1.22e+00
...
1.00e+00  1.16e-01 3.02e-01 1.20e+00
...
1.20e+00  1.19e-01 3.02e-01 1.18e+00
...
1.40e+00  1.22e-01 3.02e-01 1.16e+00
...
1.60e+00  1.25e-01 3.01e-01 1.14e+00
...
1.80e+00  1.28e-01 3.00e-01 1.12e+00
...
2.00e+00  1.31e-01 2.99e-01 1.10e+00
...
2.20e+00  1.34e-01 2.98e-01 1.08e+00
...
2.40e+00  1.37e-01 2.97e-01 1.06e+00
...
2.60e+00  1.40e-01 2.95e-01 1.05e+00
...
2.80e+00  1.42e-01 2.93e-01 1.03e+00
...
3.00e+00  1.45e-01 2.91e-01 1.01e+00
...
3.20e+00  1.47e-01 2.89e-01 9.95e-01
...
3.40e+00  1.50e-01 2.87e-01 9.78e-01
...
3.60e+00  1.52e-01 2.85e-01 9.62e-01
...
3.80e+00  1.54e-01 2.82e-01 9.46e-01
...
4.00e+00  1.57e-01 2.80e-01 9.30e-01
...
4.20e+00  1.59e-01 2.77e-01 9.15e-01
...
4.40e+00  1.61e-01 2.75e-01 9.00e-01
...
4.60e+00  1.63e-01 2.72e-01 8.85e-01
...
4.80e+00  1.65e-01 2.69e-01 8.71e-01
...
5.00e+00  1.66e-01 2.67e-01 8.57e-01
...
5.20e+00  1.68e-01 2.64e-01 8.43e-01
...
5.40e+00  1.70e-01 2.61e-01 8.30e-01
...
5.60e+00  1.71e-01 2.58e-01 8.17e-01
...
5.80e+00  1.73e-01 2.55e-01 8.04e-01
...
6.00e+00  1.74e-01 2.53e-01 7.91e-01
...
6.20e+00  1.75e-01 2.50e-01 7.79e-01
...
6.40e+00  1.77e-01 2.47e-01 7.67e-01
...
6.60e+00  1.78e-01 2.44e-01 7.55e-01
...
6.80e+00  1.79e-01 2.41e-01 7.44e-01
...
7.00e+00  1.80e-01 2.38e-01 7.33e-01
...
7.20e+00  1.81e-01 2.35e-01 7.22e-01
...
7.40e+00  1.82e-01 2.33e-01 7.11e-01
...
7.60e+00  1.83e-01 2.30e-01 7.01e-01
...
7.80e+00  1.83e-01 2.27e-01 6.91e-01
...
8.00e+00  1.84e-01 2.24e-01 6.81e-01
...
8.20e+00  1.85e-01 2.22e-01 6.71e-01
...
8.40e+00  1.85e-01 2.19e-01 6.62e-01
...
8.60e+00  1.86e-01 2.16e-01 6.53e-01
...
8.80e+00  1.86e-01 2.13e-01 6.44e-01
...
9.00e+00  1.86e-01 2.11e-01 6.36e-01
...
9.20e+00  1.87e-01 2.08e-01 6.27e-01
...
9.40e+00  1.87e-01 2.06e-01 6.19e-01
...
9.60e+00  1.87e-01 2.03e-01 6.12e-01
...
1.00e+01  1.87e-01 1.98e-01 5.96e-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 experimental data shows dynamic changes in species concentrations, indicating the presence of reactions.
- `id_v92z` decreases steadily.
- `id_0e6o` increases initially, peaks, and then decreases.
- `id_hura` increases steadily.

This pattern suggests a sequential reaction pathway: `id_v92z` is converted to `id_0e6o`, which is then converted to `id_hura`.
Let's propose two reactions:
1.  R1: `id_v92z` -> `id_0e6o` (with rate `k1 * [id_v92z]`)
2.  R2: `id_0e6o` -> `id_hura` (with rate `k2 * [id_0e6o]`)

Species compartments:
- `id_v92z`: `id_wmdb`
- `id_0e6o`: `id_xpsc`
- `id_hura`: `id_xpsc`

R1 involves a species from `id_wmdb` being converted into a species in `id_xpsc`. This is effectively a transport and transformation. The rate will depend on `[id_v92z]`.
R2 involves species within `id_xpsc`. The rate will depend on `[id_0e6o]`.

I will now implement this model using libSBML, simulate it with initial guesses for `k1` and `k2`, and compare the simulation results with the experimental data.
Based on a rough estimation from the data:
- Initial rate of `id_v92z` consumption: `(1.5 - 1.28) / 0.2 = 0.22 / 0.2 = 1.1`. So, `k1 * 1.5 ≈ 1.1` => `k1 ≈ 0.73`.
- Initial rate of `id_hura` production: `(0.103 - 0.1) / 0.2 = 0.003 / 0.2 = 0.015`. So, `k2 * [id_0e6o]_initial ≈ 0.015`. `k2 * 0.1 ≈ 0.015` => `k2 ≈ 0.15`.

Let's try `k1 = 0.7` and `k2 = 0.15`.

The plan is:
1.  Load the `input_sbml_string`.
2.  Add reaction R1: `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` with kinetic law `k1 * id_v92z`.
3.  Add reaction R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` with kinetic law `k2 * id_0e6o`.
4.  Define parameters `k1` and `k2`.
5.  Simulate the new SBML model.
6.  Plot the simulation results alongside the experimental data from `experiment_history['iteration_0']`.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Add parameters k1 and k2
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(0.7) # Initial guess
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a") # Assuming per second for first order

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(0.15) # Initial guess
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a") # Assuming per second for first order

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_v92z")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant1.setConstant(False)

product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
product1.setStoichiometry(1)
product1.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast_node1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("R2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant2.setConstant(False)

product2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2.setSpecies("id_hura")
product2.setStoichiometry(1)
product2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast_node2)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string for potential submission or further modification
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val", 0.7)
shared_variables.add("k2_val", 0.15)


# Plotting (optional, but good for visualization)
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))

plt.subplot(3, 1, 1)
plt.plot(exp_data['Time'], exp_data['id_hura'], label='Exp id_hura', marker='.')
plt.plot(sim_data['Time'], sim_data['id_hura'], label='Sim id_hura', linestyle='--')
plt.title('id_hura')
plt.legend()

plt.subplot(3, 1, 2)
plt.plot(exp_data['Time'], exp_data['id_0e6o'], label='Exp id_0e6o', marker='.')
plt.plot(sim_data['Time'], sim_data['id_0e6o'], label='Sim id_0e6o', linestyle='--')
plt.title('id_0e6o')
plt.legend()

plt.subplot(3, 1, 3)
plt.plot(exp_data['Time'], exp_data['id_v92z'], label='Exp id_v92z', marker='.')
plt.plot(sim_data['Time'], sim_data['id_v92z'], label='Sim id_v92z', linestyle='--')
plt.title('id_v92z')
plt.legend()

plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

# Print some comparison points
print("Experimental data at T=0, 1, 5, 10:")
print(exp_data[exp_data['Time'].isin([0, 1, 5, 10])])
print("\nSimulated data at T=0, 1, 5, 10:")
# Find closest time points in sim_data for comparison
sim_times_to_check = [0, 1, 5, 10]
sim_indices = [sim_data['Time'].sub(t).abs().idxmin() for t in sim_times_to_check]
print(sim_data.loc[sim_indices])

```
# 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

The previous attempt to plot the data failed because `matplotlib` is not an allowed library. I need to remove the plotting code and rely on printing numerical comparisons.

The core logic of adding reactions R1 (`id_v92z -> id_0e6o`) and R2 (`id_0e6o -> id_hura`) with mass action kinetics should be correct. I will re-run the code without the plotting part and print out some key time points from both experimental and simulated data to assess the fit of the model with the chosen parameters (`k1=0.7`, `k2=0.15`).

The plan is:
1.  Load the `input_sbml_string`.
2.  Add reaction R1: `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` with kinetic law `k1 * id_v92z`.
3.  Add reaction R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` with kinetic law `k2 * id_0e6o`.
4.  Define parameters `k1` and `k2` with values 0.7 and 0.15 respectively.
5.  Simulate the new SBML model.
6.  Store the current SBML model string and parameter values in `shared_variables`.
7.  Print selected time points from both experimental and simulated data for comparison.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Add parameters k1 and k2
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(0.7) # Initial guess
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a") # Assuming per second for first order

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(0.15) # Initial guess
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a") # Assuming per second for first order

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_v92z")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant1.setConstant(False)

product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
product1.setStoichiometry(1)
product1.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
# Ensure compartment volumes are accounted for if species are in different compartments
# However, for mass action with concentrations, this is usually handled by the simulator
# if the species are defined with hasOnlySubstanceUnits=False (which is default).
# The rate should be k1 * [id_v92z] * V_v92z / V_0e6o if compartments differ and rates are in amount/time
# But since kinetic laws are usually in concentration/time, k1 * [id_v92z] is fine.
# The problem statement says "all species are observable", implying concentrations.
# Compartments: id_v92z in id_wmdb (size 1), id_0e6o in id_xpsc (size 1). Sizes are equal.
math_ast_node1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast_node1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("R2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant2.setConstant(False)

product2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2.setSpecies("id_hura")
product2.setStoichiometry(1)
product2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
# id_0e6o in id_xpsc, id_hura in id_xpsc. Compartments are the same.
math_ast_node2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast_node2)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string for potential submission or further modification
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val", 0.7)
shared_variables.add("k2_val", 0.15)

# Print some comparison points
print("Experimental data (iteration_0):")
print("Time points: 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0")
print(exp_data[exp_data['Time'].isin([0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0])])

print("\nSimulated data with k1=0.7, k2=0.15:")
print("Time points: 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0")
# Find closest time points in sim_data for comparison
sim_times_to_check = [0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

# Ensure sim_data['Time'] is sorted for searchsorted
sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time')
sim_indices = np.searchsorted(sim_data_sorted['Time'], sim_times_to_check)
# Adjust indices to be within bounds and find the closest
sim_indices = np.clip(sim_indices, 0, len(sim_data_sorted)-1)

# For each target time, check the found index and its neighbors to find the truly closest one
closest_indices = []
for i, t_target in enumerate(sim_times_to_check):
    idx_candidate = sim_indices[i]
    
    # Check idx_candidate and its neighbors (idx_candidate-1, idx_candidate+1)
    # to find the one with minimum absolute difference to t_target
    # This is more robust than just taking the searchsorted result directly
    # if the exact time point is not present.
    
    # Create a small window of indices around the candidate
    # The window size can be small, e.g., 1 on each side
    window_indices = []
    if idx_candidate > 0:
        window_indices.append(idx_candidate - 1)
    window_indices.append(idx_candidate)
    if idx_candidate < len(sim_data_sorted) - 1:
        window_indices.append(idx_candidate + 1)
        
    actual_times_in_window = sim_data_sorted['Time'].iloc[window_indices]
    closest_in_window_idx = (actual_times_in_window - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_in_window_idx)

# Remove duplicate indices if any, then sort them to maintain order
# This can happen if multiple target times map to the same closest simulated time point
# However, for distinct target times, this is less likely to be an issue if sim_data has good resolution.
# For simplicity, we'll use the direct indices from idxmin which are original dataframe indices.
print(sim_data.loc[closest_indices])

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data (iteration_0):
Time points: 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0
       id_hura   id_0e6o   id_v92z  Time
0     0.100000  0.100000  1.500000   0.0
100   0.116118  0.301640  1.199655   1.0
200   0.131298  0.299252  1.101524   2.0
500   0.166326  0.266606  0.856852   5.0
1000  0.187314  0.197957  0.596448  10.0

Simulated data with k1=0.7, k2=0.15:
Time points: 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0
       id_hura   id_0e6o   id_v92z  Time
0     0.100000  0.100000  1.500000   0.0
100   0.173908  0.781215  0.744877   1.0
200   0.312509  1.017596  0.369895   2.0
500   0.763326  0.891377  0.045297   5.0
1000  1.252084  0.446548  0.001368  10.0

## 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_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val)

### 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 previous simulation with `k1=0.7` and `k2=0.15` showed that `id_v92z` decayed too quickly, and `id_0e6o` and `id_hura` levels were too high. This indicates `k1` was too large.

I've re-estimated the parameters based on the experimental data:
1.  For `k1` (reaction `id_v92z -> id_0e6o`):
    Using the formula `k1 = -ln([S](t) / [S](0)) / t`:
    At T=5.0, `[v92z](5) = 0.856`, `[v92z](0) = 1.5`. So, `k1 = -ln(0.856 / 1.5) / 5 ≈ 0.112`.
    At T=10.0, `[v92z](10) = 0.596`. So, `k1 = -ln(0.596 / 1.5) / 10 ≈ 0.092`.
    Let's try an intermediate value, `k1 = 0.10`.

2.  For `k2` (reaction `id_0e6o -> id_hura`):
    Using `d[hura]/dt = k2*[0e6o]`.
    Between T=1.0 and T=2.0:
    Average `d[hura]/dt ≈ (0.131298 - 0.116118) / 1.0 = 0.01518`.
    Average `[0e6o] ≈ (0.301640 + 0.299252) / 2 = 0.300446`.
    So, `k2 ≈ 0.01518 / 0.300446 ≈ 0.0505`. Let's use `k2 = 0.05`.

The new proposed parameters are `k1 = 0.10` and `k2 = 0.05`.

I will build the SBML model again with these new parameter values and compare the simulation with the experimental data.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string (which is the base model)
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
new_k1_val = 0.10
new_k2_val = 0.05

# Add parameters k1 and k2
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(new_k1_val)
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a") # Assuming per second for first order

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(new_k2_val)
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a") # Assuming per second for first order

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_v92z")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant1.setConstant(False)

product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
product1.setStoichiometry(1)
product1.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast_node1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("R2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant2.setConstant(False)

product2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2.setSpecies("id_hura")
product2.setStoichiometry(1)
product2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast_node2)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val_v2", new_k1_val)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_v2", new_k2_val)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1={new_k1_val}, k2={new_k2_val}:")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]
sim_times_to_check = [0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0] # Use same times for direct comparison

print("\nExperimental Data:")
print(exp_data[exp_data['Time'].isin(exp_times_to_check)][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

# Find closest time points in sim_data for comparison
# Ensure sim_data['Time'] is sorted for searchsorted
sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in sim_times_to_check:
    # Find index of row where sim_data_sorted['Time'] is closest to t_target
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)

# Remove duplicate indices if any target times map to the same simulated time point, then sort.
# Using unique indices and then iloc to ensure we get the exact rows.
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1=0.1, k2=0.05:

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
100    1.0  1.357256  0.234299  0.108445
200    2.0  1.228096  0.348803  0.123100
500    5.0  0.909796  0.594690  0.195514
1000  10.0  0.551818  0.776609  0.371573

## 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_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2)

### 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 `k1=0.10` and `k2=0.05` shows:
-   `id_v92z`: Simulated values are now closer to experimental, especially at T=10.0 (0.551 vs 0.596). At earlier time points (T=1, T=2, T=5), simulated `id_v92z` is higher than experimental, suggesting `k1` might still be a bit too low, or the initial decay is faster.
-   `id_0e6o`: Simulated values are lower than experimental at T=1.0 and T=2.0, but then become much higher at T=5.0 (0.594 vs 0.266) and T=10.0 (0.776 vs 0.197). This suggests that `k1` might be too low (less production of `id_0e6o` initially) and/or `k2` is too low (less consumption of `id_0e6o` later on). The experimental data shows `id_0e6o` peaking and then declining, while the simulation shows it continuously increasing. This is a key discrepancy.
-   `id_hura`: Simulated values are lower than experimental initially (T=1, T=2), then higher at T=5, and much higher at T=10. This is consistent with `id_0e6o` behavior, as `id_hura` is produced from `id_0e6o`.

The major issue is the behavior of `id_0e6o`. In the experiment, it peaks around T=1.0-2.0 and then decreases. In the simulation, it's still rising at T=10.0. This implies that the consumption rate of `id_0e6o` (governed by `k2`) needs to be significantly higher relative to its production rate (governed by `k1`).

Let's re-evaluate `k1` and `k2`.
From the previous iteration, `k1=0.10` seemed to make `id_v92z` decay reasonably well, though perhaps a little slow at the start.
The peak of `id_0e6o` in the experiment is around 0.3.
If `id_0e6o` peaks and then declines, it means `k2 * [id_0e6o]` becomes larger than `k1 * [id_v92z]` after the peak.

Let's try to adjust `k1` slightly upwards and `k2` significantly upwards.
Consider `k1`:
Experimental `id_v92z` at T=1.0 is 1.199. `1.5 * exp(-k1 * 1.0) = 1.199` => `-k1 = ln(1.199/1.5)` => `k1 = -ln(0.799) ≈ 0.224`.
Experimental `id_v92z` at T=2.0 is 1.101. `1.5 * exp(-k1 * 2.0) = 1.101` => `-2k1 = ln(1.101/1.5)` => `k1 = -ln(0.734)/2 ≈ 0.154`.
The initial decay seems faster. Let's try `k1 = 0.2`.

Consider `k2`:
If `id_0e6o` peaks around 0.3, and `id_v92z` is around 1.2 at that time (T=1).
At the peak, `d[id_0e6o]/dt = k1*[id_v92z] - k2*[id_0e6o] ≈ 0`.
So, `k2 ≈ k1 * [id_v92z] / [id_0e6o]`.
If `k1 = 0.2`, `[id_v92z] ≈ 1.2`, `[id_0e6o] ≈ 0.3`.
Then `k2 ≈ 0.2 * 1.2 / 0.3 = 0.2 * 4 = 0.8`.
This is a much larger `k2` than before.

Let's try `k1 = 0.2` and `k2 = 0.8`.

This is a significant change, especially for `k2`. The goal is to get `id_0e6o` to peak and decline.

Plan:
1.  Load the `input_sbml_string`.
2.  Add reactions R1 and R2 as before.
3.  Set parameters `k1 = 0.2` and `k2 = 0.8`.
4.  Simulate the model.
5.  Compare with experimental data.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string (which is the base model)
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
new_k1_val = 0.20  # Increased k1
new_k2_val = 0.80  # Significantly increased k2

# Add parameters k1 and k2
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(new_k1_val)
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a")

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(new_k2_val)
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_v92z")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant1.setConstant(False)

product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
