
                # Interation 0

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


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

                <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sbml xmlns="http://www.sbml.org/sbml/level2/version4" level="2" version="4">
  <model id="id_t7ma">
    <listOfUnitDefinitions>
      <unitDefinition id="id_vtns">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="metre" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_67s8">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="metre" exponent="2" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_qwzn">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_dpfo">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="second" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="86400"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_vy5t">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" exponent="1" scale="0" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
    </listOfUnitDefinitions>
    <listOfCompartments>
      <compartment id="id_lqze" spatialDimensions="3" size="1" constant="true"/>
    </listOfCompartments>
    <listOfSpecies>
      <species id="id_dqvv" compartment="id_lqze" initialConcentration="0" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_1zyi" compartment="id_lqze" initialConcentration="1000000" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_c29i" compartment="id_lqze" initialConcentration="4000000" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
    </listOfSpecies>
  </model>
</sbml>


                ## Max iterations
                20

                Format your response according to the instructions in the system message.
                
## Thoughts
The initial SBML model defines three species (`id_dqvv`, `id_1zyi`, `id_c29i`) within a single compartment (`id_lqze`).
- `id_dqvv` has an initial concentration of 0.
- `id_1zyi` has an initial concentration of 1,000,000.
- `id_c29i` has an initial concentration of 4,000,000.
There are no reactions defined in the model.

My first step is to observe the system's behavior under default conditions. This will provide a baseline dataset to understand how the species' concentrations change over time. After obtaining this data, I will compare it to a simulation of the current (empty) model. Any changes in concentrations in the experimental data 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_dqvv  id_1zyi  id_c29i
0         0 1.00e+06 4.00e+06
...
6.00e+00  3.96e+03 9.79e+05 8.86e+04
...
1.20e+01  4.11e+03 9.56e+05 2.10e+04
...
1.80e+01  4.20e+03 9.34e+05 1.94e+04
...
2.40e+01  4.29e+03 9.12e+05 1.90e+04
...
3.00e+01  4.38e+03 8.92e+05 1.86e+04
...
3.60e+01  4.46e+03 8.73e+05 1.82e+04
...
4.20e+01  4.54e+03 8.54e+05 1.79e+04
...
4.80e+01  4.62e+03 8.37e+05 1.75e+04
...
5.40e+01  4.70e+03 8.20e+05 1.72e+04
...
6.00e+01  4.78e+03 8.04e+05 1.69e+04
...
6.60e+01  4.86e+03 7.88e+05 1.66e+04
...
7.20e+01  4.94e+03 7.73e+05 1.63e+04
...
7.80e+01  5.02e+03 7.59e+05 1.61e+04
...
8.40e+01  5.09e+03 7.45e+05 1.58e+04
...
9.00e+01  5.17e+03 7.32e+05 1.56e+04
...
9.60e+01  5.24e+03 7.19e+05 1.53e+04
...
1.02e+02  5.31e+03 7.07e+05 1.51e+04
...
1.08e+02  5.39e+03 6.95e+05 1.49e+04
...
1.14e+02  5.46e+03 6.84e+05 1.47e+04
...
1.20e+02  5.53e+03 6.73e+05 1.45e+04
...
1.26e+02  5.60e+03 6.62e+05 1.43e+04
...
1.32e+02  5.67e+03 6.52e+05 1.41e+04
...
1.38e+02  5.74e+03 6.42e+05 1.39e+04
...
1.44e+02  5.80e+03 6.32e+05 1.37e+04
...
1.50e+02  5.87e+03 6.23e+05 1.35e+04
...
1.56e+02  5.94e+03 6.14e+05 1.34e+04
...
1.62e+02  6.01e+03 6.05e+05 1.32e+04
...
1.68e+02  6.07e+03 5.97e+05 1.30e+04
...
1.74e+02  6.14e+03 5.89e+05 1.29e+04
...
1.80e+02  6.20e+03 5.81e+05 1.27e+04
...
1.86e+02  6.27e+03 5.73e+05 1.26e+04
...
1.92e+02  6.33e+03 5.65e+05 1.25e+04
...
1.98e+02  6.40e+03 5.58e+05 1.23e+04
...
2.04e+02  6.46e+03 5.51e+05 1.22e+04
...
2.10e+02  6.52e+03 5.44e+05 1.21e+04
...
2.16e+02  6.59e+03 5.37e+05 1.20e+04
...
2.22e+02  6.65e+03 5.31e+05 1.18e+04
...
2.28e+02  6.71e+03 5.24e+05 1.17e+04
...
2.34e+02  6.77e+03 5.18e+05 1.16e+04
...
2.40e+02  6.83e+03 5.12e+05 1.15e+04
...
2.46e+02  6.90e+03 5.06e+05 1.14e+04
...
2.52e+02  6.96e+03 5.01e+05 1.13e+04
...
2.58e+02  7.02e+03 4.95e+05 1.12e+04
...
2.64e+02  7.08e+03 4.89e+05 1.11e+04
...
2.70e+02  7.14e+03 4.84e+05 1.10e+04
...
2.76e+02  7.20e+03 4.79e+05 1.09e+04
...
2.82e+02  7.26e+03 4.74e+05 1.08e+04
...
2.88e+02  7.32e+03 4.69e+05 1.07e+04
...
3.00e+02  7.44e+03 4.59e+05 1.06e+04

## 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 that `id_dqvv` increases, while `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` decrease. The magnitudes of these changes are significantly different:
- `Δ[id_dqvv]` ≈ +7,440
- `Δ[id_1zyi]` ≈ -541,000
- `Δ[id_c29i]` ≈ -3,989,400

This disparity suggests that a single reaction with 1:1:1 stoichiometry (e.g., `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`) cannot explain all observations. If this were the only reaction producing `id_dqvv`, and it consumed `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` in a 1:1 ratio with `id_dqvv` production, then the consumption of `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` would be far too low compared to the experimental data.

My strategy is to incrementally build the model:
1.  Introduce a reaction for the production of `id_dqvv` from `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i`. I'll start with simple 1:1 stoichiometry for the reactants in this specific reaction: `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`.
2.  Estimate the rate constant `k1` for this reaction based on the initial rate of `id_dqvv` production from the experimental data.
    - Initial `[id_1zyi] = 10^6`, `[id_c29i] = 4 \times 10^6`.
    - At `t=6.0`, `[id_dqvv] = 3960`. Approximate initial rate `Δ[id_dqvv]/Δt ≈ 3960 / 6.0 = 660`.
    - Rate law: `d[id_dqvv]/dt = k1 * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`.
    - `660 = k1 * (10^6) * (4 \times 10^6) = k1 * 4 \times 10^{12}`.
    - `k1 = 660 / (4 \times 10^{12}) = 165 \times 10^{-12} = 1.65 \times 10^{-10}`.
3.  Simulate this model (`model_v1`).
4.  Compare the simulation results with the experimental data. I expect `id_dqvv` production to be somewhat matched (at least initially), but the consumption of `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` in the simulation will be much lower than observed experimentally. This will confirm the need for additional reactions that consume `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i`.

Regarding SBML versions: The input model is SBML Level 2 Version 4. The libSBML example in the prompt uses some Level 3 specific calls (e.g., `reaction.setFast(False)`, `speciesReference.setConstant(...)`). I will include these as per the example, assuming the environment's libSBML/simulator handles this gracefully (either by ignoring L3-specific attributes not applicable to L2 or by internally managing conversions if the model is treated as L3). For `speciesReference.setConstant()`, based on SBML L3 specifications for species that are not themselves constant, this attribute on the reference should be `false`.

## Action

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

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

# Reaction 1: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1_prod_dqvv")
reaction1.setReversible(False)
reaction1.setFast(False)  # L3 specific, included as per prompt example

# Reactant: id_1zyi
reactant1_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant1_r1.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r1.setConstant(False) # L3 specific, should be false for non-constant species

# Reactant: id_c29i
reactant2_r1 = reaction1.createReactant()
reactant2_r1.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant2_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant2_r1.setConstant(False) # L3 specific, should be false for non-constant species

# Product: id_dqvv
product1_r1 = reaction1.createProduct()
product1_r1.setSpecies("id_dqvv")
product1_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product1_r1.setConstant(False) # L3 specific, should be false for non-constant species

# Kinetic Law for R1
k1_val = 1.65e-10  # Estimated from initial rate of id_dqvv production
kinetic_law_r1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()

k1_param = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter()
k1_param.setId("k1_R1")
k1_param.setValue(k1_val)
k1_param.setConstant(True)
# It's good practice to set units, but for now, we'll focus on the value.
# e.g. k1_param.setUnits("per_concentration_per_time") if known, or "dimensionless"

# Using parseL3Formula as in the prompt's example
formula_r1 = "k1_R1 * id_1zyi * id_c29i"
math_ast_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r1)
kinetic_law_r1.setMath(math_ast_r1)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_v1 = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Store the model for potential future use and simulation
shared_variables.add("model_v1_sbml_string", updated_sbml_v1)

# Simulate this model
sim_data_v1 = simulate(updated_sbml_v1)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v1", sim_data_v1)

# Print comparison
print("Model v1 (R1: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv) created and simulated.")

print("\nSimulated data v1 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v1.head())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].head())

print("\nSimulated data v1 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v1.tail())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].tail())

# Calculate and print total changes for each species
exp_data = experiment_history["iteration_0"]

sim_dqvv_change = sim_data_v1['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v1['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change = exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nChange in id_dqvv: Simulated = {sim_dqvv_change:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_dqvv_change:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change = sim_data_v1['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v1['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change = exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_1zyi: Simulated = {sim_1zyi_change:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_1zyi_change:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change = sim_data_v1['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v1['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change = exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_c29i: Simulated = {sim_c29i_change:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_c29i_change:.2e}")
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v1 (R1: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv) created and simulated.

Simulated data v1 (first 5 rows):
      id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0    0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1  197.975504   999802.024496  3.999802e+06   0.3
2  395.902027   999604.097973  3.999604e+06   0.6
3  593.779594   999406.220406  3.999406e+06   0.9
4  791.608191   999208.391809  3.999208e+06   1.2

Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2

Simulated data v1 (last 5 rows):
            id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   175283.979231  824716.020769  3.824716e+06  298.8
997   175440.099496  824559.900504  3.824560e+06  299.1
998   175596.183832  824403.816168  3.824404e+06  299.4
999   175752.232248  824247.767752  3.824248e+06  299.7
1000  175908.244755  824091.755245  3.824092e+06  300.0

Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

Change in id_dqvv: Simulated = 1.76e+05, Experimental = 7.44e+03
Change in id_1zyi: Simulated = -1.76e+05, Experimental = -5.41e+05
Change in id_c29i: Simulated = -1.76e+05, Experimental = -3.99e+06

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1)

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


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



# Iteration 2
## Thoughts
The previous simulation (`model_v1`) with a single reaction `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` showed significant deviations from experimental data. `id_dqvv` was overproduced, while the consumption of `id_1zyi` and especially `id_c29i` was grossly underestimated.

This indicates that:
1.  There are likely other reactions consuming `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` that do not produce `id_dqvv`.
2.  The rate constant for `id_dqvv` production might have been overestimated, or `id_dqvv` itself might be consumed (though its concentration increases from zero, so production must be dominant if consumption exists).

I will now construct `model_v2` with three reactions based on analysis of the overall changes in species concentrations:
*   **R1: `id_c29i -> `** (Degradation of `id_c29i`)
    *   This accounts for the large decrease in `id_c29i` that is not coupled to `id_dqvv` production or `id_1zyi` consumption in a 1:1 manner with `id_dqvv`.
    *   Estimated rate constant `k_c29i_deg = 0.01766 s^-1`.
*   **R2: `id_1zyi -> `** (Degradation of `id_1zyi`)
    *   This accounts for the decrease in `id_1zyi` beyond what would be consumed to produce the observed amount of `id_dqvv`.
    *   Estimated rate constant `k_1zyi_deg = 0.00254 s^-1`.
*   **R3: `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`** (Production of `id_dqvv`)
    *   This reaction remains the source of `id_dqvv`.
    *   Estimated rate constant `k_prod_dqvv = 1.694e-11 molecule^-1 s^-1` (assuming concentrations are in molecules/volume and volume is 1).

These rate constants were estimated by considering the total change in each species over the 300s duration of the experiment, attributing the `id_dqvv` production entirely to R3, and the remaining consumption of `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` to their respective degradation reactions (R1 and R2).

I will create this new SBML model and simulate it to compare with the experimental data.

## Action

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

# Load the initial SBML model string
sbml_doc_v2 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v2 = sbml_doc_v2.getModel()

# Define rate constants estimated in thought process
k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766  # For R1: id_c29i ->
k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254   # For R2: id_1zyi ->
k_prod_dqvv_val = 1.694e-11 # For R3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv

# Reaction 1: id_c29i -> (degradation)
r1_v2 = model_v2.createReaction()
r1_v2.setId("R_c29i_degradation")
r1_v2.setReversible(False)
r1_v2.setFast(False)

reactant_r1_v2 = r1_v2.createReactant()
reactant_r1_v2.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant_r1_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r1_v2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r1_v2 = r1_v2.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r1_v2 = kinetic_law_r1_v2.createParameter()
k_param_r1_v2.setId("k_c29i_deg")
k_param_r1_v2.setValue(k_c29i_deg_val)
k_param_r1_v2.setConstant(True)
formula_r1_v2 = "k_c29i_deg * id_c29i"
math_ast_r1_v2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r1_v2)
kinetic_law_r1_v2.setMath(math_ast_r1_v2)

# Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
r2_v2 = model_v2.createReaction()
r2_v2.setId("R_1zyi_degradation")
r2_v2.setReversible(False)
r2_v2.setFast(False)

reactant_r2_v2 = r2_v2.createReactant()
reactant_r2_v2.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant_r2_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r2_v2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r2_v2 = r2_v2.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r2_v2 = kinetic_law_r2_v2.createParameter()
k_param_r2_v2.setId("k_1zyi_deg")
k_param_r2_v2.setValue(k_1zyi_deg_val)
k_param_r2_v2.setConstant(True)
formula_r2_v2 = "k_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"
math_ast_r2_v2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r2_v2)
kinetic_law_r2_v2.setMath(math_ast_r2_v2)

# Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
r3_v2 = model_v2.createReaction()
r3_v2.setId("R_dqvv_production")
r3_v2.setReversible(False)
r3_v2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createReactant()
reactant1_r3_v2.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant1_r3_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3_v2.setConstant(False)

reactant2_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createReactant()
reactant2_r3_v2.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant2_r3_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant2_r3_v2.setConstant(False)

product_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createProduct()
product_r3_v2.setSpecies("id_dqvv")
product_r3_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product_r3_v2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r3_v2 = kinetic_law_r3_v2.createParameter()
k_param_r3_v2.setId("k_prod_dqvv")
k_param_r3_v2.setValue(k_prod_dqvv_val)
k_param_r3_v2.setConstant(True)
formula_r3_v2 = "k_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"
math_ast_r3_v2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r3_v2)
kinetic_law_r3_v2.setMath(math_ast_r3_v2)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_v2 = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_v2)

# Store the model for potential future use and simulation
shared_variables.add("model_v2_sbml_string", updated_sbml_v2)

# Simulate this model
sim_data_v2 = simulate(updated_sbml_v2)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v2", sim_data_v2)

print("Model v2 (3 reactions) created and simulated.")

print("\nSimulated data v2 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v2.head())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].head())

print("\nSimulated data v2 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v2.tail())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].tail())

# Calculate and print total changes for each species
exp_data = experiment_history["iteration_0"]

sim_dqvv_change_v2 = sim_data_v2['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v2['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change = exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nChange in id_dqvv: Simulated_v2 = {sim_dqvv_change_v2:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_dqvv_change:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v2 = sim_data_v2['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v2['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change = exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v2 = {sim_1zyi_change_v2:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_1zyi_change:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v2 = sim_data_v2['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v2['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change = exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v2 = {sim_c29i_change_v2:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_c29i_change:.2e}")

# Calculate Root Mean Squared Log Error (RMSLE) for each species
def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    # Adding a small epsilon to avoid log(0)
    epsilon = 1e-9
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true + epsilon))))

# Ensure time points align for comparison if necessary (assuming they do from simulate)
# For simplicity, comparing full series if lengths match.
# The simulate function should return data at the same time points as experimental data.
# If not, interpolation would be needed. Assuming they match for now.

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v2 vs experimental:")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    # Ensure that we are comparing the same time points.
    # The simulation output from `simulate` should have the same time points as the experimental data.
    # Let's merge based on time to be sure, or assume `simulate` is well-behaved.
    # For now, let's assume the time points are aligned and dataframes have same length.
    # If experiment_history["iteration_0"] has more timepoints, slice sim_data_v2 if needed.
    # Or, more robustly, merge. For now, direct comparison.
    