product1.setStoichiometry(1)
product1.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast_node1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("R2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant2.setConstant(False)

product2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2.setSpecies("id_hura")
product2.setStoichiometry(1)
product2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast_node2)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val_v3", new_k1_val)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_v3", new_k2_val)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1={new_k1_val}, k2={new_k2_val}:")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0] # Added more early time points
sim_times_to_check = exp_times_to_check 

print("\nExperimental Data:")
# Filter experimental data for the specified time points
# Need to be careful with floating point comparisons.
# It's better to select rows by index if we know them, or use a tolerance.
# For now, using isin which might miss points if not exact.
# Let's select by index for known points from the problem description.
exp_indices = [0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 200, 500, 1000] # Corresponding to 0, 0.2, 0.4 ... 10.0
print(exp_data.iloc[exp_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])


# Find closest time points in sim_data for comparison
sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in sim_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1=0.2, k2=0.8:

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.441184  0.139537  0.119278
40     0.4  1.384675  0.171098  0.144227
60     0.6  1.330381  0.195947  0.173673
80     0.8  1.278216  0.215155  0.206629
100    1.0  1.228096  0.229634  0.242270
200    2.0  1.005480  0.254402  0.440118
500    5.0  0.551819  0.176613  0.971568
1000  10.0  0.203003  0.067533  1.429464

## 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_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3)

### 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 `k1=0.2` and `k2=0.8` shows:
-   `id_v92z`: Simulated values are now decaying faster than experimental values (e.g., at T=1.0, sim=1.228 vs exp=1.199; at T=2.0, sim=1.005 vs exp=1.101; at T=5.0, sim=0.551 vs exp=0.856). This suggests `k1=0.2` is too high. The previous `k1=0.1` was too low. So, the optimal `k1` is likely between 0.1 and 0.2.
    - Exp T=1.0: `id_v92z` = 1.199. `1.5 * exp(-k1*1) = 1.199` => `k1 = -ln(1.199/1.5) = 0.224`
    - Exp T=2.0: `id_v92z` = 1.101. `1.5 * exp(-k1*2) = 1.101` => `k1 = -ln(1.101/1.5)/2 = 0.154`
    - Exp T=5.0: `id_v92z` = 0.856. `1.5 * exp(-k1*5) = 0.856` => `k1 = -ln(0.856/1.5)/5 = 0.112`
    - Exp T=10.0: `id_v92z` = 0.596. `1.5 * exp(-k1*10) = 0.596` => `k1 = -ln(0.596/1.5)/10 = 0.092`
    The apparent `k1` decreases over time. This could indicate a more complex mechanism for `id_v92z` consumption, or that the model structure is still not quite right. For now, let's try to find a single `k1` that gives a reasonable overall fit for `id_v92z`. Perhaps something around `k1 = 0.12` or `k1 = 0.15`. Let's try `k1 = 0.15`.

-   `id_0e6o`: Simulated values are now peaking and declining, which is good! However, the peak is lower (around 0.25 at T=2.0) than the experimental peak (around 0.3 at T=0.6-1.0). The simulated peak also occurs later.
    - Exp: `id_0e6o` at T=0.2 is 0.297, T=0.4 is 0.299, T=0.6 is 0.300, T=0.8 is 0.301, T=1.0 is 0.301. Peak is ~0.3.
    - Sim: `id_0e6o` at T=0.2 is 0.139, T=1.0 is 0.229, T=2.0 is 0.254 (peak).
    The simulated `id_0e6o` rises too slowly and doesn't reach the experimental peak height. This suggests `k1` might be too low (less production) or `k2` is too high (too much consumption too early). Given `k1` was likely too high for `id_v92z` decay, if we lower `k1`, `id_0e6o` production will be even slower. This points to `k2` being too high.

-   `id_hura`: Simulated values are much higher than experimental values throughout (e.g., T=2.0, sim=0.440 vs exp=0.131; T=10.0, sim=1.429 vs exp=0.187). This is a direct consequence of `id_0e6o` being processed too quickly by a high `k2`, or `id_0e6o` levels being different. If `k2` is too high, `id_hura` will be overproduced.

Let's try:
-   Lower `k1` to `0.15` (based on `id_v92z` decay at T=2.0).
-   If `k1` is `0.15`, and we want `id_0e6o` to peak around 0.3 when `id_v92z` is around 1.2 (at T=1.0, `id_v92z` would be `1.5 * exp(-0.15*1) = 1.5 * 0.86 = 1.29`).
    At peak: `k1 * [id_v92z] ≈ k2 * [id_0e6o]`.
    `0.15 * 1.29 ≈ k2 * 0.3`
    `0.1935 ≈ k2 * 0.3`
    `k2 ≈ 0.1935 / 0.3 ≈ 0.645`.
    Let's try `k2 = 0.65`. This is lower than the previous `0.8`.

New proposed parameters: `k1 = 0.15`, `k2 = 0.65`.

The observation that the apparent `k1` (calculated from `id_v92z` decay) changes over time is concerning. It might suggest that the reaction `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` is not simple first-order, or there's another process affecting `id_v92z`. However, we must first try to fit the simpler model.

Plan:
1.  Load `input_sbml_string`.
2.  Add reactions R1 and R2.
3.  Set parameters `k1 = 0.15` and `k2 = 0.65`.
4.  Simulate and compare.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
new_k1_val = 0.15
new_k2_val = 0.65

# Add parameters k1 and k2
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(new_k1_val)
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a")

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(new_k2_val)
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)

reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_v92z")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant1.setConstant(False)

product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
product1.setStoichiometry(1)
product1.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z")
kinetic_law1.setMath(math_ast_node1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("R2")
reaction2.setReversible(False)
reaction2.setFast(False)

reactant2 = reaction2.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant2.setConstant(False)

product2 = reaction2.createProduct()
product2.setSpecies("id_hura")
product2.setStoichiometry(1)
product2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
math_ast_node2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o")
kinetic_law2.setMath(math_ast_node2)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val_v4", new_k1_val)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_v4", new_k2_val)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1={new_k1_val}, k2={new_k2_val}:")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]
sim_times_to_check = exp_times_to_check 

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_indices = [i for i, t in enumerate(exp_data['Time']) if t in exp_times_to_check or any(np.isclose(t, exp_t) for exp_t in exp_times_to_check)]
# A more robust way to get indices for specific times from exp_data
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    # Find the index in exp_data['Time'] that is closest to t_target
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
# Remove duplicates and sort
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])


sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in sim_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1=0.15, k2=0.65:

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.455668  0.129368  0.114964
40     0.4  1.412647  0.153926  0.133427
60     0.6  1.370897  0.174299  0.154804
80     0.8  1.330381  0.191032  0.178587
100    1.0  1.291062  0.204603  0.204335
200    2.0  1.111227  0.237983  0.350790
500    5.0  0.708550  0.198993  0.792457
1000  10.0  0.334695  0.099882  1.265423

## 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_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4)

### 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

The simulation with `k1=0.15` and `k2=0.65` shows:
-   `id_v92z`:
    -   Exp T=0.2: 1.28, Sim T=0.2: 1.45 (Sim too high, `k1` too low)
    -   Exp T=1.0: 1.19, Sim T=1.0: 1.29 (Sim too high, `k1` too low)
    -   Exp T=2.0: 1.10, Sim T=2.0: 1.11 (Good match!)
    -   Exp T=5.0: 0.85, Sim T=5.0: 0.70 (Sim too low, `k1` too high for later times)
    -   Exp T=10.0: 0.59, Sim T=10.0: 0.33 (Sim too low, `k1` too high for later times)
    This confirms the earlier observation: a single first-order rate constant `k1` doesn't capture the decay of `id_v92z` accurately across the whole time course. The decay is faster initially than what `k1=0.15` predicts, and slower later on. The value `k1=0.15` seems to be a compromise that fits well around T=2.0 but is off elsewhere.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.238 around T=2.0.
    The simulated peak is too low and too late.
    -   Exp T=0.2: 0.297, Sim T=0.2: 0.129 (Sim much too low)
    -   Exp T=1.0: 0.301, Sim T=1.0: 0.204 (Sim too low)
    -   Exp T=2.0: 0.299, Sim T=2.0: 0.237 (Sim too low)
    -   Exp T=5.0: 0.266, Sim T=5.0: 0.198 (Sim too low)
    -   Exp T=10.0: 0.197, Sim T=10.0: 0.099 (Sim too low)
    `id_0e6o` levels are consistently underestimated. This could be due to `k1` being too low (not enough production) or `k2` being too high (too much consumption). Given the `id_v92z` behavior, `k1` is actually too low for early times. If `k1` were higher initially, `id_0e6o` would rise faster.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   Exp T=1.0: 0.116, Sim T=1.0: 0.204 (Sim too high)
    -   Exp T=2.0: 0.131, Sim T=2.0: 0.350 (Sim much too high)
    -   Exp T=10.0: 0.187, Sim T=10.0: 1.265 (Sim vastly too high)
    `id_hura` is significantly overproduced. This strongly suggests `k2` is too high, or the `id_0e6o` concentration feeding into this reaction is effectively higher than it should be over time (which is not the case here, as sim `id_0e6o` is low). So, `k2` is likely the main culprit for `id_hura` overproduction.

The problem with `id_v92z` decay (fast initial, slow later) might indicate a reversible reaction or product inhibition for R1, or perhaps `id_v92z` is consumed by another reaction as well. However, the task is to find *missing reactions*, not necessarily change kinetics of existing ones to complex forms unless simpler additions don't work.

Let's reconsider the parameters.
If `id_hura` is too high, `k2` must be lower.
If `id_0e6o` is too low, either `k1` is too low or `k2` is too high. If we lower `k2`, `id_0e6o` should increase.

Let's try to match the early rise of `id_0e6o` and its peak.
Experimental `id_0e6o` goes from 0.1 to ~0.3 in about 0.2-0.4 time units.
`d[0e6o]/dt = k1[v92z] - k2[0e6o]`
Initial `d[0e6o]/dt ≈ (0.297-0.1)/0.2 = 0.197/0.2 = 0.985`.
At t=0, `k1*1.5 - k2*0.1 ≈ 0.985`.

Let's look at `id_hura` production.
Initial `d[hura]/dt ≈ (0.103135-0.1)/0.2 = 0.003135/0.2 = 0.015675`.
At t=0, `k2*[0e6o] = k2*0.1 ≈ 0.015675` => `k2 ≈ 0.15675`.
This is much lower than `0.65`. Let's try `k2 = 0.16`.

If `k2 = 0.16`:
`k1*1.5 - 0.16*0.1 ≈ 0.985`
`k1*1.5 - 0.016 ≈ 0.985`
`k1*1.5 ≈ 1.001`
`k1 ≈ 1.001 / 1.5 ≈ 0.667`.
This `k1` is very high and would cause `id_v92z` to deplete extremely rapidly.
For example, at T=1, `[v92z] = 1.5 * exp(-0.667*1) ≈ 1.5 * 0.513 ≈ 0.77`. Exp is 1.19. This `k1` is too high.

This suggests the initial estimates for rates might be tricky or the model is still missing something fundamental.
The discrepancy in `k1` (fast initial decay, slow later decay for `id_v92z`) is a strong hint.
What if `id_v92z` is also converted to something else, or the reaction `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` is not the only source of `id_0e6o`? The problem states "all species are observable" and "You do not need to add new species."

Let's re-evaluate `k1` based on the initial drop of `id_v92z`.
From T=0 to T=0.2: `id_v92z` drops from 1.5 to 1.28.
`1.5 * exp(-k1 * 0.2) = 1.28`
`exp(-k1 * 0.2) = 1.28 / 1.5 = 0.8533`
`-k1 * 0.2 = ln(0.8533) = -0.1586`
`k1 = 0.1586 / 0.2 = 0.793`. This is a very high `k1`.

If `k1 = 0.793`:
At T=1.0, `[v92z] = 1.5 * exp(-0.793) = 1.5 * 0.452 = 0.678`. (Exp: 1.199) -> Too fast.
This simple first-order decay for `id_v92z` is problematic.

Could there be a reversible reaction? `id_v92z <=> id_0e6o`?
If R1 is `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` (kf) and `id_0e6o -> id_v92z` (kr).
Net rate `kf*[v92z] - kr*[0e6o]`.
This would slow down `id_v92z` decay as `id_0e6o` accumulates.
And R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` (k2).

Let's try to stick with the current model structure (two irreversible reactions) and find the "best-fit" `k1` and `k2` by looking at the overall trends.
The `id_hura` data seems most sensitive to `k2`.
Exp `id_hura` at T=10 is 0.187. Sim was 1.265 (with k1=0.15, k2=0.65). This is ~6.7 times too high.
This suggests `k2` should be roughly 6-7 times smaller. `0.65 / 6.5 = 0.1`.
Let's try `k2 = 0.1`.

Now for `k1`.
If `k2 = 0.1`.
We want `id_0e6o` to peak around 0.3.
At peak, `k1*[v92z] ≈ k2*[0e6o]`.
`k1*[v92z] ≈ 0.1 * 0.3 = 0.03`.
If peak is at T=1, `[v92z]` is ~1.2.
`k1 * 1.2 ≈ 0.03` => `k1 ≈ 0.03 / 1.2 = 0.025`. This `k1` is very low. `id_v92z` would barely decay.
This indicates that `id_0e6o` peak cannot be explained with such a low `k2` if `k1` is also to be realistic for `id_v92z` decay.

Let's look at the ratio of `id_0e6o` to `id_hura`.
At T=5: `id_0e6o`=0.266, `id_hura`=0.166.
At T=10: `id_0e6o`=0.197, `id_hura`=0.187.
The rate of `id_hura` formation is `k2*[id_0e6o]`.
The rate of `id_0e6o` consumption by R2 is `k2*[id_0e6o]`.
The net change of `id_hura` is positive.
The net change of `id_0e6o` is `k1*[v92z] - k2*[0e6o]`.

Let's try to fit `k1` to `id_v92z` data around mid-range, say T=2.0 to T=5.0.
`id_v92z`(2.0) = 1.101, `id_v92z`(5.0) = 0.856.
`1.101 * exp(-k1 * 3) = 0.856`
`exp(-k1 * 3) = 0.856 / 1.101 = 0.777`
`-k1 * 3 = ln(0.777) = -0.252`
`k1 = 0.252 / 3 = 0.084`. Let's try `k1 = 0.085`.

Now for `k2`.
If `k1 = 0.085`.
At T=2.0: `[v92z]`_sim = `1.5 * exp(-0.085 * 2) = 1.5 * exp(-0.17) = 1.5 * 0.843 = 1.265`. (Exp is 1.101). `k1` is too low.
My `k1` calculation from interval was wrong. It should be `[S]0 * exp(-k1*t)`.
Let's use `k1 = 0.12` (average of 0.092 and 0.154 from earlier).
If `k1 = 0.12`:
`[v92z]`(T=1) = `1.5 * exp(-0.12) = 1.328` (Exp 1.199) - Sim too high.
`[v92z]`(T=2) = `1.5 * exp(-0.24) = 1.18` (Exp 1.101) - Sim too high.
`[v92z]`(T=5) = `1.5 * exp(-0.6) = 0.823` (Exp 0.856) - Good match.
`[v92z]`(T=10) = `1.5 * exp(-1.2) = 0.452` (Exp 0.596) - Sim too low.
This `k1=0.12` seems a reasonable compromise for `id_v92z` for mid to late times.

Now, with `k1 = 0.12`.
We need `id_0e6o` to peak at ~0.3.
At T=1, `[v92z]`_exp = 1.199. `[0e6o]`_exp = 0.301.
If peak is around T=1, `k1*[v92z] ≈ k2*[0e6o]`.
`0.12 * 1.199 ≈ k2 * 0.301`
`0.14388 ≈ k2 * 0.301`
`k2 ≈ 0.14388 / 0.301 ≈ 0.478`. Let's try `k2 = 0.48`.

New parameters: `k1 = 0.12`, `k2 = 0.48`.

Let's check `id_hura` production with these.
At T=1, `[0e6o]`_exp = 0.301. `d[hura]/dt = k2*[0e6o] = 0.48 * 0.301 = 0.144`.
Exp `d[hura]/dt` from T=0.8 to T=1.0: `(0.116118 - 0.112927) / 0.2 = 0.003191 / 0.2 = 0.0159`.
This is a large discrepancy. The calculated `k2=0.48` would make `id_hura` increase very fast.
The rate of `id_hura` increase is very slow in the experiment.
`d[hura]/dt` at T=1 is ~0.016. If `[0e6o]` is ~0.3, then `k2 * 0.3 = 0.016` => `k2 = 0.016/0.3 = 0.053`.
This `k2=0.053` is similar to my `k2=0.05` from Iteration 3, which resulted in `id_0e6o` not declining.

This is the core problem:
- To make `id_0e6o` peak and decline, `k2` needs to be substantial.
- To match the slow production of `id_hura`, `k2` needs to be very small.

This contradiction strongly suggests that the model `id_v92z -> id_0e6o -> id_hura` is incomplete or incorrect.
Specifically, `id_0e6o` might be consumed by another reaction that does *not* produce `id_hura`.
Or, `id_hura` is produced from `id_0e6o` very slowly, AND `id_0e6o` is also degraded/converted to something else (not `id_hura`) more rapidly. Since we cannot add new species, this "something else" must be one of the existing species or it's a degradation.

Let's assume the pathway `id_v92z -> id_0e6o -> id_hura` (R1, R2) is correct, but there's an additional reaction consuming `id_0e6o`.
R3: `id_0e6o -> ?` (where ? is not `id_hura`). Since we can't add species, this could be:
  a) `id_0e6o -> id_v92z` (reversible R1, already considered, might make `id_v92z` decay weirdly)
  b) `id_0e6o -> Ø` (degradation of `id_0e6o`)

If R3 is `id_0e6o -> Ø` with rate `k3 * [id_0e6o]`.
Then `d[0e6o]/dt = k1*[v92z] - k2*[hura] - k3*[0e6o]`. (Mistake, `k2*[0e6o]`)
Corrected: `d[0e6o]/dt = k1*[v92z] - k2*[0e6o] - k3*[0e6o] = k1*[v92z] - (k2+k3)*[0e6o]`.
And `d[hura]/dt = k2*[0e6o]`.

With this, we can have a small `k2` (for slow `id_hura` production) and a larger `k3` (to make `id_0e6o` peak and decline appropriately).
Let `k2_eff = k2 + k3`.
From `id_hura` data: `k2 ≈ 0.05`.
From `id_0e6o` peak dynamics, we need `k2_eff` to be around `0.48` (using `k1=0.12`).
So, `k3 = k2_eff - k2 = 0.48 - 0.05 = 0.43`.

Let's try this model:
R1: `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` (rate `k1 * [id_v92z]`)
R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` (rate `k2 * [id_0e6o]`)
R3: `id_0e6o -> Ø` (degradation, rate `k3 * [id_0e6o]`)

Parameters:
`k1 = 0.12` (compromise for `id_v92z`)
`k2 = 0.05` (for slow `id_hura` production)
`k3 = 0.43` (for `id_0e6o` dynamics)

This seems like a plausible hypothesis to resolve the contradiction.

Plan:
1.  Load `input_sbml_string`.
2.  Add R1: `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` (k1).
3.  Add R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` (k2).
4.  Add R3: `id_0e6o -> ` (k3) (degradation, no product).
5.  Set parameters `k1=0.12`, `k2=0.05`, `k3=0.43`.
6.  Simulate and compare.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_k1 = 0.12
val_k2 = 0.05
val_k3 = 0.43

# Add parameters k1, k2, k3
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(val_k1)
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a")

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(val_k2)
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")

param_k3 = model.createParameter()
param_k3.setId("k3")
param_k3.setValue(val_k3)
param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1")
r1.setReversible(False)
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant()
reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z")
reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct()
product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
product_r1.setStoichiometry(1)
product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z")
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False)
r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant()
reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct()
product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura")
product_r2.setStoichiometry(1)
product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw()
math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o")
kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False)
r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant()
reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o")
reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1)
reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
# No product for degradation
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw()
math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o")
kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val_R3", val_k1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R3", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R3", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1={val_k1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}:")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]
sim_times_to_check = exp_times_to_check 

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in sim_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1=0.12, k2=0.05, k3=0.43:

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.464429  0.124758  0.101126
40     0.4  1.429701  0.146444  0.102485
60     0.6  1.395796  0.165361  0.104046
80     0.8  1.362696  0.181779  0.105784
100    1.0  1.330381  0.195946  0.107674
200    2.0  1.179942  0.240157  0.118740
500    5.0  0.823217  0.238119  0.156111
1000  10.0  0.451791  0.147305  0.204261

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3)

### 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

The model with R1 (`v92z -> 0e6o`), R2 (`0e6o -> hura`), and R3 (`0e6o -> degradation`) with parameters `k1=0.12`, `k2=0.05`, `k3=0.43` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   Simulated values are generally higher than experimental at early times (e.g., T=1.0: Sim=1.33, Exp=1.19). This means `k1=0.12` is too low for the initial phase.
    -   At T=5.0: Sim=0.823, Exp=0.856 (Good match).
    -   At T=10.0: Sim=0.451, Exp=0.596 (Sim too low, meaning `k1` is too high for later phase).
    The `k1` issue persists: it seems a single first-order `k1` cannot capture `id_v92z` decay properly. The initial decay is faster than `k1=0.12` allows, and later decay is slower.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.24 around T=2.0-5.0 (Sim: T=2.0 is 0.240, T=5.0 is 0.238).
    The simulated peak is still too low and too late.
    -   Exp T=1.0: 0.301, Sim T=1.0: 0.195 (Sim too low).
    This suggests that the effective consumption rate of `id_0e6o` (`k2+k3 = 0.05+0.43 = 0.48`) might be okay, but the production (`k1*[v92z]`) is too slow initially. If `k1` were higher initially, `id_0e6o` would rise faster and potentially higher.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   Exp T=1.0: 0.116, Sim T=1.0: 0.107 (Closer, but a bit low).
    -   Exp T=2.0: 0.131, Sim T=2.0: 0.118 (Closer, but a bit low).
    -   Exp T=5.0: 0.166, Sim T=5.0: 0.156 (Good match!).
    -   Exp T=10.0: 0.187, Sim T=10.0: 0.204 (Good match!).
    The `id_hura` profile is now much better! This suggests `k2=0.05` is a good value for the rate of `id_hura` production from `id_0e6o`. The addition of R3 (degradation of `id_0e6o`) was key to allowing a small `k2` while still having `id_0e6o` consumed.

The main remaining issues are:
1.  The non-first-order behavior of `id_v92z` decay.
2.  `id_0e6o` levels are too low, especially early on, and its peak is too low/late. This is linked to `k1`.

If the initial decay of `id_v92z` is truly faster, we need a higher `k1` for that phase.
Let's try to increase `k1` to improve the early `id_0e6o` levels and the initial `id_v92z` drop, accepting that `id_v92z` might then be too low at later times.
What `k1` would match `id_v92z` at T=1.0 (Exp=1.199)?
`1.5 * exp(-k1 * 1.0) = 1.199` => `k1 = -ln(1.199/1.5) = -ln(0.7993) ≈ 0.224`.
Let's try `k1 = 0.22`.
This is significantly higher than `0.12`.

If `k1 = 0.22`, then `id_0e6o` production will be faster.
The effective consumption rate for `id_0e6o` is `k_eff = k2 + k3 = 0.05 + 0.43 = 0.48`.
Let's see how `id_0e6o` behaves with `k1=0.22` and `k_eff=0.48`.
At the peak of `id_0e6o` (target ~0.3), `d[0e6o]/dt ≈ 0` => `k1*[v92z] ≈ k_eff*[0e6o]`.
`0.22 * [v92z] ≈ 0.48 * 0.3 = 0.144`.
`[v92z] ≈ 0.144 / 0.22 ≈ 0.65`.
With `k1=0.22`, `[v92z]` reaches 0.65 at `1.5 * exp(-0.22*t) = 0.65` => `exp(-0.22*t) = 0.433` => `-0.22*t = ln(0.433) = -0.836` => `t = 0.836 / 0.22 ≈ 3.8`.
So, with `k1=0.22`, `id_0e6o` might peak around T=3.8 with a value of 0.3. This peak time is later than the experimental T=0.6-1.0.

The experimental `id_0e6o` peaks very early (T < 1.0) at a high level (~0.3) while `id_v92z` is still high (e.g., >1.2).
At T=0.6, `[v92z]`_exp = 1.24, `[0e6o]`_exp = 0.3.
If peak is here: `k1 * 1.24 ≈ (k2+k3) * 0.3`.
If `k2=0.05`, then `k1 * 1.24 ≈ (0.05+k3) * 0.3`.

Let's try to adjust `k1` and `k3` together, keeping `k2=0.05`.
Target:
- `id_v92z` decay: Initial phase needs higher `k1`.
- `id_0e6o` peak: Around T=0.6-1.0, value ~0.3.
- `id_hura` production: `k2=0.05` seems good.

Let's use `k1 = 0.25` to get a faster initial drop for `id_v92z`.
`[v92z]`(T=0.6 with k1=0.25) = `1.5 * exp(-0.25*0.6) = 1.5 * exp(-0.15) = 1.5 * 0.86 = 1.29`. (Exp at 0.6 is 1.24). This is a reasonable `k1` for the early phase.
Now, if `id_0e6o` peaks at 0.3 when `[v92z]` is ~1.29 (using sim value for consistency):
`k1 * [v92z] ≈ (k2+k3) * [0e6o]`
`0.25 * 1.29 ≈ (0.05+k3) * 0.3`
`0.3225 ≈ (0.05+k3) * 0.3`
`0.3225 / 0.3 ≈ 0.05+k3`
`1.075 ≈ 0.05+k3`
`k3 ≈ 1.025`.
This `k3` is much higher than before (0.43). This means `id_0e6o` would be consumed very rapidly.

Let's try parameters:
`k1 = 0.25`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 1.0` (rounding `k3`)

This set of parameters prioritizes matching the early phase of `id_v92z` decay and the peak of `id_0e6o`. The fit for `id_v92z` at later times will likely be worse (decay too fast).

If this doesn't work, the simple first-order kinetics for R1 (`v92z -> 0e6o`) might be the main limitation.
Possible complex kinetics for R1:
- Reversible: `v92z <=> 0e6o`. This would slow down `v92z` decay as `0e6o` builds up.
- Product inhibition: `k1 * [v92z] / (1 + [0e6o]/Ki)`. Similar effect.

However, the problem asks to discover *missing reactions*. Adding a degradation reaction (R3) was a good step.
Before making R1 more complex, let's see the effect of these new `k1, k3` values.

Plan:
1.  Use the SBML model with R1, R2, R3 (degradation of `id_0e6o`).
2.  Set parameters `k1=0.25`, `k2=0.05`, `k3=1.0`.
3.  Simulate and compare.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_k1 = 0.25  # Increased k1 for faster initial v92z decay and 0e6o rise
val_k2 = 0.05  # Kept k2 for hura dynamics
val_k3 = 1.0   # Increased k3 for faster 0e6o turnover to match early peak

# Add parameters k1, k2, k3
param_k1 = model.createParameter()
param_k1.setId("k1")
param_k1.setValue(val_k1)
param_k1.setUnits("id_va0a")

param_k2 = model.createParameter()
param_k2.setId("k2")
param_k2.setValue(val_k2)
param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")

param_k3 = model.createParameter()
param_k3.setId("k3")
param_k3.setValue(val_k3)
param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z -> id_0e6o
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1")
r1.setReversible(False); r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw(); math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1 * id_v92z"); kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("k1_val_R3v2", val_k1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R3v2", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R3v2", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1={val_k1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}:")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]
sim_times_to_check = exp_times_to_check 

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in sim_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data (iteration_0) vs. Simulated data with k1=0.25, k2=0.05, k3=1.0:

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.426844  0.146986  0.101246
40     0.4  1.357256  0.181857  0.102899
60     0.6  1.291062  0.207065  0.104851
80     0.8  1.228096  0.224589  0.107015
100    1.0  1.168201  0.236026  0.109323
200    2.0  0.909796  0.239158  0.121478
500    5.0  0.429757  0.132364  0.149423
1000  10.0  0.123128  0.038467  0.168495

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2)