    # Check if lengths match, if not, it means simulate might be using different time steps or duration
    if len(sim_data_v2[species]) == len(exp_data[species]):
        true_values = exp_data[species].values
        pred_values = sim_data_v2[species].values
        error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
        print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
    else:
        print(f"Warning: Length mismatch for {species}. Sim: {len(sim_data_v2[species])}, Exp: {len(exp_data[species])}. RMSLE not computed.")

```
# Observation

## Code Stderror
 name 'np' is not defined

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2)

### 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 code execution failed because `numpy` was not imported as `np`. I need to add `import numpy as np` at the beginning of the script.

The rest of the logic for `model_v2` (three reactions: `id_c29i ->`, `id_1zyi ->`, and `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`) and the calculation of RMSLE seems sound. I will re-run the code with the import fix.

The rate constants used were:
*   `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766`
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254`
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val = 1.694e-11`

These were estimated based on the overall changes in species concentrations from the first experiment. The simulation results will show how well this simplified estimation works.

## Action

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

# Load the initial SBML model string
sbml_doc_v2 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v2 = sbml_doc_v2.getModel()

# Define rate constants estimated in thought process
k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766  # For R1: id_c29i ->
k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254   # For R2: id_1zyi ->
k_prod_dqvv_val = 1.694e-11 # For R3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv

# Reaction 1: id_c29i -> (degradation)
r1_v2 = model_v2.createReaction()
r1_v2.setId("R_c29i_degradation")
r1_v2.setReversible(False)
r1_v2.setFast(False)

reactant_r1_v2 = r1_v2.createReactant()
reactant_r1_v2.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant_r1_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r1_v2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r1_v2 = r1_v2.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r1_v2 = kinetic_law_r1_v2.createParameter()
k_param_r1_v2.setId("k_c29i_deg")
k_param_r1_v2.setValue(k_c29i_deg_val)
k_param_r1_v2.setConstant(True)
formula_r1_v2 = "k_c29i_deg * id_c29i"
math_ast_r1_v2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r1_v2)
kinetic_law_r1_v2.setMath(math_ast_r1_v2)

# Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
r2_v2 = model_v2.createReaction()
r2_v2.setId("R_1zyi_degradation")
r2_v2.setReversible(False)
r2_v2.setFast(False)

reactant_r2_v2 = r2_v2.createReactant()
reactant_r2_v2.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant_r2_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r2_v2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r2_v2 = r2_v2.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r2_v2 = kinetic_law_r2_v2.createParameter()
k_param_r2_v2.setId("k_1zyi_deg")
k_param_r2_v2.setValue(k_1zyi_deg_val)
k_param_r2_v2.setConstant(True)
formula_r2_v2 = "k_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"
math_ast_r2_v2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r2_v2)
kinetic_law_r2_v2.setMath(math_ast_r2_v2)

# Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
r3_v2 = model_v2.createReaction()
r3_v2.setId("R_dqvv_production")
r3_v2.setReversible(False)
r3_v2.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createReactant()
reactant1_r3_v2.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant1_r3_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3_v2.setConstant(False)

reactant2_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createReactant()
reactant2_r3_v2.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant2_r3_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant2_r3_v2.setConstant(False)

product_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createProduct()
product_r3_v2.setSpecies("id_dqvv")
product_r3_v2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product_r3_v2.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r3_v2 = r3_v2.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r3_v2 = kinetic_law_r3_v2.createParameter()
k_param_r3_v2.setId("k_prod_dqvv")
k_param_r3_v2.setValue(k_prod_dqvv_val)
k_param_r3_v2.setConstant(True)
formula_r3_v2 = "k_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"
math_ast_r3_v2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r3_v2)
kinetic_law_r3_v2.setMath(math_ast_r3_v2)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_v2 = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_v2)

# Store the model for potential future use and simulation
shared_variables.add("model_v2_sbml_string", updated_sbml_v2)

# Simulate this model
sim_data_v2 = simulate(updated_sbml_v2)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v2", sim_data_v2)

print("Model v2 (3 reactions) created and simulated.")

print("\nSimulated data v2 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v2.head())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].head())

print("\nSimulated data v2 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v2.tail())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].tail())

# Calculate and print total changes for each species
exp_data = experiment_history["iteration_0"]

sim_dqvv_change_v2 = sim_data_v2['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v2['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change = exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nChange in id_dqvv: Simulated_v2 = {sim_dqvv_change_v2:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_dqvv_change:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v2 = sim_data_v2['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v2['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change = exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v2 = {sim_1zyi_change_v2:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_1zyi_change:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v2 = sim_data_v2['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v2['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change = exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v2 = {sim_c29i_change_v2:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_c29i_change:.2e}")

# Calculate Root Mean Squared Log Error (RMSLE) for each species
def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    # Adding a small epsilon to avoid log(0)
    epsilon = 1e-9
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true + epsilon))))

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v2 vs experimental:")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    # Ensure that we are comparing the same time points.
    # The simulation output from `simulate` should have the same time points as the experimental data.
    # Let's merge based on time to be sure, or assume `simulate` is well-behaved.
    # For now, let's assume the time points are aligned and dataframes have same length.
    # If experiment_history["iteration_0"] has more timepoints, slice sim_data_v2 if needed.
    # Or, more robustly, merge. For now, direct comparison.
    
    # Check if lengths match, if not, it means simulate might be using different time steps or duration
    if len(sim_data_v2[species]) == len(exp_data[species]):
        true_values = exp_data[species].values
        pred_values = sim_data_v2[species].values
        error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
        print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
    else:
        print(f"Warning: Length mismatch for {species}. Sim: {len(sim_data_v2[species])}, Exp: {len(exp_data[species])}. RMSLE not computed.")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v2 (3 reactions) created and simulated.

Simulated data v2 (first 5 rows):
     id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0   0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1  20.266277   999218.031697  3.978844e+06   0.3
2  40.409602   998436.781931  3.957800e+06   0.6
3  60.430723   997656.249407  3.936867e+06   0.9
4  80.330382   996876.432839  3.916044e+06   1.2

Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2

Simulated data v2 (last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   3338.016424  466374.561552  20363.106098  298.8
997   3338.064540  466019.271403  20255.460663  299.1
998   3338.112366  465664.252173  20148.384158  299.4
999   3338.159902  465309.503653  20041.873575  299.7
1000  3338.207151  464955.025635  19935.925923  300.0

Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

Change in id_dqvv: Simulated_v2 = 3.34e+03, Experimental = 7.44e+03
Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v2 = -5.35e+05, Experimental = -5.41e+05
Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v2 = -3.98e+06, Experimental = -3.99e+06

RMSLE values for model_v2 vs experimental:
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.8882
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0662
RMSLE for id_c29i: 3.2089

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_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 `model_v2` simulation results show:
-   **`id_dqvv`**: Production is significantly underestimated (Simulated: 3.34e+03, Experimental: 7.44e+03). RMSLE is high (0.8882).
-   **`id_1zyi`**: Consumption is fairly well matched (Simulated: -5.35e+05, Experimental: -5.41e+05). RMSLE is low (0.0662).
-   **`id_c29i`**: Consumption is well matched (Simulated: -3.98e+06, Experimental: -3.99e+06). However, the RMSLE is very high (3.2089). This suggests that while the total consumption is similar, the *dynamics* (shape of the curve) are not well captured. Looking at the initial vs. final values, the simulation for `id_c29i` ends at ~19935, while the experiment ends at ~10577. The experimental `id_c29i` drops much faster initially.

The high RMSLE for `id_c29i` despite matching total consumption, and the underproduction of `id_dqvv`, suggest that the rate constants, particularly for `id_dqvv` production (`k_prod_dqvv`) and `id_c29i` degradation (`k_c29i_deg`), need adjustment. The initial rate of `id_c29i` decrease in the experiment is much faster than in `model_v2`.

Let's re-evaluate the rate constants.
The previous estimation was based on total change. This might not be optimal if reactions have different time dependencies.

**Strategy for `model_v3`:**
1.  **Increase `k_prod_dqvv`**: Since `id_dqvv` is underproduced by about a factor of 2 (7440/3340 ≈ 2.2), I'll try increasing `k_prod_dqvv` by this factor.
    New `k_prod_dqvv` = `1.694e-11 * 2.2 = 3.7268e-11`.
2.  **Adjust `k_c29i_deg`**: The experimental `id_c29i` drops very rapidly. The current first-order degradation might not be sufficient or the rate constant is too low.
    Let's look at the initial rates from `experiment_history["iteration_0"]`:
    - `id_c29i` at t=0 is 4e6, at t=0.3 is 3.268e6. Change = -0.732e6.
    - `id_1zyi` at t=0 is 1e6, at t=0.3 is 0.999468e6. Change = -532.
    - `id_dqvv` at t=0 is 0, at t=0.3 is 728. Change = +728.

    Rate of `id_dqvv` production (R3) at t=0: `k_prod_dqvv * [id_1zyi]_0 * [id_c29i]_0`.
    If we use the *new* `k_prod_dqvv = 3.7268e-11`:
    Initial R3 rate = `3.7268e-11 * 1e6 * 4e6 = 3.7268e-11 * 4e12 = 149.072`.
    This means R3 consumes `id_c29i` at an initial rate of `149.072`.
    Total initial consumption rate of `id_c29i` (experimental) ≈ `0.732e6 / 0.3 = 2.44e6`.
    Rate of `id_c29i` degradation (R1) = Total consumption - R3 consumption
    `k_c29i_deg * [id_c29i]_0 = 2.44e6 - 149.072`
    `k_c29i_deg * 4e6 ≈ 2.44e6`
    `k_c29i_deg ≈ 2.44e6 / 4e6 = 0.61`. This is much higher than the previous `0.01766`.

3.  **Adjust `k_1zyi_deg`**:
    Initial R3 rate consumes `id_1zyi` at `149.072`.
    Total initial consumption rate of `id_1zyi` (experimental) ≈ `532 / 0.3 = 1773.33`.
    Rate of `id_1zyi` degradation (R2) = Total consumption - R3 consumption
    `k_1zyi_deg * [id_1zyi]_0 = 1773.33 - 149.072 = 1624.258`
    `k_1zyi_deg * 1e6 = 1624.258`
    `k_1zyi_deg ≈ 1624.258 / 1e6 = 0.001624`. This is slightly lower than the previous `0.00254`.

**New proposed rate constants for `model_v3`:**
*   `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.61`
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.001624`
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val = 3.7268e-11`

I will build `model_v3` with these new constants and simulate. The large increase in `k_c29i_deg` should address the rapid initial drop of `id_c29i`.

## Action

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

# Load the initial SBML model string
sbml_doc_v3 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v3 = sbml_doc_v3.getModel()

# Define new rate constants for model_v3
k_c29i_deg_val_v3 = 0.61       # Adjusted based on initial experimental drop
k_1zyi_deg_val_v3 = 0.001624   # Adjusted based on initial experimental drop and new k_prod_dqvv
k_prod_dqvv_val_v3 = 3.7268e-11 # Increased to match id_dqvv production

# Reaction 1: id_c29i -> (degradation)
r1_v3 = model_v3.createReaction()
r1_v3.setId("R_c29i_degradation")
r1_v3.setReversible(False)
r1_v3.setFast(False)

reactant_r1_v3 = r1_v3.createReactant()
reactant_r1_v3.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant_r1_v3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r1_v3.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r1_v3 = r1_v3.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r1_v3 = kinetic_law_r1_v3.createParameter()
k_param_r1_v3.setId("k_c29i_deg")
k_param_r1_v3.setValue(k_c29i_deg_val_v3)
k_param_r1_v3.setConstant(True)
formula_r1_v3 = "k_c29i_deg * id_c29i"
math_ast_r1_v3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r1_v3)
kinetic_law_r1_v3.setMath(math_ast_r1_v3)

# Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
r2_v3 = model_v3.createReaction()
r2_v3.setId("R_1zyi_degradation")
r2_v3.setReversible(False)
r2_v3.setFast(False)

reactant_r2_v3 = r2_v3.createReactant()
reactant_r2_v3.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant_r2_v3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r2_v3.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r2_v3 = r2_v3.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r2_v3 = kinetic_law_r2_v3.createParameter()
k_param_r2_v3.setId("k_1zyi_deg")
k_param_r2_v3.setValue(k_1zyi_deg_val_v3)
k_param_r2_v3.setConstant(True)
formula_r2_v3 = "k_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"
math_ast_r2_v3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r2_v3)
kinetic_law_r2_v3.setMath(math_ast_r2_v3)

# Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
r3_v3 = model_v3.createReaction()
r3_v3.setId("R_dqvv_production")
r3_v3.setReversible(False)
r3_v3.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3_v3 = r3_v3.createReactant()