### 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

The simulation with `k1=0.25`, `k2=0.05`, `k3=1.0` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.42, Exp=1.28 (Sim too high, `k1` still too low for very start)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=1.16, Exp=1.19 (Good match!)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.90, Exp=1.10 (Sim too low, `k1` too high for this phase)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.42, Exp=0.85 (Sim much too low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.12, Exp=0.59 (Sim much too low)
    `k1=0.25` provides a good fit around T=1.0 but makes the decay too fast afterwards. The initial decay (0 to 0.2) is still not captured (simulated `id_v92z` is higher than experimental). This strongly reinforces that a simple first-order `k1*[v92z]` is insufficient for R1.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.239 around T=2.0. (Sim: T=1.0 is 0.236, T=2.0 is 0.239).
    The simulated peak is still too low (0.239 vs 0.3) and occurs too late (T=2.0 vs T=0.6-1.0).
    -   Exp T=0.6: 0.300, Sim T=0.6: 0.207 (Sim too low)
    -   Exp T=1.0: 0.301, Sim T=1.0: 0.236 (Sim too low)
    The increase in `k1` (to 0.25) and `k3` (to 1.0) did not achieve the desired early, high peak for `id_0e6o`. The overall consumption rate `k2+k3 = 1.05` is high. The production `k1*[v92z]` is not enough to push `[id_0e6o]` to 0.3 quickly.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   Exp T=1.0: 0.116, Sim T=1.0: 0.109 (Good)
    -   Exp T=2.0: 0.131, Sim T=2.0: 0.121 (Good)
    -   Exp T=5.0: 0.166, Sim T=5.0: 0.149 (Good)
    -   Exp T=10.0: 0.187, Sim T=10.0: 0.168 (Good)
    The `id_hura` profile remains well-matched with `k2=0.05`. This part of the model seems robust.

The persistent issues are:
1.  `id_v92z` decay kinetics.
2.  `id_0e6o` peak height and timing.

Given the task is to find *missing reactions* and not necessarily to optimize complex kinetic laws for existing reactions beyond mass action (unless necessary), let's consider if another reaction could explain the `id_v92z` behavior.
The `id_v92z` decay is initially very fast, then slows down more than a simple exponential decay.
-   Fast initial phase: `(1.5 - 1.28) / 0.2 = 0.22 / 0.2 = 1.1` (rate at T=0 to 0.2)
    If `k1*1.5 = 1.1`, then `k1 = 1.1/1.5 = 0.73`. This is a very high `k1`.
-   Slower later phase: (e.g. T=5 to T=10) `(0.856 - 0.596) / 5 = 0.26 / 5 = 0.052` (avg rate).
    Average `[v92z]` in this interval is `(0.856+0.596)/2 = 0.726`.
    If `k1*0.726 = 0.052`, then `k1 = 0.052/0.726 = 0.07`. This is a low `k1`.

This large difference in apparent `k1` (0.73 vs 0.07) is hard to reconcile with a single first-order reaction.

What if `id_v92z` is consumed by *two* parallel reactions?
R1a: `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` (with `k1a`)
R1b: `id_v92z -> Ø` (degradation, with `k1b`)
Then `d[v92z]/dt = -(k1a + k1b)[v92z]`. This is still a single exponential decay, so it won't solve the shape problem.

What if the reaction `id_v92z -> id_0e6o` is reversible?
R1: `id_v92z <=> id_0e6o` (kf, kr)
Rate: `kf*[v92z] - kr*[0e6o]`
As `[0e6o]` increases, the net forward rate decreases. This would make `[v92z]` decay slower over time, which matches the observation.

Let's try this model structure:
1.  R1_rev: `id_v92z <=> id_0e6o` (parameters `kf1`, `kr1`)
2.  R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` (parameter `k2`)
3.  R3: `id_0e6o -> Ø` (parameter `k3`)

Dynamics:
`d[v92z]/dt = -kf1*[v92z] + kr1*[0e6o]`
`d[0e6o]/dt = kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o] - k2*[0e6o] - k3*[0e6o]`
`d[hura]/dt = k2*[0e6o]`

Keep `k2 = 0.05` as it works well for `id_hura`.
We need `id_0e6o` to peak at ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
At this peak, `d[0e6o]/dt ≈ 0`.
`kf1*[v92z] ≈ (kr1 + k2 + k3)*[0e6o]`

Let's estimate `kf1` from the very initial drop of `id_v92z`, where `[0e6o]` is still small.
Initial rate of `v92z` loss ≈ 1.1 (from above).
So, `kf1 * 1.5 ≈ 1.1` => `kf1 ≈ 0.73`. Let's try `kf1 = 0.7`.

Now, at the peak of `id_0e6o` (T=0.6, `[v92z]`_exp=1.24, `[0e6o]`_exp=0.3):
`0.7 * 1.24 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.868 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.868 / 0.3 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`2.89 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`kr1 + k3 ≈ 2.84`.

This is one equation with two unknowns (`kr1`, `k3`).
The reversibility (`kr1`) should help slow down `v92z` decay at later times.
If `kr1` is significant, then `k3` might not need to be as large as `1.0` from the previous attempt.

Consider the state at T=10.0: `[v92z]`=0.596, `[0e6o]`=0.197.
If the system is approaching some pseudo-steady state for `v92z` and `0e6o` (ignoring `hura`'s slow change):
Net flux from `v92z` to `0e6o` should be balanced by `0e6o` consumption.
`kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o] = (k2+k3)*[0e6o]`
`0.7 * 0.596 - kr1 * 0.197 = (0.05+k3) * 0.197`
`0.4172 - 0.197*kr1 = 0.00985 + 0.197*k3`
`0.40735 = 0.197*kr1 + 0.197*k3`
`kr1 + k3 = 0.40735 / 0.197 ≈ 2.06`.

This value `kr1+k3 ≈ 2.06` is somewhat consistent with `kr1+k3 ≈ 2.84` from peak analysis.
Let's try to set `kr1 + k3 = 2.5`.
How to split between `kr1` and `k3`?
If `kr1` is too large, `v92z` might increase again if `0e6o` gets high.
If `k3` is too large, `0e6o` is mostly degraded.

Let's try `kr1 = 1.0` and `k3 = 1.5`.
So parameters:
`kf1 = 0.7`
`kr1 = 1.0`
`k2 = 0.05` (for `hura`)
`k3 = 1.5` (for `0e6o` degradation)

This is a significant model change. "Discover the biological mechanisms missing". A reversible reaction is a mechanism.

Plan:
1.  Modify SBML: R1 is now `id_v92z <=> id_0e6o`. R2 and R3 remain.
2.  Set parameters: `kf1=0.7`, `kr1=1.0`, `k2=0.05`, `k3=1.5`.
3.  Simulate and compare.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.7
val_kr1 = 1.0
val_k2  = 0.05
val_k3  = 1.5

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) # Set to True for reversible
r1.setFast(False)
# Reactant for forward, product for reverse
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
# Product for forward, reactant for reverse
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_val", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_val", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R1rev", val_k2) # k2 is reused
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R1rev", val_k3) # k3 is reused

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.7, kr1=1.0, k2=0.05, k3=1.5):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.334874  0.214315  0.101639
40     0.4  1.206224  0.267179  0.104084
60     0.6  1.100706  0.286282  0.106871
80     0.8  1.010621  0.287149  0.109749
100    1.0  0.931457  0.278471  0.112583
200    2.0  0.632954  0.202740  0.124655
500    5.0  0.203641  0.065623  0.142927
1000  10.0  0.030803  0.009926  0.150299

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev)

### 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 model with R1_rev (`v92z <=> 0e6o`), R2 (`0e6o -> hura`), R3 (`0e6o -> deg`) and parameters `kf1=0.7, kr1=1.0, k2=0.05, k3=1.5` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.33, Exp=1.28 (Sim still a bit high, `kf1` might be slightly low or `kr1` too high initially)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=0.93, Exp=1.19 (Sim too low, decay is too fast)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.63, Exp=1.10 (Sim much too low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.20, Exp=0.85 (Sim vastly too low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.03, Exp=0.59 (Sim vastly too low)
    The reversible reaction with these parameters makes `id_v92z` decay far too quickly. The `kf1=0.7` was based on the very initial rate, but the `kr1=1.0` term doesn't seem to be slowing it down enough in the right way, or the overall consumption of `0e6o` (which pulls R1 forward) is too strong.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.287 around T=0.8. (Sim: T=0.6 is 0.286, T=0.8 is 0.287, T=1.0 is 0.278).
    The peak height (0.287 vs 0.3) is very close! The timing (T=0.8 vs T=0.6-1.0) is also good. This is a significant improvement for `id_0e6o` peak dynamics.
    -   However, after the peak, `id_0e6o` drops too rapidly:
        -   T=2.0: Sim=0.202, Exp=0.299 (Sim too low)
        -   T=5.0: Sim=0.065, Exp=0.266 (Sim vastly too low)
        -   T=10.0: Sim=0.009, Exp=0.197 (Sim vastly too low)
    This rapid drop is likely due to `id_v92z` (the source) depleting too quickly.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.124, Exp=0.131 (Good)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.142, Exp=0.166 (A bit low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.150, Exp=0.187 (A bit low)
    `id_hura` levels are reasonable but start to fall behind at later times, likely because `id_0e6o` (its precursor) is too low at later times.

The key issue is that `id_v92z` is consumed too fast overall.
The net rate of `v92z` consumption is `kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o]`.
If this is too high, we need to either decrease `kf1` or increase `kr1` (relative to `kf1` and `[0e6o]`).
The total consumption of `0e6o` is `(kr1 + k2 + k3)*[0e6o]`.
The previous `kr1+k3` was estimated around 2.0-2.8. Here `kr1+k3 = 1.0+1.5 = 2.5`. This seems in range.

Let's try to reduce the forward rate `kf1` and also adjust `kr1` and `k3` to maintain the `0e6o` peak.
If `kf1` is lower, `v92z` will decay slower.
Suppose we target `kf1` to be lower, e.g., `kf1 = 0.3`.
Then at `0e6o` peak (T=0.8, `[v92z]`_exp=1.22, `[0e6o]`_exp=0.3):
`kf1*[v92z] ≈ (kr1 + k2 + k3)*[0e6o]`
`0.3 * 1.22 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.366 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.366 / 0.3 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`1.22 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`kr1 + k3 ≈ 1.17`.

This is a much lower sum for `kr1+k3` than before (was 2.5).
This means `0e6o` is consumed less aggressively if `kf1` is lower.
Let's try to keep `kr1` smaller than `k3` to favor net degradation/conversion of `0e6o` over reversion to `v92z`.
Try `kr1 = 0.3` and `k3 = 0.87` (or round to `k3 = 0.9`).
So, `kr1+k3 = 0.3 + 0.9 = 1.2`. This is close to the target 1.17.

New parameters:
`kf1 = 0.3`
`kr1 = 0.3`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 0.9`

This set of parameters aims to:
1.  Slow down `id_v92z` decay (`kf1` reduced significantly).
2.  Maintain `id_0e6o` peak by adjusting `kr1` and `k3`.
3.  Keep `id_hura` dynamics via `k2`.

The fact that `id_0e6o` peak was well captured in terms of timing and height by the previous set suggests the *structure* involving R1_rev and R3_deg is promising. The main issue was the overall rate of `v92z` processing.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.3  # Reduced kf1
val_kr1 = 0.3  # Adjusted kr1
val_k2  = 0.05 # Kept k2
val_k3  = 0.9  # Adjusted k3

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_val_v2", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_val_v2", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R1rev_v2", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R1rev_v2", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.3, kr1=0.3, k2=0.05, k3=0.9):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.420186  0.155270  0.101292
40     0.4  1.347739  0.194286  0.103051
60     0.6  1.281404  0.221000  0.105137
80     0.8  1.220202  0.238429  0.107440
100    1.0  1.163365  0.248878  0.109882
200    2.0  0.927222  0.245244  0.122502
500    5.0  0.485986  0.140202  0.151253
1000  10.0  0.167332  0.048417  0.172855

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2)

### 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 model with R1_rev (`v92z <=> 0e6o`), R2 (`0e6o -> hura`), R3 (`0e6o -> deg`) and parameters `kf1=0.3, kr1=0.3, k2=0.05, k3=0.9` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.42, Exp=1.28 (Sim too high, `kf1` too low for initial phase, or `kr1` too high)
    -   T=0.8: Sim=1.2202, Exp=1.2202 (Perfect match!)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=1.16, Exp=1.19 (Good match)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.92, Exp=1.10 (Sim a bit low, decay slightly too fast)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.48, Exp=0.85 (Sim too low, decay too fast in mid-late phase)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.16, Exp=0.59 (Sim much too low, decay way too fast in late phase)
    The `id_v92z` decay is better in the T=0.8-1.0 range, but the initial phase is still not captured well (simulated decay is too slow at the very start), and the later decay is far too rapid. The reversible reaction helps shape the curve, but the parameters are not quite right to match the whole profile.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.248 around T=1.0-2.0. (Sim: T=1.0 is 0.248, T=2.0 is 0.245).
    The simulated peak is too low (0.248 vs 0.3) and occurs a bit late (T=1.0-2.0 vs T=0.6-1.0).
    -   Exp T=0.6: 0.300, Sim T=0.6: 0.221 (Sim too low)
    The reduction in `kf1` (source for `0e6o`) and `kr1+k3` (sink for `0e6o`) has lowered the peak of `0e6o`.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.122, Exp=0.131 (Good)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.151, Exp=0.166 (Good)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.172, Exp=0.187 (Good)
    `id_hura` profile remains quite good. `k2=0.05` is solid.

The main challenge is still `id_v92z`'s complex decay profile and getting `id_0e6o`'s peak right.
The `id_v92z` decay: fast start, then slows significantly.
Current `kf1=0.3, kr1=0.3`. Net rate `0.3*[v92z] - 0.3*[0e6o]`.
Initial net rate (t=0): `0.3*1.5 - 0.3*0.1 = 0.45 - 0.03 = 0.42`.
Experimental initial rate (0-0.2s): `(1.5-1.28)/0.2 = 1.1`.
The simulated initial rate (0.42) is much lower than experimental (1.1). This means `kf1` needs to be higher for the initial phase.

If `kf1` is increased, say back to `0.6` or `0.7` (as in Iteration 9 attempt), `id_v92z` will decay faster.
Then `kr1` and `k3` would need to be adjusted again.
In Iteration 9: `kf1=0.7, kr1=1.0, k2=0.05, k3=1.5`.
`id_0e6o` peak was good (0.287 at T=0.8). `id_v92z` decayed too fast overall.

Let's try to keep `kf1` high for the initial `v92z` drop and `0e6o` rise.
`kf1 = 0.6`.
At `0e6o` peak (target T=0.8, `[v92z]`_exp=1.22, `[0e6o]`_exp=0.3):
`kf1*[v92z] ≈ (kr1 + k2 + k3)*[0e6o]`
`0.6 * 1.22 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.732 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.732 / 0.3 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`2.44 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`kr1 + k3 ≈ 2.39`.

Now, how to make `id_v92z` not decay too fast later? The `kr1*[0e6o]` term needs to become more significant.
This means `kr1` should be relatively large.
If `kr1 + k3 = 2.39`.
Let's try `kr1 = 1.0` (same as Iteration 9). Then `k3 = 2.39 - 1.0 = 1.39`. Let's use `k3 = 1.4`.
Parameters:
`kf1 = 0.6` (slightly lower than 0.7 from It9)
`kr1 = 1.0` (same as It9)
`k2 = 0.05` (constant)
`k3 = 1.4` (slightly lower than 1.5 from It9)

This is a small tweak from Iteration 9's parameters. The goal is to slow down `v92z` decay a bit by reducing `kf1` and `k3` slightly, while hoping `kr1` can still provide the "braking" effect on `v92z` decay as `0e6o` accumulates.

The model structure (R1_rev, R2, R3_deg) seems to be the most promising so far, as it has the components to potentially explain all observed behaviors. Fine-tuning the 4 rate constants is the challenge.

It might be that the true model has one of these features:
-   A different kinetic law for R1 (e.g. Michaelis-Menten, or inhibition).
-   Another reaction involving `id_v92z`.
However, the instructions are "discover the missing reactions" and "You do not need to add new species." A reversible reaction and a degradation are new reactions.

Let's try this new set of parameters.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.6  # Adjusted kf1
val_kr1 = 1.0  # Adjusted kr1 (same as It9)
val_k2  = 0.05 # Kept k2
val_k3  = 1.4  # Adjusted k3

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_val_v3", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_val_v3", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R1rev_v3", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R1rev_v3", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.6, kr1=1.0, k2=0.05, k3=1.4):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.359459  0.196073  0.101533
40     0.4  1.247782  0.243181  0.103760
60     0.6  1.154689  0.262461  0.106305
80     0.8  1.074112  0.266119  0.108958
100    1.0  1.002430  0.261192  0.111599
200    2.0  0.723243  0.202221  0.123260
500    5.0  0.277950  0.078240  0.142890
1000  10.0  0.056537  0.015915  0.152674

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3, kf1_val_v3, kr1_val_v3, k2_val_R1rev_v3, k3_val_R1rev_v3)

### 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

The current model structure is:
1.  R1_rev: `id_v92z <=> id_0e6o` (parameters `kf1`, `kr1`)
2.  R2: `id_0e6o -> id_hura` (parameter `k2`)
3.  R3: `id_0e6o -> Ø` (parameter `k3`, degradation)

The previous parameters (`kf1=0.6, kr1=1.0, k2=0.05, k3=1.4`) resulted in:
-   `id_v92z`: Initial decay too slow, then overall decay too fast.
-   `id_0e6o`: Peak a bit low (0.266 vs 0.3) and correct timing (T=0.8), but then decayed too fast.
-   `id_hura`: Generally good, but suffered at later times due to low `id_0e6o`.

The main goal is to get the `id_v92z` profile better, which should also help `id_0e6o`.
The experimental initial rate of `id_v92z` consumption (T=0 to T=0.2) is `(1.5 - 1.283) / 0.2 = 0.217 / 0.2 = 1.085`.
The kinetic law for `id_v92z` is `d[v92z]/dt = -kf1*[v92z] + kr1*[0e6o]`.
At T=0, `d[v92z]/dt = -kf1*1.5 + kr1*0.1`. We want this to be `-1.085`.
So, `kf1*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085`.

For the `id_0e6o` peak (target: ~0.3 at T=0.8, where `[v92z]`_exp ≈ 1.22):
At peak, `d[0e6o]/dt = kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o] - k2*[0e6o] - k3*[0e6o] ≈ 0`.
`kf1*[v92z] ≈ (kr1 + k2 + k3)*[0e6o]`.
Let `k2 = 0.05`.
`kf1*1.22 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3)*0.3`.

Let's try `kf1 = 0.8`.
From the initial rate equation: `0.8*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085`
`1.2 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085`
`kr1*0.1 = 1.2 - 1.085 = 0.115`
`kr1 = 1.15`.

Now use these `kf1=0.8, kr1=1.15` in the peak equation:
`0.8*1.22 ≈ (1.15 + 0.05 + k3)*0.3`
`0.976 ≈ (1.20 + k3)*0.3`
`0.976 / 0.3 ≈ 1.20 + k3`
`3.253 ≈ 1.20 + k3`
`k3 ≈ 3.253 - 1.20 = 2.053`. Let's use `k3 = 2.05`.

So, the new set of parameters is:
`kf1 = 0.8`
`kr1 = 1.15`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 2.05`

These values are derived by trying to match the initial `id_v92z` slope and the `id_0e6o` peak conditions. This is a more targeted approach than the previous iteration. The `kr1` value is now slightly higher, which might help in slowing down `id_v92z` decay when `[0e6o]` is high. `k3` is also higher, reflecting a faster turnover of `id_0e6o`.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.8
val_kr1 = 1.15
val_k2  = 0.05 
val_k3  = 2.05

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v4", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_val_v4", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_val_v4", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R1rev_v4", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R1rev_v4", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.8, kr1=1.15, k2=0.05, k3=2.05):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.313970  0.216017  0.101667
40     0.4  1.171031  0.257735  0.104077
60     0.6  1.053808  0.264489  0.106707
80     0.8  0.953395  0.255378  0.109315
100    1.0  0.865058  0.239629  0.111793
200    2.0  0.539076  0.154826  0.121574
500    5.0  0.131919  0.037951  0.134051
1000  10.0  0.012634  0.003635  0.137708

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3, kf1_val_v3, kr1_val_v3, k2_val_R1rev_v3, k3_val_R1rev_v3, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v4, kf1_val_v4, kr1_val_v4, k2_val_R1rev_v4, k3_val_R1rev_v4)

### 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

The model with R1_rev (`v92z <=> 0e6o`), R2 (`0e6o -> hura`), R3 (`0e6o -> deg`) and parameters `kf1=0.8, kr1=1.15, k2=0.05, k3=2.05` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.31, Exp=1.28 (Closer! Initial drop is better matched)
    -   T=0.4: Sim=1.17, Exp=1.26 (Sim now lower, decay too fast)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=0.86, Exp=1.19 (Sim much too low)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.53, Exp=1.10 (Sim much too low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.13, Exp=0.85 (Sim vastly too low)
    While the initial (T=0 to 0.2) rate was targeted, the overall decay of `id_v92z` is now far too rapid. The `kr1*[0e6o]` term is not providing enough "braking" effect, or `kf1` is simply too dominant.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.264 at T=0.6. (Sim: T=0.4 is 0.257, T=0.6 is 0.264, T=0.8 is 0.255).
    The peak height (0.264 vs 0.3) is a bit low. The timing (T=0.6) is good.
    -   After the peak, `id_0e6o` drops too rapidly, similar to `id_v92z`.
        -   T=1.0: Sim=0.239, Exp=0.301 (Sim too low)
        -   T=2.0: Sim=0.154, Exp=0.299 (Sim much too low)

-   `id_hura`:
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.121, Exp=0.131 (Good)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.134, Exp=0.166 (Low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.137, Exp=0.187 (Low)
    `id_hura` is okay initially but falls behind later due to low precursor `id_0e6o`.

The problem remains that `id_v92z` decays too fast after the initial phase.
The net rate of `v92z` consumption is `kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o]`.
To slow this down when `[0e6o]` is high, we need `kr1*[0e6o]` to be larger relative to `kf1*[v92z]`.
This means `kr1` should be larger, or `kf1` smaller.
However, reducing `kf1` hurts the initial `v92z` drop and `0e6o` rise.

Let's reconsider the balance.
The current `kf1=0.8` seems good for the initial drop.
The issue is the sustained decay.
Perhaps `kr1` needs to be significantly larger to really counteract `kf1*[v92z]` when `[0e6o]` is substantial.
If `kr1` is increased, then to maintain the `0e6o` peak, `k3` would also need to be adjusted because `(kr1 + k2 + k3)` is the total consumption coefficient for `0e6o` in the peak equation.

Let `kf1 = 0.8` (for initial `v92z` rate).
Let's try a much larger `kr1`, say `kr1 = 2.0`.
From initial rate: `0.8*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085` => `1.2 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085` => `kr1*0.1 = 0.115` => `kr1 = 1.15`. This was the previous `kr1`.
So, if we want `kf1=0.8` to match the initial rate, `kr1` is constrained to around `1.15`.
This implies that the simple reversible mass-action model might not be able to capture both the initial fast decay of `v92z` (requiring high `kf1`) and the subsequent slowing of `v92z` decay (which would need `kr1*[0e6o]` to effectively brake the `kf1*[v92z]` term).

What if the experimental data for `id_v92z` is noisy, and the initial drop is not as sharp?
If we aim for a slightly lower initial rate for `v92z`.
Suppose `kf1 = 0.5`.
Then `0.5*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = TargetInitialRate_v92z_loss`.
If TargetInitialRate_v92z_loss is, say, `0.8` (instead of 1.085).
`0.75 - kr1*0.1 = 0.8` => `kr1*0.1 = -0.05` => `kr1 = -0.5`. This is not possible.
This means with `kf1=0.5`, the forward reaction alone is not fast enough to match even a reduced initial rate. `kf1` must be > `0.8/1.5 = 0.53` if `kr1` term is negligible initially.

Let's assume the model structure is correct: `v92z <=> 0e6o -> hura` and `0e6o -> deg`.
The parameters `kf1, kr1, k3` are tricky. `k2=0.05` seems solid.

Let's try to find a balance. The previous iteration (It11, `kf1=0.6, kr1=1.0, k3=1.4`) had `v92z` decaying too fast, but less extremely than It12 (`kf1=0.8, kr1=1.15, k3=2.05`).
The `0e6o` peak in It11 was 0.266 at T=0.8. Exp peak is 0.3.
To raise the `0e6o` peak from It11's parameters:
- Increase `kf1` (source)
- Decrease `kr1+k2+k3` (sink)

Let's take It11 parameters as a base: `kf1=0.6, kr1=1.0, k2=0.05, k3=1.4`.
`v92z` at T=1.0: Sim=1.00, Exp=1.19 (Sim too low).
`0e6o` at T=0.8: Sim=0.266, Exp=0.301 (Sim too low).

To improve `v92z` (make it decay slower) and `0e6o` (make peak higher):
- Decrease `kf1` slightly (slows `v92z` decay, but lowers `0e6o` production).
- Increase `kr1` significantly (slows `v92z` net decay, but increases `0e6o` sink).
- Decrease `k3` (decreases `0e6o` sink, helping `0e6o` peak).

This is a multi-parameter optimization problem.
Let's try to get `v92z` better at T=2.0 and T=5.0.
Exp: `v92z(2.0)=1.10`, `v92z(5.0)=0.85`.
It11: `v92z(2.0)=0.72`, `v92z(5.0)=0.27`. (Too low)
It10 (`kf1=0.3, kr1=0.3, k3=0.9`): `v92z(2.0)=0.92`, `v92z(5.0)=0.48`. (Still too low, but better than It11).

Comparing It10 and It11:
It10: `kf1=0.3, kr1=0.3, k3=0.9`. `0e6o` peak 0.248 (too low).
It11: `kf1=0.6, kr1=1.0, k3=1.4`. `0e6o` peak 0.266 (better, but still low).

The `0e6o` peak needs `kf1*[v92z]` to be high relative to `(kr1+k2+k3)*[0e6o]`.
Let's try to increase `kf1` a bit from It10, and decrease `kr1` and `k3` a bit from It11 to help `0e6o` peak higher, while trying to keep `v92z` from decaying too fast.

Try `kf1 = 0.45` (between 0.3 and 0.6).
To get `0e6o` peak ~0.3 at T=0.8 (`[v92z]`_exp=1.22):
`0.45 * 1.22 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.549 ≈ (kr1 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.549 / 0.3 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`1.83 ≈ kr1 + 0.05 + k3`
`kr1 + k3 ≈ 1.78`.

Let `kr1` be smaller to reduce `v92z` reversion if `0e6o` is high, and let `k3` handle more of `0e6o` consumption.
Try `kr1 = 0.5`. Then `k3 = 1.78 - 0.5 = 1.28`. Let `k3 = 1.3`.
New parameters:
`kf1 = 0.45`
`kr1 = 0.5`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 1.3`

This set has a moderate `kf1`, a moderate `kr1`, and a moderate `k3`.
The sum `kr1+k2+k3 = 0.5+0.05+1.3 = 1.85`.
The ratio `kf1 / (kr1+k2+k3)` for `0e6o` steady state is `0.45 / 1.85 = 0.24`.
This means at steady state `[0e6o]/[v92z] ≈ 0.24`.
At T=10, Exp `[0e6o]/[v92z] = 0.197/0.596 = 0.33`.
This suggests my `kf1` might be too high relative to the sum, or `kr1` too low.

Let's try to match the T=10 ratio: `kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o] = (k2+k3)*[0e6o]` (assuming net flux is small)
`kf1*[v92z] = (kr1+k2+k3)*[0e6o]`
`kf1 / (kr1+k2+k3) = [0e6o]/[v92z] = 0.33`.
If `kf1 = 0.45`, then `kr1+k2+k3 = 0.45 / 0.33 = 1.36`.
`kr1+k3 = 1.36 - 0.05 = 1.31`.
If `kr1 = 0.5`, then `k3 = 1.31 - 0.5 = 0.81`.
So, parameters based on T=10 ratio and `kf1=0.45, kr1=0.5`:
`kf1 = 0.45`
`kr1 = 0.5`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 0.8`

Let's test this set. It's derived from a different point (late time ratio) combined with a chosen `kf1` and `kr1`.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.45
val_kr1 = 0.5
val_k2  = 0.05 
val_k3  = 0.8

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v5", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_val_v5", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_val_v5", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R1rev_v5", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R1rev_v5", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.45, kr1=0.5, k2=0.05, k3=0.8):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.385093  0.189786  0.101478
40     0.4  1.287151  0.249992  0.103697
60     0.6  1.202301  0.288789  0.106406
80     0.8  1.127675  0.312152  0.109422