reactant1_r3_v3.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant1_r3_v3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3_v3.setConstant(False)

reactant2_r3_v3 = r3_v3.createReactant()
reactant2_r3_v3.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant2_r3_v3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant2_r3_v3.setConstant(False)

product_r3_v3 = r3_v3.createProduct()
product_r3_v3.setSpecies("id_dqvv")
product_r3_v3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product_r3_v3.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r3_v3 = r3_v3.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r3_v3 = kinetic_law_r3_v3.createParameter()
k_param_r3_v3.setId("k_prod_dqvv")
k_param_r3_v3.setValue(k_prod_dqvv_val_v3)
k_param_r3_v3.setConstant(True)
formula_r3_v3 = "k_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"
math_ast_r3_v3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r3_v3)
kinetic_law_r3_v3.setMath(math_ast_r3_v3)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_v3 = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_v3)

# Store the model for potential future use and simulation
shared_variables.add("model_v3_sbml_string", updated_sbml_v3)

# Simulate this model
sim_data_v3 = simulate(updated_sbml_v3)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v3", sim_data_v3)

print("Model v3 (3 reactions, adjusted constants) created and simulated.")

print("\nSimulated data v3 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v3.head())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].head())

print("\nSimulated data v3 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v3.tail())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].tail())

# Calculate and print total changes for each species
exp_data = experiment_history["iteration_0"]

sim_dqvv_change_v3 = sim_data_v3['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v3['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change = exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nChange in id_dqvv: Simulated_v3 = {sim_dqvv_change_v3:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_dqvv_change:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v3 = sim_data_v3['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v3['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change = exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v3 = {sim_1zyi_change_v3:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_1zyi_change:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v3 = sim_data_v3['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v3['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change = exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v3 = {sim_c29i_change_v3:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_c29i_change:.2e}")

# Calculate Root Mean Squared Log Error (RMSLE) for each species
def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    epsilon = 1e-9
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true + epsilon))))

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v3 vs experimental:")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    if len(sim_data_v3[species]) == len(exp_data[species]):
        true_values = exp_data[species].values
        pred_values = sim_data_v3[species].values
        error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
        print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
    else:
        print(f"Warning: Length mismatch for {species}. Sim: {len(sim_data_v3[species])}, Exp: {len(exp_data[species])}. RMSLE not computed.")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v3 (3 reactions, adjusted constants) created and simulated.

Simulated data v3 (first 5 rows):
      id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0    0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   40.857421   999472.071497  3.331036e+06   0.3
2   74.864072   998951.249189  2.773949e+06   0.6
3  103.168699   998436.381156  2.310030e+06   0.9
4  126.727501   997926.508540  1.923698e+06   1.2

Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2

Simulated data v3 (last 5 rows):
         id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   243.686893  615396.715616 -1.644020e-10  298.8
997   243.686893  615096.969802 -1.528094e-10  299.1
998   243.686893  614797.369614 -1.408142e-10  299.4
999   243.686893  614497.914974 -1.284114e-10  299.7
1000  243.686893  614198.605809 -1.155956e-10  300.0

Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

Change in id_dqvv: Simulated_v3 = 2.44e+02, Experimental = 7.44e+03
Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v3 = -3.86e+05, Experimental = -5.41e+05
Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v3 = -4.00e+06, Experimental = -3.99e+06

RMSLE values for model_v3 vs experimental:
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 3.1570
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.2182
RMSLE for id_c29i: 9.1927

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_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 `model_v3` simulation results are much worse than `model_v2`:
-   **`id_dqvv`**: Production is now severely underestimated (Simulated: 244, Experimental: 7440). RMSLE increased significantly to 3.1570.
-   **`id_1zyi`**: Consumption is now underestimated (Simulated: -3.86e+05, Experimental: -5.41e+05). RMSLE increased to 0.2182.
-   **`id_c29i`**: Total consumption is matched, but the dynamics are terrible. `id_c29i` goes to near zero (negative in simulation due to numerical issues, which is a red flag for the model or parameters) very quickly. RMSLE is extremely high (9.1927).

The attempt to match initial rates by drastically increasing `k_c29i_deg` was a mistake. It caused `id_c29i` to deplete too rapidly, shutting down the production of `id_dqvv` (which depends on `id_c29i`) and also affecting `id_1zyi` consumption through the production reaction.

This suggests that the simple first-order degradation for `id_c29i` might be incorrect, or the interplay of parameters is more complex. The fact that `id_c29i` goes negative in the simulation is a strong indicator that the model structure or parameters are flawed, likely the very high `k_c29i_deg`.

Let's reconsider `model_v2`'s parameters as a better starting point and think about how to improve `id_dqvv` production and `id_c29i` dynamics.

`model_v2` parameters:
*   `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766`
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254`
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val = 1.694e-11`

`model_v2` results:
*   `id_dqvv`: Simulated 3.34e+03 vs Exp 7.44e+03 (underproduced by ~2.2x)
*   `id_1zyi`: Simulated -5.35e+05 vs Exp -5.41e+05 (good match)
*   `id_c29i`: Simulated -3.98e+06 vs Exp -3.99e+06 (good total match, but RMSLE 3.2089, final sim conc. ~19935 vs exp. ~10577)

The main issue with `model_v2` was the underproduction of `id_dqvv` and the `id_c29i` dynamics (RMSLE).
If we increase `k_prod_dqvv` from `model_v2`, it will increase `id_dqvv` production, but also increase consumption of `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i`.
Since `id_1zyi` consumption was already good in `model_v2`, increasing its consumption via R3 would make it worse unless `k_1zyi_deg` is decreased.
Increasing `id_c29i` consumption via R3 might help its dynamics if `k_c29i_deg` is also adjusted.

Let's try a more systematic approach.
The system seems to be:
1.  `id_c29i -> ` (R_c29i_deg)
2.  `id_1zyi -> ` (R_1zyi_deg)
3.  `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (R_dqvv_prod)

Target changes at t=300s (from experiment):
`Δ[id_dqvv]` = +7435
`Δ[id_1zyi]` = -540677
`Δ[id_c29i]` = -3989423

Let `N_dqvv_prod` be the total amount of `id_dqvv` produced by R3 over 300s.
So, `N_dqvv_prod = 7435`.
This means R3 consumes `7435` of `id_1zyi` and `7435` of `id_c29i`.

Total `id_1zyi` consumed = `N_1zyi_deg` (from R2) + `N_dqvv_prod` (from R3)
`540677 = N_1zyi_deg + 7435`
`N_1zyi_deg = 540677 - 7435 = 533242`

Total `id_c29i` consumed = `N_c29i_deg` (from R1) + `N_dqvv_prod` (from R3)
`3989423 = N_c29i_deg + 7435`
`N_c29i_deg = 3989423 - 7435 = 3981988`

Now we need to find rate constants `k1, k2, k3` such that these amounts are produced/consumed over 300s. This is tricky because the concentrations change over time.
The previous `model_v2` parameters were:
*   `k_c29i_deg = 0.01766` (R1)
*   `k_1zyi_deg = 0.00254` (R2)
*   `k_prod_dqvv = 1.694e-11` (R3)

With these, `model_v2` produced `sim_dqvv_change_v2 = 3338`. We want `7435`.
Ratio = `7435 / 3338 ≈ 2.227`.
Let's try increasing `k_prod_dqvv` by this ratio:
New `k_prod_dqvv_v4 = 1.694e-11 * 2.227 = 3.7725e-11`.

If `k_prod_dqvv` is increased, then R3 will consume more `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i`.
In `model_v2`, R3 consumed `3338` of `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i`.
New R3 consumption (target) is `7435`.
Increase in consumption by R3 = `7435 - 3338 = 4097`.

For `id_1zyi`:
`model_v2` total consumption: `535045`.
`model_v2` R2 consumption (`N_1zyi_deg_v2`) = `535045 - 3338 = 531707`.
We want total `id_1zyi` consumption to be `540677`.
If R3 now consumes `7435`, then new `N_1zyi_deg_v4` should be `540677 - 7435 = 533242`.
This is very close to `N_1zyi_deg_v2` (`531707`). So `k_1zyi_deg` from `model_v2` (`0.00254`) might still be okay or need slight adjustment.
Let's keep `k_1zyi_deg_v4 = 0.00254` for now.

For `id_c29i`:
`model_v2` total consumption: `3980065` (from `sim_c29i_change_v2` which was `3.98e+06` but `id_c29i` started at `4e6` and ended at `19935`, so `4e6 - 19935 = 3980065`).
`model_v2` R1 consumption (`N_c29i_deg_v2`) = `3980065 - 3338 = 3976727`.
We want total `id_c29i` consumption to be `3989423`.
If R3 now consumes `7435`, then new `N_c29i_deg_v4` should be `3989423 - 7435 = 3981988`.
This is very close to `N_c29i_deg_v2` (`3976727`). So `k_c29i_deg` from `model_v2` (`0.01766`) might still be okay or need slight adjustment.
Let's keep `k_c29i_deg_v4 = 0.01766` for now.

So, for `model_v4`, the primary change is to `k_prod_dqvv`.
**Proposed parameters for `model_v4`:**
*   `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766` (same as model_v2)
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254` (same as model_v2)
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val = 3.7725e-11` (increased from model_v2 by factor of 2.227)

This is a more targeted adjustment than `model_v3`. The main goal is to get `id_dqvv` levels right. The impact on `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` total consumption should be relatively small because the amount produced by R3 is small compared to their total degradation. The RMSLE for `id_c29i` might still be an issue.

Let's try this. If this doesn't work, I might need to consider a different functional form for the degradation of `id_c29i` or add a reaction that consumes `id_dqvv`. However, `id_dqvv` starts at 0 and increases, so production must be dominant.

One more check: the initial rate of `id_dqvv` production with `k_prod_dqvv_v4 = 3.7725e-11`:
Rate = `3.7725e-11 * 1e6 * 4e6 = 3.7725e-11 * 4e12 = 150.9`.
Experimental initial rate of `id_dqvv` (t=0 to t=0.3): `728 / 0.3 = 2426.67`.
The calculated initial rate (150.9) is much lower than the observed initial rate (2426.67). This suggests that even this `k_prod_dqvv_v4` might be too low if the model structure is correct.
The discrepancy implies that either:
a) The model `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` is too simple for `id_dqvv` production.
b) The initial estimates for degradation rates (which affect reactant availability) are off.
c) The system is more complex, e.g., `id_c29i` might be involved in producing `id_dqvv` with a higher rate or different mechanism initially.

Let's re-evaluate `k_prod_dqvv` based on the initial experimental rate of `id_dqvv` production.
`d[id_dqvv]/dt = k_prod * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`
`2426.67 = k_prod * (1e6) * (4e6)`
`k_prod = 2426.67 / (4e12) = 606.6675e-12 = 6.0667e-10`.

This `k_prod` is `6.0667e-10 / 1.694e-11 ≈ 35.8` times larger than `model_v2`'s `k_prod_dqvv`.
And `6.0667e-10 / 3.7725e-11 ≈ 16` times larger than the `k_prod_dqvv_v4` I just proposed.

If `k_prod_dqvv` is this high (`6.0667e-10`), then the consumption of `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` by this reaction will be much higher.
Let's use this `k_prod_dqvv_v4_alt = 6.0667e-10`.
Initial consumption of `id_1zyi` by R3 = `2426.67`.
Initial consumption of `id_c29i` by R3 = `2426.67`.

Experimental initial rate of `id_1zyi` consumption: `(1e6 - 999468.62) / 0.3 = 531.38 / 0.3 = 1771.27`.
This is problematic: `k_1zyi_deg * [id_1zyi]_0 = 1771.27 - 2426.67 = -655.4`. A negative degradation rate is not possible.
This implies that the reaction `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` with mass action kinetics based on initial concentrations cannot simultaneously explain the high initial `id_dqvv` production and the observed initial `id_1zyi` consumption.

This is a critical point. It suggests a potential flaw in the assumed reaction for `id_dqvv` production or that other reactions are at play that we haven't considered, or the initial data point is noisy.

Let's stick to the plan of adjusting `model_v2`'s parameters by first targeting the total `id_dqvv` production, as that was the most direct approach.
So, `k_prod_dqvv_val = 3.7725e-11`.
The other parameters `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766` and `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254` will be kept from `model_v2`.
This `model_v4` is a minimal modification of `model_v2` to fix `id_dqvv` total production. We'll see how it affects RMSLEs.

If `id_c29i` RMSLE is still bad, it might be that its degradation is not first order, or it's consumed in another reaction not yet identified.
The fact that `id_c29i` drops very fast initially in the experiment, and then its rate of decrease slows down (from 4e6 to 1.78e6 in 1.2s, then to 1e4 by 300s) is characteristic of a reactant being consumed. A simple first-order decay might not capture this well if other reactions involving it are also significant and change rate.

Let's proceed with `model_v4` using:
*   `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.01766`
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254`
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val = 3.7725e-11`

## Action

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

# Load the initial SBML model string
sbml_doc_v4 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_v4 = sbml_doc_v4.getModel()

# Define rate constants for model_v4
# Based on model_v2, with k_prod_dqvv adjusted to match total id_dqvv production
k_c29i_deg_val_v4 = 0.01766   # From model_v2
k_1zyi_deg_val_v4 = 0.00254    # From model_v2
k_prod_dqvv_val_v4 = 3.7725e-11 # Adjusted from model_v2 (1.694e-11 * 2.227)

# Reaction 1: id_c29i -> (degradation)
r1_v4 = model_v4.createReaction()
r1_v4.setId("R_c29i_degradation")
r1_v4.setReversible(False)
r1_v4.setFast(False)

reactant_r1_v4 = r1_v4.createReactant()
reactant_r1_v4.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant_r1_v4.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r1_v4.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r1_v4 = r1_v4.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r1_v4 = kinetic_law_r1_v4.createParameter()
k_param_r1_v4.setId("k_c29i_deg")
k_param_r1_v4.setValue(k_c29i_deg_val_v4)
k_param_r1_v4.setConstant(True)
formula_r1_v4 = "k_c29i_deg * id_c29i"
math_ast_r1_v4 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r1_v4)
kinetic_law_r1_v4.setMath(math_ast_r1_v4)

# Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
r2_v4 = model_v4.createReaction()
r2_v4.setId("R_1zyi_degradation")
r2_v4.setReversible(False)
r2_v4.setFast(False)

reactant_r2_v4 = r2_v4.createReactant()
reactant_r2_v4.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant_r2_v4.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant_r2_v4.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r2_v4 = r2_v4.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r2_v4 = kinetic_law_r2_v4.createParameter()
k_param_r2_v4.setId("k_1zyi_deg")
k_param_r2_v4.setValue(k_1zyi_deg_val_v4)
k_param_r2_v4.setConstant(True)
formula_r2_v4 = "k_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"
math_ast_r2_v4 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r2_v4)
kinetic_law_r2_v4.setMath(math_ast_r2_v4)

# Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
r3_v4 = model_v4.createReaction()
r3_v4.setId("R_dqvv_production")
r3_v4.setReversible(False)
r3_v4.setFast(False)

reactant1_r3_v4 = r3_v4.createReactant()
reactant1_r3_v4.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
reactant1_r3_v4.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant1_r3_v4.setConstant(False)

reactant2_r3_v4 = r3_v4.createReactant()
reactant2_r3_v4.setSpecies("id_c29i")
reactant2_r3_v4.setStoichiometry(1.0)
reactant2_r3_v4.setConstant(False)

product_r3_v4 = r3_v4.createProduct()
product_r3_v4.setSpecies("id_dqvv")
product_r3_v4.setStoichiometry(1.0)
product_r3_v4.setConstant(False)

kinetic_law_r3_v4 = r3_v4.createKineticLaw()
k_param_r3_v4 = kinetic_law_r3_v4.createParameter()
k_param_r3_v4.setId("k_prod_dqvv")
k_param_r3_v4.setValue(k_prod_dqvv_val_v4)
k_param_r3_v4.setConstant(True)
formula_r3_v4 = "k_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"
math_ast_r3_v4 = libsbml.parseL3Formula(formula_r3_v4)
kinetic_law_r3_v4.setMath(math_ast_r3_v4)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_v4 = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_v4)

# Store the model for potential future use and simulation
shared_variables.add("model_v4_sbml_string", updated_sbml_v4)

# Simulate this model
sim_data_v4 = simulate(updated_sbml_v4)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v4", sim_data_v4)

print("Model v4 (adjusted k_prod_dqvv from model_v2) created and simulated.")

print("\nSimulated data v4 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v4.head())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].head())

print("\nSimulated data v4 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v4.tail())
print("\nExperimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(experiment_history["iteration_0"].tail())

# Calculate and print total changes for each species
exp_data = experiment_history["iteration_0"]

sim_dqvv_change_v4 = sim_data_v4['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v4['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change = exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nChange in id_dqvv: Simulated_v4 = {sim_dqvv_change_v4:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_dqvv_change:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v4 = sim_data_v4['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v4['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change = exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v4 = {sim_1zyi_change_v4:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_1zyi_change:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v4 = sim_data_v4['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v4['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change = exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v4 = {sim_c29i_change_v4:.2e}, Experimental = {exp_c29i_change:.2e}")

# Calculate Root Mean Squared Log Error (RMSLE) for each species
def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    epsilon = 1e-9
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true + epsilon))))

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v4 vs experimental:")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    if len(sim_data_v4[species]) == len(exp_data[species]):
        true_values = exp_data[species].values
        pred_values = sim_data_v4[species].values
        error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
        print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
    else:
        print(f"Warning: Length mismatch for {species}. Sim: {len(sim_data_v4[species])}, Exp: {len(exp_data[species])}. RMSLE not computed.")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v4 (adjusted k_prod_dqvv from model_v2) created and simulated.

Simulated data v4 (first 5 rows):
      id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0    0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   45.131841   999193.175613  3.978819e+06   0.3
2   89.988484   998387.240884  3.957750e+06   0.6
3  134.571617   997582.193450  3.936793e+06   0.9
4  178.882914   996778.030960  3.915947e+06   1.2

Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2

Simulated data v4 (last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7410.813374  464201.018694  20275.521096  298.8
997   7410.919570  463847.326096  20168.280276  299.1
998   7411.025123  463493.903551  20061.606700  299.4
999   7411.130039  463140.750850  19955.497359  299.7
1000  7411.234320  462787.867782  19849.949258  300.0

Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

Change in id_dqvv: Simulated_v4 = 7.41e+03, Experimental = 7.44e+03
Change in id_1zyi: Simulated_v4 = -5.37e+05, Experimental = -5.41e+05
Change in id_c29i: Simulated_v4 = -3.98e+06, Experimental = -3.99e+06

RMSLE values for model_v4 vs experimental:
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.3919
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0625
RMSLE for id_c29i: 3.2071

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_v3, model_v4_sbml_string, sim_data_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
`model_v4` results:
-   **`id_dqvv`**: Total production is now very close (Sim: 7.41e+03, Exp: 7.44e+03). RMSLE improved significantly from `model_v2` (0.8882) to 0.3919. This is good. However, looking at the first 5 rows, the initial production in simulation (e.g., 45 at t=0.3) is still much lower than experimental (728 at t=0.3). This means the shape of the `id_dqvv` curve is not perfectly matched, even if the endpoint is close.
-   **`id_1zyi`**: Total consumption is well matched (Sim: -5.37e+05, Exp: -5.41e+05). RMSLE is good (0.0625), slightly better than `model_v2`.
-   **`id_c29i`**: Total consumption is well matched (Sim: -3.98e+06, Exp: -3.99e+06). However, RMSLE is still very high (3.2071), almost identical to `model_v2`. The simulated `id_c29i` ends at ~19850, while experimental ends at ~10577. The initial drop in `id_c29i` in the simulation (e.g., to 3.978e6 at t=0.3) is much slower than experimental (to 3.268e6 at t=0.3).

The key remaining issues are:
1.  The initial rate of `id_dqvv` production is too slow in the simulation.
2.  The initial rate of `id_c29i` consumption is too slow in the simulation, leading to a poor fit for its dynamics (high RMSLE) and a higher final concentration than observed.

These two issues are likely linked. If `id_c29i` were consumed faster initially (as in the experiment), it would also affect the rate of `id_dqvv` production if `id_c29i` is a reactant for it.

The contradiction I found earlier (where matching initial `id_dqvv` production rate led to negative degradation for `id_1zyi`) suggests that the simple mass-action `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` might not be the sole or correct mechanism for `id_dqvv` production, especially for the initial phase.

Consider the possibility that `id_c29i` is consumed by another, faster reaction initially, or its degradation is not simple first-order.
If `id_c29i`'s degradation `id_c29i -> ` (R1) had a higher rate constant, `id_c29i` would drop faster.
Let's look at the initial rate of `id_c29i` consumption from experiment:
`Δ[id_c29i]` from t=0 to t=0.3 is `4e6 - 3.268076e6 = 0.731924e6`.
Rate = `0.731924e6 / 0.3 = 2.4397e6 molecules/time_unit`.

In `model_v4`:
Initial rate of R3 (`id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`): `k_prod_dqvv_v4 * [id_1zyi]_0 * [id_c29i]_0`
`= 3.7725e-11 * 1e6 * 4e6 = 150.9`. This is the rate of `id_dqvv` production, and also consumption of `id_c29i` by R3.
Initial rate of R1 (`id_c29i -> `): `k_c29i_deg_v4 * [id_c29i]_0`
`= 0.01766 * 4e6 = 70640`.
Total initial simulated consumption rate of `id_c29i` = `150.9 + 70640 = 70790.9`.

This simulated initial consumption rate (70790.9) is far less than the experimental one (2.4397e6). This is the core reason for the high RMSLE of `id_c29i` and the slow initial production of `id_dqvv`.

To match the initial `id_c29i` consumption rate:
`k_c29i_deg_new * [id_c29i]_0 + (k_prod_dqvv_v4 * [id_1zyi]_0 * [id_c29i]_0) = 2.4397e6`
`k_c29i_deg_new * 4e6 + 150.9 = 2.4397e6`
`k_c29i_deg_new * 4e6 = 2.4397e6 - 150.9 ≈ 2.43955e6`
`k_c29i_deg_new = 2.43955e6 / 4e6 ≈ 0.6098`.

This `k_c29i_deg_new` (0.6098) is very similar to the one I tried in `model_v3` (0.61), which led to `id_c29i` depleting too fast overall and `id_dqvv` being severely underproduced. This happened because such a high first-order degradation rate for `id_c29i` wiped it out too quickly, stopping R3.

This suggests a simple first-order degradation for `id_c29i` with a constant rate might not be right.
What if the rapid initial consumption of `id_c29i` is *also* linked to `id_dqvv` production?
Perhaps the stoichiometry of `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` is not 1:1 for `id_c29i`.
Or, there's another reaction producing `id_dqvv` that is fast initially, e.g., `id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (unlikely as `id_1zyi` also decreases and seems involved).
Or, `id_c29i` is consumed by a reaction that doesn't produce `id_dqvv` but is very active initially.

Let's reconsider the initial rates:
Exp. `d[id_dqvv]/dt ≈ 728/0.3 = 2427`
Exp. `d[id_1zyi]/dt ≈ (0.999468e6 - 1e6)/0.3 = -532/0.3 = -1773`
Exp. `d[id_c29i]/dt ≈ (3.268076e6 - 4e6)/0.3 = -0.7319e6/0.3 = -2.44e6`

If R3 is `id_1zyi + S_c29i * id_c29i -> id_dqvv` with rate `k * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`:
`d[id_dqvv]/dt = k * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`
`d[id_1zyi]/dt = -k * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i] - k_1zyi_deg * [id_1zyi]`
`d[id_c29i]/dt = -S_c29i * k * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i] - k_c29i_deg * [id_c29i]`

Let `V_R3 = k * [id_1zyi]_0 * [id_c29i]_0`.
`V_R3 = 2427` (from `id_dqvv` production)
So, `k = 2427 / (1e6 * 4e6) = 2427 / 4e12 = 6.0675e-10`. This is the `k_prod` I calculated before that caused issues.

Using this `V_R3`:
`d[id_1zyi]/dt = -2427 - k_1zyi_deg * 1e6 = -1773` (experimental)
`-k_1zyi_deg * 1e6 = -1773 + 2427 = 654`
`k_1zyi_deg = -654 / 1e6 = -0.000654`. This is negative, which is impossible.

This fundamental contradiction at initial rates, assuming mass-action kinetics for `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` and first-order degradations, strongly indicates that one or more of these assumptions are wrong.
The model cannot simultaneously satisfy the initial rate of `id_dqvv` production and `id_1zyi` consumption with this structure.

Possibilities:
1.  **Different reaction for `id_dqvv` production:** Maybe it doesn't consume `id_1zyi`, or consumes less of it, or the rate law is different (e.g., Michaelis-Menten, or `id_c29i` alone produces `id_dqvv` which is then modified by `id_1zyi`).
2.  **`id_1zyi` is also produced by some reaction:** If `id_1zyi` was also being produced, its net consumption could be lower. But we are only adding reactions, not species, and `id_1zyi` starts high and decreases.
3.  **Stoichiometry of `id_1zyi` in R3 is less than 1?** (e.g. `0.5 id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`). This is biochemically unusual for elementary reactions but possible for effective reactions. If stoichiometry of `id_1zyi` was `S_1zyi`:
    `d[id_1zyi]/dt = -S_1zyi * V_R3 - k_1zyi_deg * [id_1zyi]`
    `-S_1zyi * 2427 - k_1zyi_deg * 1e6 = -1773`
    If `S_1zyi = 0.5`, then `-1213.5 - k_1zyi_deg * 1e6 = -1773`.
    `-k_1zyi_deg * 1e6 = -1773 + 1213.5 = -559.5`.
    `k_1zyi_deg = 5.595e-4 = 0.0005595`. This is positive.
    This would mean R3 is `0.5 id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`.
    Then `d[id_c29i]/dt = -V_R3 - k_c29i_deg * [id_c29i] = -2.44e6` (assuming `id_c29i` stoichiometry is 1 in R3).
    `-2427 - k_c29i_deg * 4e6 = -2.44e6`
    `-k_c29i_deg * 4e6 = -2.44e6 + 2427 ≈ -2.437e6`
    `k_c29i_deg ≈ 2.437e6 / 4e6 = 0.609`. This is high again.

This path (changing stoichiometry of `id_1zyi` in R3) seems plausible to resolve the `id_1zyi` rate issue.
Let's try `model_v5` with:
*   R1: `id_c29i -> ` (rate `k1 * [id_c29i]`)
*   R2: `id_1zyi -> ` (rate `k2 * [id_1zyi]`)
*   R3: `0.5 id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (rate `k3 * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`)
    (Note: libSBML handles non-integer stoichiometry. The kinetic law would still be `k3 * id_1zyi * id_c29i`, but the effect on `id_1zyi` concentration change would be `0.5 * rate_of_reaction3`).

Parameters based on initial rates with `S_1zyi = 0.5` for R3:
*   `k3 = 6.0675e-10` (from `d[id_dqvv]/dt`)
*   `k2 (k_1zyi_deg) = 0.0005595`
*   `k1 (k_c29i_deg) = 0.609`

This `k_c29i_deg` is still very high. If `id_c29i` is consumed too fast by this degradation, `id_dqvv` production will stall.
The problem with `model_v3` was that `id_c29i` went to zero very fast due to `k_c29i_deg = 0.61`.
The total `id_dqvv` produced was only 244.
The experimental `id_dqvv` is 7435.

The high initial consumption of `id_c29i` (`-2.44e6`) and high initial production of `id_dqvv` (2427) are key.
If R3 is `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (1:1 stoichiometry for reactants), and its rate `V_R3` is responsible for all `id_dqvv` production, then `V_R3_initial = 2427`.
This means R3 consumes `id_c29i` at rate 2427.
The remaining `id_c29i` consumption must be from its degradation: `2.44e6 - 2427 ≈ 2.437e6`.
This implies `k_c29i_deg * [id_c29i]_0 = 2.437e6`, so `k_c29i_deg = 2.437e6 / 4e6 = 0.609`.
This high `k_c29i_deg` is what caused `id_c29i` to vanish in `model_v3`.

What if the reaction `id_c29i -> ` is not first order? Or what if `id_c29i` is consumed in a reaction that saturates or depends on another species that gets depleted?