100    1.0  1.061139  0.324445  0.112613
200    2.0  0.806007  0.305717  0.128722
500    5.0  0.381041  0.155121  0.162579
1000  10.0  0.111259  0.045357  0.184905

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3, kf1_val_v3, kr1_val_v3, k2_val_R1rev_v3, k3_val_R1rev_v3, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v4, kf1_val_v4, kr1_val_v4, k2_val_R1rev_v4, k3_val_R1rev_v4, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v5, kf1_val_v5, kr1_val_v5, k2_val_R1rev_v5, k3_val_R1rev_v5)

### 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

The model with R1_rev (`v92z <=> 0e6o`), R2 (`0e6o -> hura`), R3 (`0e6o -> deg`) and parameters `kf1=0.45, kr1=0.5, k2=0.05, k3=0.8` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.38, Exp=1.28 (Sim too high, initial decay too slow)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=1.06, Exp=1.19 (Sim too low, decay becomes too fast)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.80, Exp=1.10 (Sim too low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.38, Exp=0.85 (Sim too low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.11, Exp=0.59 (Sim too low)
    The `id_v92z` profile is still not well captured. The initial decay is too slow with `kf1=0.45`, and then it speeds up too much relative to experimental.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.324 at T=1.0. (Sim: T=0.8 is 0.312, T=1.0 is 0.324, T=2.0 is 0.305).
    The peak height (0.324 vs 0.3) is good! The timing (T=1.0) is also good. This is a major improvement for `id_0e6o`.
    -   After the peak, `id_0e6o` decays, but perhaps a bit too fast compared to experimental at T=5.0 and T=10.0.
        -   T=2.0: Sim=0.305, Exp=0.299 (Excellent match!)
        -   T=5.0: Sim=0.155, Exp=0.266 (Sim too low)
        -   T=10.0: Sim=0.045, Exp=0.197 (Sim much too low)
    The late-stage `id_0e6o` drop is tied to `id_v92z` depleting too fast.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.128, Exp=0.131 (Excellent)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.162, Exp=0.166 (Excellent)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.184, Exp=0.187 (Excellent!)
    The `id_hura` profile is now exceptionally well-matched! This strongly supports `k2=0.05` and the current dynamics of `id_0e6o` up to T=5.0 at least.

The model is very close for `id_0e6o` (peak and T=2.0) and `id_hura` (entire profile).
The main remaining problem is `id_v92z`.
1.  Initial decay (T=0 to T=0.2) is too slow with `kf1=0.45`. (Exp rate ~1.085, Sim rate with `kf1=0.45, kr1=0.5` is `0.45*1.5 - 0.5*0.1 = 0.675 - 0.05 = 0.625`).
2.  Later decay (T > 1.0) is too fast.

To speed up initial `v92z` decay, `kf1` needs to be higher.
Let's target initial rate of `1.085`. `kf1*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085`.
If we keep `kr1=0.5` (from current good fit for `0e6o` and `hura`):
`kf1*1.5 - 0.5*0.1 = 1.085`
`kf1*1.5 - 0.05 = 1.085`
`kf1*1.5 = 1.135`
`kf1 = 1.135 / 1.5 = 0.756`. Let's use `kf1 = 0.75`.

Now, if `kf1` changes, `k3` might need to be re-adjusted to maintain the `0e6o` peak.
Original `0e6o` peak condition: `kf1*[v92z] ≈ (kr1 + k2 + k3)*[0e6o]`.
Using values from current good fit at T=1.0 (sim peak): `[v92z]`_sim=1.06, `[0e6o]`_sim=0.324.
Old `kf1=0.45, kr1=0.5, k2=0.05, k3=0.8`.
`0.45 * 1.06 ≈ (0.5 + 0.05 + 0.8) * 0.324`
`0.477 ≈ (1.35) * 0.324 = 0.4374`. (This wasn't perfectly at peak derivative zero, but close).

Let's use the target experimental peak: `0e6o`=0.3 at T=0.8, `v92z`_exp=1.22.
New `kf1=0.75`, `kr1=0.5` (tentative, from `v92z` initial rate and keeping `0e6o` behavior).
`0.75 * 1.22 ≈ (0.5 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.915 ≈ (0.55 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.915 / 0.3 ≈ 0.55 + k3`
`3.05 ≈ 0.55 + k3`
`k3 ≈ 3.05 - 0.55 = 2.5`.

So, new proposed parameters:
`kf1 = 0.75` (for initial `v92z` decay)
`kr1 = 0.5` (kept from previous good `0e6o`/`hura` fit, but this was tied to `kf1=0.45`. Re-evaluating `kr1` based on `kf1*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085` with `kf1=0.75` gives `kr1 = (0.75*1.5 - 1.085)/0.1 = (1.125 - 1.085)/0.1 = 0.04/0.1 = 0.4`. So `kr1` should be `0.4` if `kf1=0.75` is to hit initial rate exactly).
Let's use `kr1 = 0.4`.

Recalculate `k3` with `kf1=0.75, kr1=0.4, k2=0.05`:
`0.75 * 1.22 ≈ (0.4 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.915 ≈ (0.45 + k3) * 0.3`
`3.05 ≈ 0.45 + k3`
`k3 ≈ 3.05 - 0.45 = 2.6`.

Parameters to try:
`kf1 = 0.75`
`kr1 = 0.4`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 2.6`

This set has a high `kf1` for initial `v92z` drop. `kr1` is relatively small. `k3` is very high, meaning `0e6o` is consumed very rapidly by degradation. This might make `0e6o` levels too low overall, despite matching the peak condition.
The problem is that `id_v92z` needs to decay fast initially, then slow down. A high `kf1` and low `kr1` will lead to fast sustained decay of `v92z`.
The previous set (`kf1=0.45, kr1=0.5, k3=0.8`) gave good `0e6o` and `hura`. The main issue was `v92z`.
If I increase `kf1` from 0.45 to, say, 0.55, and adjust `kr1` and `k3` to keep `0e6o` and `hura` similar.
Let `kf1 = 0.55`.
Initial rate: `0.55*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085` (target) => `0.825 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085` => `kr1*0.1 = -0.26` => `kr1 = -2.6` (Not possible).
This means the target initial rate of 1.085 cannot be achieved if `kf1` is only 0.55. `kf1` must be at least `1.085/1.5 = 0.723` if `kr1` is zero or positive.

So, `kf1` must be high (e.g., ~0.75). This will likely make `v92z` decay too fast later.
The model `v92z <=> 0e6o` might not be enough to explain the `v92z` curve shape if `0e6o` itself doesn't rise high enough or stay high long enough to significantly brake `v92z` consumption via `kr1*[0e6o]`.
In the experimental data, `0e6o` stays around 0.3 for a while (T=0.4 to T=2.0).
If `kf1=0.75`, `kr1` needs to be substantial to slow down `v92z` when `0e6o` is 0.3.
E.g., at T=2.0, `v92z`_exp=1.1, `0e6o`_exp=0.3.
Net rate of `v92z` loss: `kf1*1.1 - kr1*0.3`.
The slope of `v92z` from T=1 to T=2 is `(1.199-1.101)/1 = 0.098`.
So, `0.75*1.1 - kr1*0.3 ≈ 0.098`.
`0.825 - kr1*0.3 ≈ 0.098`.
`kr1*0.3 ≈ 0.825 - 0.098 = 0.727`.
`kr1 ≈ 0.727 / 0.3 = 2.42`.

So, if `kf1=0.75`, then `kr1` should be around `2.42` to match `v92z` slope at T=1-2.
Now, check initial rate with `kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42`:
`0.75*1.5 - 2.42*0.1 = 1.125 - 0.242 = 0.883`. (Target was 1.085). This is a bit low but better.

Now, `k3` with `kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05` for `0e6o` peak (0.3 at T=0.8, `v92z`_exp=1.22):
`0.75 * 1.22 ≈ (2.42 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`0.915 ≈ (2.47 + k3) * 0.3`
`3.05 ≈ 2.47 + k3`
`k3 ≈ 3.05 - 2.47 = 0.58`.

Parameters:
`kf1 = 0.75`
`kr1 = 2.42`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 0.58`

This set has high `kf1`, very high `kr1` (higher than `kf1`), and moderate `k3`.
The high `kr1` should significantly slow `v92z` decay when `0e6o` is up.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.75
val_kr1 = 2.42 
val_k2  = 0.05 
val_k3  = 0.58

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
current_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model
sim_data = simulate(current_sbml_model_str)

# Store the current model string and parameters
shared_variables.add("current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v6", current_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_val_v6", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_val_v6", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_val_R1rev_v6", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_val_R1rev_v6", val_k3)

# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")

exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=0.58):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.365530  0.213770  0.101643
40     0.4  1.284594  0.264152  0.104068
60     0.6  1.229763  0.284222  0.106827
80     0.8  1.187867  0.289850  0.109705
100    1.0  1.152574  0.288650  0.112601
200    2.0  1.009153  0.258900  0.126345
500    5.0  0.685836  0.176078  0.158578
1000  10.0  0.360370  0.092520  0.191041

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3, kf1_val_v3, kr1_val_v3, k2_val_R1rev_v3, k3_val_R1rev_v3, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v4, kf1_val_v4, kr1_val_v4, k2_val_R1rev_v4, k3_val_R1rev_v4, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v5, kf1_val_v5, kr1_val_v5, k2_val_R1rev_v5, k3_val_R1rev_v5, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v6, kf1_val_v6, kr1_val_v6, k2_val_R1rev_v6, k3_val_R1rev_v6)

### 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 model with R1_rev (`v92z <=> 0e6o`), R2 (`0e6o -> hura`), R3 (`0e6o -> deg`) and parameters `kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=0.58` shows:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.36, Exp=1.28 (Sim too high, initial decay too slow. Target initial rate was 0.883, exp is 1.085. So `kf1` is still a bit low for the very start, or `kr1` too high.)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=1.15, Exp=1.19 (Very good match!)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=1.00, Exp=1.10 (Good, sim a bit low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.68, Exp=0.85 (Good, sim a bit low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.36, Exp=0.59 (Sim too low, decay too fast in late stage)
    This is the best `id_v92z` profile so far! The shape is much better. The main issue is the initial T=0.2 point being off and the late-stage decay still being a bit too fast.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3 around T=0.6-1.0.
    -   Sim peak ~0.29 at T=0.8-1.0. (Sim: T=0.8 is 0.289, T=1.0 is 0.288).
    The peak height (0.29 vs 0.3) is excellent! The timing is also excellent.
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.258, Exp=0.299 (Sim a bit low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.176, Exp=0.266 (Sim too low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.092, Exp=0.197 (Sim too low)
    The `id_0e6o` profile is very good up to T=1.0-2.0, then it drops faster than experimental, likely due to `id_v92z` (its source) dropping too fast.

-   `id_hura`:
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.126, Exp=0.131 (Excellent)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.158, Exp=0.166 (Very good)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.191, Exp=0.187 (Excellent!)
    The `id_hura` profile is extremely well-matched. This confirms `k2=0.05` and that the `id_0e6o` levels up to around T=5 are reasonably captured for `id_hura` production.

This set of parameters is very promising. The model structure seems correct.
The remaining discrepancies:
1.  `id_v92z` at T=0.2 is too high (simulated initial decay too slow).
    Calculated initial rate for these params: `0.75*1.5 - 2.42*0.1 = 1.125 - 0.242 = 0.883`.
    Experimental initial rate: `1.085`.
    To increase sim initial rate to 1.085: `kf1*1.5 - kr1*0.1 = 1.085`.
    If we keep `kr1=2.42`: `kf1*1.5 - 0.242 = 1.085` => `kf1*1.5 = 1.327` => `kf1 = 1.327/1.5 = 0.884`.
    This is a higher `kf1`.

2.  `id_v92z` decays too fast at T > 5.0. This means the net consumption `kf1*[v92z] - kr1*[0e6o]` is too large.
    If `kf1` is increased to 0.884, this problem will likely worsen unless `kr1` is also increased substantially.

Let's try `kf1 = 0.884`.
And keep `kr1 = 2.42` (as it was part of the good fit for `v92z` slope at T=1-2).
Initial rate: `0.884*1.5 - 2.42*0.1 = 1.326 - 0.242 = 1.084`. (Matches target).

Now, re-calculate `k3` for `0e6o` peak (0.3 at T=0.8, `v92z`_exp=1.22) with `kf1=0.884, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05`:
`0.884 * 1.22 ≈ (2.42 + 0.05 + k3) * 0.3`
`1.07848 ≈ (2.47 + k3) * 0.3`
`1.07848 / 0.3 ≈ 2.47 + k3`
`3.5949 ≈ 2.47 + k3`
`k3 ≈ 3.5949 - 2.47 = 1.1249`. Let `k3 = 1.125`.

New parameters:
`kf1 = 0.884`
`kr1 = 2.42`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 1.125`

This increases `kf1` and `k3` compared to the last iteration. `kr1` is the same.
The higher `kf1` should help the T=0.2 point for `v92z`.
The higher `k3` is to maintain the `0e6o` peak.
The effect on late-stage `v92z` decay is uncertain; higher `kf1` might make it worse, but the system is coupled.

This feels like the final tuning iteration. The model structure `v92z <=> 0e6o -> hura` with `0e6o -> degradation` seems to be the correct one.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.884
val_kr1 = 2.42 
val_k2  = 0.05 
val_k3  = 1.125

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
final_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model for verification
sim_data = simulate(final_sbml_model_str)

# Store the final model string for potential submission
shared_variables.add("final_sbml_model_candidate", final_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_final", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_final", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_final", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_final", val_k3)


# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")
exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

# Decision to submit
# The model now fits id_hura perfectly, id_0e6o peak and early phase very well.
# id_v92z is much improved, especially the T=1.0 point and the overall shape.
# The initial T=0.2 point for id_v92z is better, and late-stage decay is still a bit fast but acceptable.
# Given the constraints, this model structure and parameters seem to be a very good representation.
# I will submit this model.

final_sbml = final_sbml_model_str
print("\nFinal model prepared for submission.")
```
# Observation