The problem states "discover the missing reactions". It does not restrict kinetic laws to mass-action, but it's a good starting point.

Let's reconsider the `model_v4` parameters, which gave good total amounts but bad initial rates.
`k_c29i_deg_v4 = 0.01766`
`k_1zyi_deg_v4 = 0.00254`
`k_prod_dqvv_v4 = 3.7725e-11`

Simulated initial `d[id_dqvv]/dt` (R3 rate) = `150.9`. Exp = `2427`. Factor of `2427/150.9 ≈ 16`.
Simulated initial `d[id_c29i]/dt` (R1+R3) = `-(70640 + 150.9) = -70791`. Exp = `-2.44e6`. Factor of `2.44e6 / 70791 ≈ 34.5`.

If I scale `k_prod_dqvv_v4` by 16 to match initial `id_dqvv` rate:
`k_prod_dqvv_new = 3.7725e-11 * 16 = 6.036e-10`. (This is the `k3` derived from initial rates).
If I scale `k_c29i_deg_v4` by ~34 (let's say after accounting for increased R3 consumption of `id_c29i`):
New R3 rate = `2427`. This consumes `id_c29i` at 2427.
We need total `id_c29i` consumption of `2.44e6`. So R1 needs to consume `2.44e6 - 2427 = 2.437e6`.
`k_c29i_deg_new * 4e6 = 2.437e6 => k_c29i_deg_new = 0.609`. (Same high value).

This loop confirms that simple scaling of `model_v4` parameters to match initial rates leads back to `model_v3`-like parameters that fail overall.

The discrepancy must lie in the *form* of the reactions or an unobserved intermediate.
Since we cannot add species, we must work with the reactions.

What if `id_dqvv` production is not solely `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`?
Could there be a reaction like `id_c29i -> id_dqvv` that is fast initially?
If `R_c29i_to_dqvv: id_c29i -> id_dqvv` with rate `k_conv * [id_c29i]`.
And we still have `R_1zyi_c29i_to_dqvv: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` with rate `k_bi * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`.
And the degradations: `R_c29i_deg: id_c29i -> ` and `R_1zyi_deg: id_1zyi -> `.

This adds complexity. It might be better to try to optimize the parameters of `model_v4` more carefully, or to run a perturbation experiment.
The current `model_v4` has good final amounts for all species, and `id_1zyi` RMSLE is good.
The main problems are:
1. `id_dqvv` initial production too slow (RMSLE 0.3919 is okay but could be better).
2. `id_c29i` initial consumption too slow, leading to high RMSLE (3.2071) and incorrect final concentration (simulated is higher).

If `id_c29i` is consumed faster, its concentration will be lower throughout. This would reduce the rate of `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (R3) later in the simulation, potentially reducing total `id_dqvv` production.
This implies that if we increase `id_c29i`'s degradation (R1), we might also need to increase `k_prod_dqvv` (k_R3) to compensate for lower `[id_c29i]` later on, to maintain total `id_dqvv` production.

Let's try to manually tune `k_c29i_deg` and `k_prod_dqvv` from `model_v4`.
`model_v4` values: `k_c29i_deg=0.01766`, `k_1zyi_deg=0.00254`, `k_prod_dqvv=3.7725e-11`.
`id_c29i` needs to be consumed faster. Let's increase `k_c29i_deg`.
Try doubling `k_c29i_deg`: `k_c29i_deg_v5 = 0.01766 * 2 = 0.03532`.
This will make `id_c29i` lower. To maintain `id_dqvv` production, we might need to increase `k_prod_dqvv`.
The initial rate of R3 was `150.9`. If `id_c29i` drops faster, this rate will drop faster too.
This is iterative.

Perhaps a perturbation experiment would be more insightful now.
If I reduce the initial concentration of `id_c29i`, how does it affect `id_dqvv` production and `id_1zyi` consumption?
This could help clarify the role of `id_c29i`.

**Experiment Plan:**
Change initial concentration of `id_c29i` to half its default value (from 4e6 to 2e6).
Observe the effect on all species.
This will test the sensitivity of the system to `[id_c29i]_0`.
If `id_dqvv` production is highly dependent on `[id_c29i]`, we should see a significant reduction.
It will also show how `id_c29i`'s own dynamics change.

## Action

### Experiment
```json
{
    "action": "change_initial_concentration",
    "meta_data": {
        "id_c29i": 2000000
    }
}
```
# Observation

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

Total size: 1001 rows × 4 columns. 

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

Time   id_dqvv  id_1zyi  id_c29i
0         0 1.00e+06 2.00e+06
...
6.00e+00  2.01e+03 9.77e+05 5.38e+04
...
1.20e+01  2.13e+03 9.54e+05 2.00e+04
...
1.80e+01  2.21e+03 9.32e+05 1.90e+04
...
2.40e+01  2.29e+03 9.11e+05 1.86e+04
...
3.00e+01  2.37e+03 8.91e+05 1.82e+04
...
3.60e+01  2.45e+03 8.71e+05 1.78e+04
...
4.20e+01  2.52e+03 8.53e+05 1.75e+04
...
4.80e+01  2.60e+03 8.35e+05 1.71e+04
...
5.40e+01  2.67e+03 8.19e+05 1.68e+04
...
6.00e+01  2.75e+03 8.02e+05 1.65e+04
...
6.60e+01  2.82e+03 7.87e+05 1.62e+04
...
7.20e+01  2.89e+03 7.72e+05 1.59e+04
...
7.80e+01  2.96e+03 7.58e+05 1.56e+04
...
8.40e+01  3.03e+03 7.44e+05 1.54e+04
...
9.00e+01  3.10e+03 7.31e+05 1.51e+04
...
9.60e+01  3.16e+03 7.18e+05 1.49e+04
...
1.02e+02  3.23e+03 7.06e+05 1.47e+04
...
1.08e+02  3.30e+03 6.94e+05 1.44e+04
...
1.14e+02  3.36e+03 6.83e+05 1.42e+04
...
1.20e+02  3.43e+03 6.72e+05 1.40e+04
...
1.26e+02  3.49e+03 6.61e+05 1.38e+04
...
1.32e+02  3.55e+03 6.51e+05 1.36e+04
...
1.38e+02  3.62e+03 6.41e+05 1.34e+04
...
1.44e+02  3.68e+03 6.32e+05 1.33e+04
...
1.50e+02  3.74e+03 6.22e+05 1.31e+04
...
1.56e+02  3.80e+03 6.13e+05 1.29e+04
...
1.62e+02  3.86e+03 6.05e+05 1.28e+04
...
1.68e+02  3.92e+03 5.96e+05 1.26e+04
...
1.74e+02  3.98e+03 5.88e+05 1.25e+04
...
1.80e+02  4.04e+03 5.80e+05 1.23e+04
...
1.86e+02  4.10e+03 5.72e+05 1.22e+04
...
1.92e+02  4.16e+03 5.65e+05 1.20e+04
...
1.98e+02  4.21e+03 5.57e+05 1.19e+04
...
2.04e+02  4.27e+03 5.50e+05 1.18e+04
...
2.10e+02  4.33e+03 5.43e+05 1.16e+04
...
2.16e+02  4.39e+03 5.37e+05 1.15e+04
...
2.22e+02  4.44e+03 5.30e+05 1.14e+04
...
2.28e+02  4.50e+03 5.24e+05 1.13e+04
...
2.34e+02  4.55e+03 5.18e+05 1.12e+04
...
2.40e+02  4.61e+03 5.12e+05 1.11e+04
...
2.46e+02  4.66e+03 5.06e+05 1.10e+04
...
2.52e+02  4.72e+03 5.00e+05 1.08e+04
...
2.58e+02  4.77e+03 4.94e+05 1.07e+04
...
2.64e+02  4.82e+03 4.89e+05 1.07e+04
...
2.70e+02  4.88e+03 4.84e+05 1.06e+04
...
2.76e+02  4.93e+03 4.78e+05 1.05e+04
...
2.82e+02  4.98e+03 4.73e+05 1.04e+04
...
2.88e+02  5.04e+03 4.68e+05 1.03e+04
...
3.00e+02  5.14e+03 4.59e+05 1.01e+04

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_v3, model_v4_sbml_string, sim_data_v4)

### 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

Let's analyze the new experimental data (`iteration_6`) where `[id_c29i]_0` was halved (2e6) compared to `iteration_0` (4e6). `[id_1zyi]_0` remained 1e6, `[id_dqvv]_0` remained 0.

**Comparison of final values (t=300s):**

| Species   | Experiment `iteration_0` ([id_c29i]_0 = 4e6) | Experiment `iteration_6` ([id_c29i]_0 = 2e6) | Change (Iter6 - Iter0) | Ratio (Iter6 / Iter0) |
| :-------- | :----------------------------------------- | :----------------------------------------- | :--------------------- | :-------------------- |
| `id_dqvv` | 7435                                       | 5140                                       | -2295                  | 0.691                 |
| `id_1zyi` | 459323                                     | 459000 (approx from 4.59e+05)              | -323                   | ~1.000                |
| `id_c29i` | 10577                                      | 10100 (approx from 1.01e+04)              | -477                   | ~0.955                |

**Comparison of total changes (Final - Initial):**

| Species   | `Δ` in `iteration_0` ([c29i]_0=4e6) | `Δ` in `iteration_6` ([c29i]_0=2e6) | Ratio of `Δ` (Iter6 / Iter0) |
| :-------- | :---------------------------------- | :---------------------------------- | :--------------------------- |
| `id_dqvv` | +7435                               | +5140                               | 0.691                        |
| `id_1zyi` | -540677                             | -541000                             | ~1.000                       |
| `id_c29i` | -3,989,423                          | -1,989,900                          | 0.499                        |

**Observations from the perturbation:**
1.  **`id_dqvv` production:** Decreased significantly when `[id_c29i]_0` was halved (produced 5140 vs 7435). The ratio of production (0.691) is greater than 0.5, suggesting a non-linear relationship or that `id_c29i` is not the sole limiting factor for the entire duration.
2.  **`id_1zyi` consumption:** Total consumption of `id_1zyi` is almost identical in both experiments (~ -5.41e5). This is a very important clue! It suggests that the major pathway for `id_1zyi` consumption is largely independent of `[id_c29i]`. This strongly supports the `id_1zyi -> ` degradation reaction (R2 in our models) being dominant for `id_1zyi` loss.
3.  **`id_c29i` consumption:** Total consumption of `id_c29i` is almost exactly halved (`-1.99e6` vs `-3.99e6`). This makes sense as its initial amount was halved, and it seems to be consumed almost completely (down to ~1e4 in both cases).

**Implications for the model (`model_v4` structure):**
*   R1: `id_c29i -> ` (rate `k1 * [id_c29i]`)
*   R2: `id_1zyi -> ` (rate `k2 * [id_1zyi]`)
*   R3: `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (rate `k3 * [id_1zyi] * [id_c29i]`)

The observation that `Δ[id_1zyi]` is insensitive to `[id_c29i]_0` implies that the amount of `id_1zyi` consumed by R3 (`id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`) must be relatively small compared to the amount consumed by R2 (`id_1zyi -> `).
In `iteration_0`, `id_dqvv` produced was 7435. So R3 consumed 7435 of `id_1zyi`.
Total `id_1zyi` consumed was 540677.
So, R2 consumed `540677 - 7435 = 533242` of `id_1zyi`.
Indeed, `7435 / 540677 ≈ 1.37%`. So R3's contribution to `id_1zyi` consumption is minor. This aligns with the experiment.

The fact that `Δ[id_c29i]` scales with `[id_c29i]_0` suggests that R1 (`id_c29i -> `) is the dominant consumer of `id_c29i`.
In `iteration_0`, R3 consumed 7435 of `id_c29i`. Total `id_c29i` consumed was 3,989,423.
So, R1 consumed `3989423 - 7435 = 3981988`.
Indeed, `7435 / 3989423 ≈ 0.18%`. R3's contribution to `id_c29i` consumption is also minor.

This confirms that the primary drivers for `id_1zyi` and `id_c29i` depletion are their respective first-order degradation reactions (R1 and R2). Reaction R3 is a minor consumer of both but the sole producer of `id_dqvv`.

**Revisiting `model_v4` parameters and initial rate problem:**
`model_v4` parameters: `k_c29i_deg (k1) = 0.01766`, `k_1zyi_deg (k2) = 0.00254`, `k_prod_dqvv (k3) = 3.7725e-11`.
This model gave good *total* changes for `iteration_0` data.
The main issue was the *initial rate* of `id_dqvv` production and `id_c29i` consumption being too slow.

Let's check initial rates for `iteration_6` (new experiment):
`[id_c29i]_0 = 2e6`, `[id_1zyi]_0 = 1e6`.
Exp. `d[id_dqvv]/dt` (t=0 to 0.3, using first non-zero point from summary, e.g. t=6, val=2010. Need finer data for t=0.3):
Let's use the first few points from the summary for `iteration_6`:
t=0: dqvv=0, 1zyi=1e6, c29i=2e6
t=6: dqvv=2010, 1zyi=9.77e5, c29i=5.38e4
Approx initial rate for `id_dqvv` over 6s: `2010 / 6 = 335`.
Approx initial rate for `id_c29i` over 6s: `(5.38e4 - 2e6) / 6 = -1.9462e6 / 6 = -3.243e5`.

Compare with `model_v4` simulation with `[id_c29i]_0 = 2e6`:
Initial R3 rate = `k3 * [id_1zyi]_0 * [id_c29i]_0 = 3.7725e-11 * 1e6 * 2e6 = 3.7725e-11 * 2e12 = 75.45`. (Simulated `d[id_dqvv]/dt`)
This (75.45) is much lower than the experimental rate (335). Factor of `335 / 75.45 ≈ 4.44`.

Initial R1 rate = `k1 * [id_c29i]_0 = 0.01766 * 2e6 = 35320`.
Total initial simulated `d[id_c29i]/dt` = `-(R1_rate + R3_rate_consumption_c29i) = -(35320 + 75.45) = -35395.45`.
This (-35395) is much lower (in magnitude) than the experimental rate (-3.243e5). Factor of `3.243e5 / 35395 ≈ 9.16`.

The factors by which the rates are off (4.44 for `id_dqvv` prod, 9.16 for `id_c29i` cons) are different from `iteration_0` (which were ~16 for `id_dqvv` and ~34.5 for `id_c29i`).
This dependency on initial concentration suggests the kinetic forms might be correct, but the parameters are off, or there's another reaction.

The fact that `k_c29i_deg` (k1) and `k_prod_dqvv` (k3) derived from matching *total* changes (as in `model_v4`) fail to capture *initial* rates, and that the discrepancy factor changes with initial conditions, is puzzling if the model structure is entirely correct.

However, the new experiment strongly reinforces that R1 and R2 are dominant for `id_c29i` and `id_1zyi` loss.
The problem remains: how to get the initial rates for `id_c29i` consumption and `id_dqvv` production higher without ruining the good match of total changes?

If `k_c29i_deg` (k1) is increased to match the initial high consumption rate of `id_c29i`, then `id_c29i` will deplete very rapidly.
This rapid depletion means that `[id_c29i]` will be very low for most of the simulation.
If R3 (`id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`) depends on `[id_c29i]`, then its rate will also plummet, leading to very low total `id_dqvv` production. This is what happened in `model_v3`.

This implies that either:
a) The reaction `id_c29i -> ` (R1) is not simple first order. Maybe it's Michaelis-Menten like, or inhibited by something that accumulates, so it's fast initially and slows down more than first-order would predict.
b) The reaction `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` (R3) has a different kinetic law, less sensitive to `[id_c29i]` at low `[id_c29i]` concentrations, or `k3` is much higher but something else limits it later.
c) There is another reaction consuming `id_c29i` very rapidly at the start, which then stops or slows dramatically.
d) There is another reaction producing `id_dqvv` very rapidly at the start.

Given the constraint of not adding new species, and trying to stick to simpler kinetics first:
The most problematic part is `id_c29i`'s dynamics. Its RMSLE was high in `model_v4`.
The experimental `id_c29i` drops very sharply initially, then plateaus at a low level.
`iteration_0`: 4e6 -> (0.3s) 3.27e6 -> (0.6s) 2.67e6 -> (1.2s) 1.79e6 ... -> (300s) 1.06e4
`iteration_6`: 2e6 -> ... (6s) 5.38e4 ... -> (300s) 1.01e4

A simple `k1 * [id_c29i]` decay might not capture this "sharp drop then plateau" well if k1 is chosen to match the initial drop (as it leads to near-total depletion too fast for R3). If k1 is chosen for overall balance (like in `model_v4`), the initial drop is too slow.

What if there's a reversible reaction involving `id_c29i`? Or a reaction that consumes `id_c29i` but is limited by another reactant that is not `id_1zyi` (but we can't add species).

Let's try to optimize parameters for `model_v4` using *both* datasets (`iteration_0` and `iteration_6`).
The parameters are `k1` (for `id_c29i` deg), `k2` (for `id_1zyi` deg), `k3` (for `id_dqvv` prod).
`k2 = 0.00254` seems robust because `Δ[id_1zyi]` is consistent and mostly due to R2.
So we need to find `k1` and `k3`.

The `model_v4` parameters (`k1=0.01766`, `k3=3.7725e-11`) gave good total `id_dqvv` for `iteration_0`.
Let's simulate `model_v4` with these parameters on `iteration_6` data.
Initial concentrations for `iteration_6`: `id_1zyi=1e6`, `id_c29i=2e6`, `id_dqvv=0`.

```python
# Code to simulate model_v4 on iteration_6 conditions
# This will be done in the next code block.
# For now, let's predict based on model_v4 structure:
# Total id_dqvv produced by R3 is integral of k3*[1zyi]*[c29i] dt
# Total id_c29i consumed by R1 is integral of k1*[c29i] dt
# Total id_1zyi consumed by R2 is integral of k2*[1zyi] dt

# If k1 and k3 from model_v4 are used:
# k1 = 0.01766
# k2 = 0.00254
# k3 = 3.7725e-11

# For iteration_0:
# Sim dqvv: 7411 (Exp: 7435) - Good
# Sim 1zyi: 462787 (Exp: 459323) => Δ -537213 (Exp: -540677) - Good
# Sim c29i: 19850 (Exp: 10577) => Δ -3980150 (Exp: -3989423) - Total Δ good, but final value and dynamics bad.

# For iteration_6 (predicting with model_v4 params):
# id_c29i starts at 2e6.
# Δc29i_R1 will be roughly proportional to initial [c29i] if k1 dominates. So ~ -3.98e6 / 2 = -1.99e6.
# Δc29i_R3 will be lower because [c29i] is lower.
# So total Δc29i should be close to the experimental -1.99e6.
# This means model_v4's k1 should also give good *total* Δc29i for iteration_6.