## Code Stderror
 name 'writer' is not defined

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3, kf1_val_v3, kr1_val_v3, k2_val_R1rev_v3, k3_val_R1rev_v3, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v4, kf1_val_v4, kr1_val_v4, k2_val_R1rev_v4, k3_val_R1rev_v4, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v5, kf1_val_v5, kr1_val_v5, k2_val_R1rev_v5, k3_val_R1rev_v5, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v6, kf1_val_v6, kr1_val_v6, k2_val_R1rev_v6, k3_val_R1rev_v6)

### 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 previous iteration failed due to a `NameError` because `libsbml.SBMLWriter()` was not initialized. I need to add `writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()` before calling `writer.writeSBMLToString()`.

The model structure and parameters from the previous iteration were:
-   Reactions:
    1.  `id_v92z <=> id_0e6o` (R1_rev, parameters `kf1`, `kr1`)
    2.  `id_0e6o -> id_hura` (R2, parameter `k2`)
    3.  `id_0e6o -> Ø` (R3_degradation, parameter `k3`)
-   Parameters:
    `kf1 = 0.884`
    `kr1 = 2.42`
    `k2 = 0.05`
    `k3 = 1.125`

I will correct the code and run the simulation again. If the results are satisfactory as anticipated in the previous thought process, I will submit this model.

## Action

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

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

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# New parameter values
val_kf1 = 0.884
val_kr1 = 2.42 
val_k2  = 0.05 
val_k3  = 1.125

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter() # Initialize SBMLWriter
final_sbml_model_str = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Simulate the model for verification
sim_data = simulate(final_sbml_model_str)

# Store the final model string for potential submission
shared_variables.add("final_sbml_model_candidate", final_sbml_model_str)
shared_variables.add("kf1_final", val_kf1)
shared_variables.add("kr1_final", val_kr1)
shared_variables.add("k2_final", val_k2)
shared_variables.add("k3_final", val_k3)


# Print some comparison points
print(f"Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}):")
exp_times_to_check = [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0]

print("\nExperimental Data:")
exp_target_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    exp_target_indices.append((exp_data['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin())
exp_target_indices = sorted(list(set(exp_target_indices)))
print(exp_data.loc[exp_target_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

sim_data_sorted = sim_data.sort_values(by='Time').reset_index(drop=True)
closest_indices = []
for t_target in exp_times_to_check:
    closest_idx = (sim_data_sorted['Time'] - t_target).abs().idxmin()
    closest_indices.append(closest_idx)
unique_closest_indices = sorted(list(set(closest_indices)))

print("\nSimulated Data:")
print(sim_data_sorted.iloc[unique_closest_indices][['Time', 'id_v92z', 'id_0e6o', 'id_hura']])

# Decision to submit
# The model now fits id_hura perfectly, id_0e6o peak and early phase very well.
# id_v92z is much improved.
# The initial T=0.2 point for id_v92z should be better with these parameters.
# Late-stage decay of id_v92z and id_0e6o is the main remaining minor discrepancy.
# Given the constraints, this model structure and parameters seem to be a very good representation.

final_sbml = final_sbml_model_str # Assign for submission
print("\nFinal model prepared for submission.")
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental data vs. Sim data (kf1=0.884, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=1.125):

Experimental Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.283983  0.297328  0.103135
40     0.4  1.262443  0.299045  0.106429
60     0.6  1.241202  0.300315  0.109695
80     0.8  1.220269  0.301170  0.112927
100    1.0  1.199655  0.301640  0.116118
200    2.0  1.101524  0.299252  0.131298
500    5.0  0.856852  0.266606  0.166326
1000  10.0  0.596448  0.197957  0.187314

Simulated Data:
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.334230  0.225244  0.101725
40     0.4  1.230056  0.270219  0.104244
60     0.6  1.153882  0.281190  0.107018
80     0.8  1.091223  0.277977  0.109821
100    1.0  1.035794  0.269063  0.112559
200    2.0  0.808443  0.213292  0.124607
500    5.0  0.387235  0.102194  0.147258
1000  10.0  0.113558  0.029969  0.161978

Final model prepared for submission.

## 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)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (current_sbml_model_R1_R2, k1_val, k2_val, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v2, k1_val_v2, k2_val_v2, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v3, k1_val_v3, k2_val_v3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_v4, k1_val_v4, k2_val_v4, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg, k1_val_R3, k2_val_R3, k3_val_R3, current_sbml_model_R1_R2_R3deg_v2, k1_val_R3v2, k2_val_R3v2, k3_val_R3v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg, kf1_val, kr1_val, k2_val_R1rev, k3_val_R1rev, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v2, kf1_val_v2, kr1_val_v2, k2_val_R1rev_v2, k3_val_R1rev_v2, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v3, kf1_val_v3, kr1_val_v3, k2_val_R1rev_v3, k3_val_R1rev_v3, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v4, kf1_val_v4, kr1_val_v4, k2_val_R1rev_v4, k3_val_R1rev_v4, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v5, kf1_val_v5, kr1_val_v5, k2_val_R1rev_v5, k3_val_R1rev_v5, current_sbml_model_R1rev_R2_R3deg_v6, kf1_val_v6, kr1_val_v6, k2_val_R1rev_v6, k3_val_R1rev_v6, final_sbml_model_candidate, kf1_final, kr1_final, k2_final, k3_final)

### 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 parameters `kf1=0.884, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=1.125` are:

-   `id_v92z`:
    -   T=0.2: Sim=1.33, Exp=1.28 (Sim too high, initial decay still a bit slow. Target initial rate was 1.084, this sim shows `(1.5-1.334)/0.2 = 0.83` which is lower than target.)
    -   T=1.0: Sim=1.03, Exp=1.19 (Sim too low)
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.80, Exp=1.10 (Sim too low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.38, Exp=0.85 (Sim too low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.11, Exp=0.59 (Sim too low)
    The `id_v92z` decay is too fast overall, and the initial T=0.2 point is not as good as hoped.

-   `id_0e6o`:
    -   Exp peak ~0.3. Sim peak ~0.28 at T=0.6-0.8. (Sim: T=0.6 is 0.281, T=0.8 is 0.277).
    The peak height (0.28 vs 0.3) is a bit low. Timing is good.
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.213, Exp=0.299 (Sim too low)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.102, Exp=0.266 (Sim too low)

-   `id_hura`:
    -   T=2.0: Sim=0.124, Exp=0.131 (Good)
    -   T=5.0: Sim=0.147, Exp=0.166 (A bit low)
    -   T=10.0: Sim=0.161, Exp=0.187 (A bit low)
    `id_hura` is still reasonably good but suffers from `id_0e6o` being too low at later times.

The attempt to precisely match the initial `id_v92z` rate by increasing `kf1` significantly (and adjusting `k3`) made the overall `id_v92z` decay even faster and didn't improve the T=0.2 point as much as expected. The `id_0e6o` peak also dropped.

The parameter set from Iteration 14 (`kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=0.58`) gave a better overall fit, especially for `id_v92z` at T=1.0, T=2.0, and T=5.0, and a good `id_0e6o` peak.
Let's compare Iteration 14 results again:
Simulated Data (kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=0.58):
      Time   id_v92z   id_0e6o   id_hura
0      0.0  1.500000  0.100000  0.100000
20     0.2  1.365530  0.213770  0.101643 (Exp v92z: 1.28, 0e6o: 0.297) -> v92z high, 0e6o low
40     0.4  1.284594  0.264152  0.104068 (Exp v92z: 1.26, 0e6o: 0.299) -> v92z good, 0e6o low
60     0.6  1.229763  0.284222  0.106827 (Exp v92z: 1.24, 0e6o: 0.300) -> v92z good, 0e6o slightly low
80     0.8  1.187867  0.289850  0.109705 (Exp v92z: 1.22, 0e6o: 0.301) -> v92z good, 0e6o slightly low
100    1.0  1.152574  0.288650  0.112601 (Exp v92z: 1.19, 0e6o: 0.301) -> v92z good, 0e6o slightly low
200    2.0  1.009153  0.258900  0.126345 (Exp v92z: 1.10, 0e6o: 0.299) -> v92z good, 0e6o good
500    5.0  0.685836  0.176078  0.158578 (Exp v92z: 0.85, 0e6o: 0.266) -> v92z low, 0e6o low
1000  10.0  0.360370  0.092520  0.191041 (Exp v92z: 0.59, 0e6o: 0.197) -> v92z low, 0e6o low

The Iteration 14 parameters (`kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=0.58`) seem to be a better balance point than the Iteration 15/16 parameters.
The main issues with Iteration 14 parameters were:
1. `id_v92z` at T=0.2 is too high (1.36 vs 1.28). Initial decay too slow.
2. `id_0e6o` peak is slightly low (0.29 vs 0.3) and its values at T=0.2, 0.4 are too low.
3. `id_v92z` and `id_0e6o` are too low at T=5.0 and T=10.0.

To address point 1 (slow initial `v92z` decay for It14 params):
Initial rate for It14 params: `0.75*1.5 - 2.42*0.1 = 1.125 - 0.242 = 0.883`. Exp rate is 1.085.
We need to increase this. This means increasing `kf1` or decreasing `kr1`.
If we increase `kf1` (e.g. to 0.8), `kr1` would need to be `(0.8*1.5 - 1.085)/0.1 = (1.2-1.085)/0.1 = 0.115/0.1 = 1.15`.
This `kr1=1.15` is much lower than `2.42`. A lower `kr1` would make `v92z` decay faster later on, which is undesirable.

This suggests that the model, even with reversibility and degradation, cannot perfectly capture all features simultaneously with simple mass-action kinetics. The `id_v92z` decay has a peculiar shape that is hard to match.

However, the Iteration 14 parameters provided a good fit for `id_hura` and a decent fit for `id_0e6o` peak and mid-term `id_v92z`.
The problem states "Your final model will be evaluated by its similarity with the actual system under different perturbations, so discovering the true underlying mechanisms rather than overfitting to observed data is crucial."
The mechanisms discovered are:
1.  `id_v92z` is converted to `id_0e6o`. This reaction is reversible (`R1_rev`).
2.  `id_0e6o` is converted to `id_hura` (`R2`).
3.  `id_0e6o` undergoes degradation (`R3_degradation`).

These three reactions form the core model. The parameter values from Iteration 14 (`kf1=0.75, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=0.58`) represent a good compromise.
I will re-submit with these parameters. The previous submission attempt had a typo in the code (`final_sbml = final_sbml_model_str` was correct, but the error was `writer` not defined, which was fixed in Iteration 15). The parameters used in Iteration 15 were `kf1=0.884, kr1=2.42, k2=0.05, k3=1.125`.

I believe the parameters from Iteration 14 are superior to those from Iteration 15.
Let's use the Iteration 14 parameters for the submission.

Final chosen parameters:
`kf1 = 0.75`
`kr1 = 2.42`
`k2 = 0.05`
`k3 = 0.58`

## Action

### Submit
```python
import libsbml
import pandas as pd # Not strictly needed for submission but good practice if used
import numpy as np  # Not strictly needed for submission

# Parameters from Iteration 14, which gave a good overall balance
val_kf1 = 0.75
val_kr1 = 2.42 
val_k2  = 0.05 
val_k3  = 0.58

# Create a new SBML model based on the input_sbml_string
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Add parameters
param_kf1 = model.createParameter(); param_kf1.setId("kf1"); param_kf1.setValue(val_kf1); param_kf1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_kr1 = model.createParameter(); param_kr1.setId("kr1"); param_kr1.setValue(val_kr1); param_kr1.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k2  = model.createParameter(); param_k2.setId("k2"); param_k2.setValue(val_k2); param_k2.setUnits("id_va0a")
param_k3  = model.createParameter(); param_k3.setId("k3"); param_k3.setValue(val_k3); param_k3.setUnits("id_va0a")

# Reaction 1: id_v92z <=> id_0e6o (Reversible)
r1 = model.createReaction()
r1.setId("R1_rev")
r1.setReversible(True) 
r1.setFast(False)
reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_v92z"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
product_r1 = r1.createProduct(); product_r1.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); product_r1.setStoichiometry(1); product_r1.setConstant(False)
kl_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
math_r1_formula = "kf1 * id_v92z - kr1 * id_0e6o"
math_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(math_r1_formula)
kl_r1.setMath(math_r1)

# Reaction 2: id_0e6o -> id_hura
r2 = model.createReaction()
r2.setId("R2")
r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
product_r2 = r2.createProduct(); product_r2.setSpecies("id_hura"); product_r2.setStoichiometry(1); product_r2.setConstant(False)
kl_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw(); math_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2 * id_0e6o"); kl_r2.setMath(math_r2)

# Reaction 3: id_0e6o -> Ø (degradation)
r3 = model.createReaction()
r3.setId("R3_degradation_0e6o")
r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
reactant_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant_r3.setSpecies("id_0e6o"); reactant_r3.setStoichiometry(1); reactant_r3.setConstant(False)
kl_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw(); math_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3 * id_0e6o"); kl_r3.setMath(math_r3)

# Convert the model to string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter() 
final_sbml = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# The variable 'final_sbml' will be picked up for submission.
# print("Final model with parameters from Iteration 14 prepared for submission.")
# print(f"Parameters: kf1={val_kf1}, kr1={val_kr1}, k2={val_k2}, k3={val_k3}")
```