# Δdqvv_R3 will be lower.
# If [c29i] is roughly half throughout, then Δdqvv might be roughly half.
# Exp Δdqvv for iter_6 is 5140. Exp for iter_0 is 7435. Ratio 0.69.
# Model_v4 gave 7411 for iter_0. So it might give 7411 * 0.5 = 3705 (if linear scaling) or 7411 * 0.69 = 5113 (if it scales like experiment).
# The latter (5113) would be a good prediction.
```

The challenge is the *dynamics*, especially for `id_c29i` and the initial phase of `id_dqvv`.
The fact that `id_c29i` drops sharply and then levels off near 10k in *both* experiments, regardless of starting from 4M or 2M, is interesting. A simple first-order decay `dC/dt = -kC` would mean `C(t) = C0 * exp(-kt)`. It wouldn't naturally plateau at a fixed non-zero value unless `k` changes or there's a reverse reaction. However, the "plateau" is very low, near complete consumption.

Perhaps the issue is that `k_c29i_deg` (k1) needs to be higher to capture the initial fast drop of `id_c29i`.
If `k1` is higher, `[id_c29i]` will be lower throughout.
To still get enough `id_dqvv` via R3 (`k3 * [1zyi] * [c29i]`), `k3` would also need to be significantly higher.

Let's try a set of parameters:
- `k2 = 0.00254` (seems solid for `id_1zyi` degradation).
- Increase `k1` (for `id_c29i` degradation) to better match initial `id_c29i` drop.
  From `iteration_0`, initial `d[id_c29i]/dt` was `-2.44e6`.
  Rate of R3 (`model_v4`) was `150.9`. So R1 needed to be `2.44e6 - 150.9 ≈ 2.44e6`.
  `k1_new * 4e6 = 2.44e6 => k1_new ≈ 0.61`. This was `model_v3`'s `k_c29i_deg` which failed.

The failure of `model_v3` was that `id_c29i` was depleted *too completely, too fast*, shutting down R3.
`model_v3` had `k_prod_dqvv_v3 = 3.7268e-11` (similar to `model_v4`'s `k3`).
If `k1` is high (e.g., 0.61), then `[id_c29i]` becomes very small very quickly.
If `k3` is `3.7e-11`, then `R3_rate = k3 * [1zyi] * [small_c29i]` will be tiny.
Result: very little `id_dqvv` produced (244 in `model_v3` vs 7435 target).

To get 7435 `id_dqvv` with a very small `[id_c29i]` for most of the time, `k3` would need to be enormous.
Example: If `[id_c29i]` averages `100` instead of `~1e6` (wild guess for effect of high k1), then `k3` would need to be `1e4` times larger.
`k3_very_high = 3.7e-11 * 1e4 = 3.7e-7`.

Let's try `model_v5` with:
*   `k1 (k_c29i_deg) = 0.61` (to get fast initial `id_c29i` drop)
*   `k2 (k_1zyi_deg) = 0.00254` (seems robust)
*   `k3 (k_prod_dqvv)`: This needs to be much higher.
    If `k1=0.61`, `id_c29i` half-life is `ln(2)/0.61 ≈ 1.13` seconds. So it will be very low very fast.
    The `model_v4` `k3 = 3.7725e-11` produced `7411 id_dqvv`.
    The `model_v3` `k1=0.61, k3=3.7268e-11` produced `243 id_dqvv`. Ratio `243/7411 ≈ 0.032`.
    So, to compensate, `k3` needs to be `1/0.032 ≈ 30` times higher than in `model_v3`/`model_v4`.
    `k3_v5 = 3.7725e-11 * 30 = 1.13e-9`.

**Proposed parameters for `model_v5`:**
*   `k_c29i_deg_val = 0.61`
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val = 0.00254`
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val = 1.13e-9`

This is a hypothesis: `id_c29i` degrades very fast. `id_dqvv` production also has a high rate constant but is limited by the rapidly falling `[id_c29i]`.
This combination might give fast initial `id_c29i` drop, fast initial `id_dqvv` rise, but still achieve the correct total `id_dqvv`.

I will simulate this `model_v5` against both `iteration_0` and `iteration_6` data.

## Action

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

# Define model_v5 parameters
k_c29i_deg_val_v5 = 0.61
k_1zyi_deg_val_v5 = 0.00254
k_prod_dqvv_val_v5 = 1.13e-9

def create_model_sbml(k1_val, k2_val, k3_val):
    sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string) # Start from base
    model = sbml_doc.getModel()

    # Reaction 1: id_c29i -> (degradation)
    r1 = model.createReaction()
    r1.setId("R_c29i_degradation")
    r1.setReversible(False)
    r1.setFast(False)
    reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter(); k_param_r1.setId("k_c29i_deg"); k_param_r1.setValue(k1_val); k_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_c29i_deg * id_c29i"); kinetic_law_r1.setMath(math_ast_r1)

    # Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
    r2 = model.createReaction()
    r2.setId("R_1zyi_degradation")
    r2.setReversible(False)
    r2.setFast(False)
    reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r2 = kinetic_law_r2.createParameter(); k_param_r2.setId("k_1zyi_deg"); k_param_r2.setValue(k2_val); k_param_r2.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"); kinetic_law_r2.setMath(math_ast_r2)

    # Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
    r3 = model.createReaction()
    r3.setId("R_dqvv_production")
    r3.setReversible(False)
    r3.setFast(False)
    reactant1_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)
    reactant2_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant2_r3.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant2_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant2_r3.setConstant(False)
    product_r3 = r3.createProduct(); product_r3.setSpecies("id_dqvv"); product_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); product_r3.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r3 = kinetic_law_r3.createParameter(); k_param_r3.setId("k_prod_dqvv"); k_param_r3.setValue(k3_val); k_param_r3.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"); kinetic_law_r3.setMath(math_ast_r3)
    
    writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
    return writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Create SBML string for model_v5
model_v5_sbml_string = create_model_sbml(k_c29i_deg_val_v5, k_1zyi_deg_val_v5, k_prod_dqvv_val_v5)
shared_variables.add("model_v5_sbml_string", model_v5_sbml_string)

# Simulate model_v5 for iteration_0 conditions (default initial concentrations)
# Default initial concentrations are used by simulate() if not overridden by changing input_sbml_string species initial amounts
sim_data_v5_iter0 = simulate(model_v5_sbml_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v5_iter0", sim_data_v5_iter0)

# To simulate for iteration_6 conditions, we need to modify the SBML string for initial concentrations
sbml_doc_iter6_cond = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(model_v5_sbml_string)
model_iter6_cond = sbml_doc_iter6_cond.getModel()
model_iter6_cond.getSpecies("id_c29i").setInitialConcentration(2000000)
# id_1zyi and id_dqvv keep their defaults from input_sbml_string (1e6 and 0 respectively) which are also used in model_v5_sbml_string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v5_sbml_iter6_cond_string = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_iter6_cond)

sim_data_v5_iter6 = simulate(model_v5_sbml_iter6_cond_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v5_iter6", sim_data_v5_iter6)

print("Model v5 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.")

# --- Analysis for iteration_0 ---
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history["iteration_0"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v5 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter0.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.head())
print("Simulated data v5 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter0.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.tail())

def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    epsilon = 1e-9
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true + epsilon))))

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v5 vs experimental (iteration_0):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    true_values = exp_data_iter0[species].values
    pred_values = sim_data_v5_iter0[species].values
    error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")

# --- Analysis for iteration_6 ---
exp_data_iter6 = experiment_history["iteration_6"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v5 (first 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter6.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.head()) # Note: experiment_history["iteration_6"] has fewer time points in summary
print("Simulated data v5 (last 5 rows):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter6.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.tail())

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v5 vs experimental (iteration_6):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    true_values = exp_data_iter6[species].values
    pred_values = sim_data_v5_iter6[species].values
    # Ensure same length for RMSLE calculation if simulate provides full length
    # Assuming simulate provides data for all time points in exp_data
    error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")

# Print total changes for iteration_0
sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter0 = sim_data_v5_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nIter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v5={sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter0:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter0 = sim_data_v5_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter0 Change in id_1zyi: Sim_v5={sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_1zyi_change_iter0:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v5_iter0 = sim_data_v5_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter0 Change in id_c29i: Sim_v5={sim_c29i_change_v5_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_c29i_change_iter0:.2e}")


# Print total changes for iteration_6
sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter6 = sim_data_v5_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nIter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v5={sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter6:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter6 = sim_data_v5_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter6 Change in id_1zyi: Sim_v5={sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_1zyi_change_iter6:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v5_iter6 = sim_data_v5_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter6 Change in id_c29i: Sim_v5={sim_c29i_change_v5_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_c29i_change_iter6:.2e}")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_v3, model_v4_sbml_string, sim_data_v4)

### 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 previous code execution did not return any standard output, so I don't have the simulation results for `model_v5`. I need to re-run the code from Iteration 7 to get these results and analyze them.

The parameters for `model_v5` were:
*   `k_c29i_deg_val (k1) = 0.61`
*   `k_1zyi_deg_val (k2) = 0.00254`
*   `k_prod_dqvv_val (k3) = 1.13e-9`

This model attempts to reconcile the fast initial consumption of `id_c29i` and fast initial production of `id_dqvv` with the overall correct total amounts by using a high degradation rate for `id_c29i` (k1) and a correspondingly high production rate constant for `id_dqvv` (k3).

I will execute the same Python script again.

## Action

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

# Define model_v5 parameters
k_c29i_deg_val_v5 = 0.61
k_1zyi_deg_val_v5 = 0.00254
k_prod_dqvv_val_v5 = 1.13e-9

def create_model_sbml(k1_val, k2_val, k3_val):
    sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string) # Start from base
    model = sbml_doc.getModel()

    # Reaction 1: id_c29i -> (degradation)
    r1 = model.createReaction()
    r1.setId("R_c29i_degradation")
    r1.setReversible(False)
    r1.setFast(False)
    reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter(); k_param_r1.setId("k_c29i_deg"); k_param_r1.setValue(k1_val); k_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_c29i_deg * id_c29i"); kinetic_law_r1.setMath(math_ast_r1)

    # Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
    r2 = model.createReaction()
    r2.setId("R_1zyi_degradation")
    r2.setReversible(False)
    r2.setFast(False)
    reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r2 = kinetic_law_r2.createParameter(); k_param_r2.setId("k_1zyi_deg"); k_param_r2.setValue(k2_val); k_param_r2.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"); kinetic_law_r2.setMath(math_ast_r2)

    # Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
    r3 = model.createReaction()
    r3.setId("R_dqvv_production")
    r3.setReversible(False)
    r3.setFast(False)
    reactant1_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)
    reactant2_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant2_r3.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant2_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant2_r3.setConstant(False)
    product_r3 = r3.createProduct(); product_r3.setSpecies("id_dqvv"); product_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); product_r3.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r3 = kinetic_law_r3.createParameter(); k_param_r3.setId("k_prod_dqvv"); k_param_r3.setValue(k3_val); k_param_r3.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"); kinetic_law_r3.setMath(math_ast_r3)
    
    writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
    return writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Create SBML string for model_v5
model_v5_sbml_string = create_model_sbml(k_c29i_deg_val_v5, k_1zyi_deg_val_v5, k_prod_dqvv_val_v5)
shared_variables.add("model_v5_sbml_string", model_v5_sbml_string)

# Simulate model_v5 for iteration_0 conditions (default initial concentrations)
sim_data_v5_iter0 = simulate(model_v5_sbml_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v5_iter0", sim_data_v5_iter0)

# To simulate for iteration_6 conditions, we need to modify the SBML string for initial concentrations
sbml_doc_iter6_cond = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(model_v5_sbml_string) # Start from model_v5 base
model_iter6_cond = sbml_doc_iter6_cond.getModel()
# Set initial concentration for id_c29i for iter_6 conditions
species_c29i_iter6 = model_iter6_cond.getSpecies("id_c29i")
species_c29i_iter6.setInitialConcentration(2000000.0)
# Ensure other species retain their intended initial concentrations if they were modified from the absolute base input_sbml_string
# For this model structure, id_1zyi and id_dqvv use the defaults from input_sbml_string, which are correctly set by create_model_sbml
# So, no need to reset id_1zyi or id_dqvv here as they are already correct in model_v5_sbml_string.

writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v5_sbml_iter6_cond_string = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_iter6_cond)

sim_data_v5_iter6 = simulate(model_v5_sbml_iter6_cond_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v5_iter6", sim_data_v5_iter6)

print("Model v5 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.")

# --- Analysis for iteration_0 ---
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history["iteration_0"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v5 (first 5 rows, iter0):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter0.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.head())
print("Simulated data v5 (last 5 rows, iter0):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter0.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.tail())

def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    epsilon = 1e-9 # To prevent log(0)
    # Ensure inputs are numpy arrays and positive
    y_true_np = np.maximum(y_true, 0) 
    y_pred_np = np.maximum(y_pred, 0)
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred_np + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true_np + epsilon))))

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v5 vs experimental (iteration_0):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    true_values = exp_data_iter0[species].values
    pred_values = sim_data_v5_iter0[species].values
    error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")

# --- Analysis for iteration_6 ---
exp_data_iter6 = experiment_history["iteration_6"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v5 (first 5 rows, iter6):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter6.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):")
# The summary in prompt for iter_6 has different time points, access full data for proper comparison
print(exp_data_iter6.head()) 
print("Simulated data v5 (last 5 rows, iter6):")
print(sim_data_v5_iter6.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.tail())

print("\nRMSLE values for model_v5 vs experimental (iteration_6):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    true_values = exp_data_iter6[species].values
    pred_values = sim_data_v5_iter6[species].values
    error = rmsle(true_values, pred_values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")

# Print total changes for iteration_0
sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter0 = sim_data_v5_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nIter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v5={sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter0:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter0 = sim_data_v5_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter0 Change in id_1zyi: Sim_v5={sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_1zyi_change_iter0:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v5_iter0 = sim_data_v5_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter0 Change in id_c29i: Sim_v5={sim_c29i_change_v5_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_c29i_change_iter0:.2e}")


# Print total changes for iteration_6
sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter6 = sim_data_v5_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"\nIter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v5={sim_dqvv_change_v5_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter6:.2e}")

sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter6 = sim_data_v5_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
exp_1zyi_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_1zyi'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter6 Change in id_1zyi: Sim_v5={sim_1zyi_change_v5_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_1zyi_change_iter6:.2e}")

sim_c29i_change_v5_iter6 = sim_data_v5_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v5_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
exp_c29i_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_c29i'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter6 Change in id_c29i: Sim_v5={sim_c29i_change_v5_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_c29i_change_iter6:.2e}")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v5 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.

--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---
Simulated data v5 (first 5 rows, iter0):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1  1237.731569   998001.044694  3.329945e+06   0.3
2  2266.181942   996212.810979  2.772132e+06   0.6
3  3120.887448   994599.616041  2.307763e+06   0.9
4  3831.300449   993131.885810  1.921192e+06   1.2
Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2
Simulated data v5 (last 5 rows, iter0):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7338.510855  464706.224132  1.509141e-09  298.8
997   7338.510855  464352.250598  1.621758e-09  299.1
998   7338.510855  463998.546695  1.733059e-09  299.4
999   7338.510855  463645.112219  1.842944e-09  299.7
1000  7338.510855  463291.946967  1.951313e-09  300.0
Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

RMSLE values for model_v5 vs experimental (iteration_0):
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.3035
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0625
RMSLE for id_c29i: 9.1933

--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---
Simulated data v5 (first 5 rows, iter6):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  2.000000e+06   0.0
1   619.057301   998619.476005  1.664973e+06   0.3
2  1133.733308   997344.343861  1.386065e+06   0.6
3  1561.661880   996156.896387  1.153881e+06   0.9
4  1917.500508   995042.415019  9.605890e+05   1.2
Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  2.000000e+06   0.0
1   364.186520   999105.329025  1.635856e+06   0.3
2   662.179168   998146.871710  1.338683e+06   0.6
3   906.153736   997136.960056  1.096162e+06   0.9
4  1106.041173   996085.649893  8.982437e+05   1.2
Simulated data v5 (last 5 rows, iter6):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   3676.014867  466428.724813  7.509555e-09  298.8
997   3676.014867  466073.441551  7.557687e-09  299.1
998   3676.014867  465718.428910  7.598008e-09  299.4
999   3676.014867  465363.686686  7.630146e-09  299.7
1000  3676.014867  465009.214671  7.653723e-09  300.0
Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   5132.300486  459840.844468  10132.461796  298.8
997   5134.916350  459606.398356  10128.315557  299.1
998   5137.531659  459372.220578  10124.174560  299.4
999   5140.146412  459138.310672  10120.038796  299.7
1000  5142.760611  458904.668178  10115.908257  300.0

RMSLE values for model_v5 vs experimental (iteration_6):
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.2639
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0670
RMSLE for id_c29i: 9.1808

Iter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v5=7.34e+03, Exp=7.44e+03
Iter0 Change in id_1zyi: Sim_v5=-5.37e+05, Exp=-5.41e+05
Iter0 Change in id_c29i: Sim_v5=-4.00e+06, Exp=-3.99e+06

Iter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v5=3.68e+03, Exp=5.14e+03
Iter6 Change in id_1zyi: Sim_v5=-5.35e+05, Exp=-5.41e+05
Iter6 Change in id_c29i: Sim_v5=-2.00e+06, Exp=-1.99e+06

## Reminder

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



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_v3, model_v4_sbml_string, sim_data_v4, model_v5_sbml_string, sim_data_v5_iter0, sim_data_v5_iter6)

### 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_v5` results are in.
Parameters: `k1 (k_c29i_deg) = 0.61`, `k2 (k_1zyi_deg) = 0.00254`, `k3 (k_prod_dqvv) = 1.13e-9`.

**Analysis for `iteration_0` ([c29i]_0 = 4e6):**
*   **`id_dqvv`**:
    *   Initial sim production (t=0.3): 1237. Exp: 728. Sim is faster initially.
    *   Final sim production: 7338. Exp: 7435. Total production is very good.
    *   RMSLE: 0.3035. This is an improvement over `model_v4` (0.3919). The dynamics seem better matched overall.
*   **`id_1zyi`**:
    *   Final sim consumption: -5.37e+05. Exp: -5.41e+05. Total consumption is good.
    *   RMSLE: 0.0625. Same as `model_v4`, which is good.
*   **`id_c29i`**:
    *   Initial sim consumption (t=0.3): `4e6 - 3.33e6 = 0.67e6`. Exp: `4e6 - 3.27e6 = 0.73e6`. Initial drop is now much closer!
    *   Final sim value: `1.95e-09` (effectively zero). Exp: `10577`. This is the major failure. `id_c29i` is depleted completely in sim, but not in exp.
    *   RMSLE: 9.1933. Extremely high, same as `model_v3`, because the simulation drives `id_c29i` to zero while the experiment shows it plateaus at a low non-zero value.

**Analysis for `iteration_6` ([c29i]_0 = 2e6):**
*   **`id_dqvv`**:
    *   Initial sim production (t=0.3): 619. Exp: 364. Sim is faster initially.
    *   Final sim production: 3676. Exp: 5140. Total production is now underestimated by sim (target was 5140).
    *   RMSLE: 0.2639. This is good, suggesting the shape is reasonable despite the total amount being off.
*   **`id_1zyi`**:
    *   Final sim consumption: -5.35e+05. Exp: -5.41e+05. Total consumption is good.
    *   RMSLE: 0.0670. Good.
*   **`id_c29i`**:
    *   Initial sim consumption (t=0.3): `2e6 - 1.665e6 = 0.335e6`. Exp: `2e6 - 1.636e6 = 0.364e6`. Initial drop is very close!
    *   Final sim value: `7.65e-09` (effectively zero). Exp: `10115`. Again, complete depletion in sim vs. plateau in exp.
    *   RMSLE: 9.1808. Extremely high.

**Summary of `model_v5`:**
*   **Good:**
    *   Initial consumption rate of `id_c29i` is now well-matched for both experiments.
    *   Initial production rate of `id_dqvv` is also much better (though a bit too fast in sim).
    *   Total consumption of `id_1zyi` is consistently good. RMSLE for `id_1zyi` is good.
    *   RMSLE for `id_dqvv` is the best so far for both conditions.
    *   Total production of `id_dqvv` is good for `iteration_0`.
*   **Bad:**
    *   `id_c29i` is driven to zero in simulations, while it plateaus at ~10k in experiments. This causes a terrible RMSLE for `id_c29i`.
    *   Total production of `id_dqvv` is underestimated for `iteration_6` (3676 sim vs 5140 exp).

The fact that `id_c29i` plateaus at a non-zero value in the experiments is a crucial piece of information that none of the models with simple first-order degradation `id_c29i -> ` can capture if that reaction is dominant.
A reaction `A -> ` will drive A to zero. To have A plateau at a non-zero steady state (or pseudo-steady state if other things are changing slowly), one needs either:
1.  Production of A: `X -> A` balancing `A -> Y`. (Not possible here as we don't add reactions that produce `id_c29i`, which starts high and decreases).
2.  Reversible reaction: `A <=> B`. `id_c29i <=> P` where P is some product.
3.  The degradation of A stops or dramatically slows down: e.g., if `A -> ` is catalyzed by something that gets consumed, or inhibited by a product.

Let's consider a reversible degradation for `id_c29i`:
R1_new: `id_c29i <=> P_dummy` (where `P_dummy` is an implicit product, not a new species).
Rate = `k_fwd * [id_c29i] - k_rev * [P_dummy_conc]`
This is tricky without adding `P_dummy`. If `P_dummy` is not explicitly modeled, its concentration is unknown.
Alternatively, the reaction could be `id_c29i <=> ø` where `ø` represents a boundary species or a conceptual "pool" that allows for a reverse flux.
If the reverse reaction is first order with respect to nothing (zeroth order production of `id_c29i` from the pool), rate law for R1: `k_fwd * [id_c29i] - k_rev`.
At equilibrium (or plateau), `k_fwd * [id_c29i]_plateau = k_rev`.
So, `k_rev = k_fwd * 10000`.
If `k_fwd` is our current `k_c29i_deg = 0.61`, then `k_rev = 0.61 * 10000 = 6100`.
The reaction would be `id_c29i -> ` with rate `0.61 * id_c29i - 6100`.
This means `id_c29i` degradation stops when `0.61 * id_c29i = 6100`, i.e., `id_c29i = 10000`. This is exactly what we want for the plateau!

Let's try `model_v6` with this modified R1:
*   R1: `id_c29i -> ` with rate `max(0, k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev)`
    *   `k1_fwd = 0.61`
    *   `k1_rev = 6100`
    *   The `max(0, ...)` is to prevent negative rates if `id_c29i` drops below equilibrium due to other reactions.
*   R2: `id_1zyi -> ` with `k2 = 0.00254` (as before)
*   R3: `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv` with `k3 = 1.13e-9` (as in `model_v5`)

This new R1 kinetic law should allow `id_c29i` to plateau around 10000.
This will mean `[id_c29i]` is higher for longer compared to `model_v5` (where it went to zero).
If `[id_c29i]` is higher, then R3 (`k3 * [1zyi] * [c29i]`) will produce *more* `id_dqvv` than `model_v5`.
`model_v5` produced 7338 `id_dqvv` for iter0 (target 7435) - slightly under.
`model_v5` produced 3676 `id_dqvv` for iter6 (target 5140) - significantly under.

So, if this new R1 makes `id_c29i` higher, `id_dqvv` production will increase. This might fix the underproduction in iter6 and slightly improve iter0.

The kinetic law `k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev` is a common way to model reversible reactions where the product is constant or in vast excess or not explicitly modeled.

Let's check the parameters again:
`k1_fwd = 0.61` (from initial `id_c29i` drop in `model_v5`)
`[id_c29i]_plateau ≈ 10000`.
`k1_rev = k1_fwd * [id_c29i]_plateau = 0.61 * 10000 = 6100`.

The rate of R3 in `model_v5` (iter0) was initially `1.13e-9 * 1e6 * 4e6 = 4520`.
Experimental initial `d[id_dqvv]/dt` was `~2427`.
`model_v5` initial `d[id_dqvv]/dt` (from table, t=0.3) `1237 / 0.3 = 4123`. This is higher than exp.
So `k3 = 1.13e-9` might be a bit too high if `id_c29i` stays higher for longer.

Let's re-evaluate `k3`.
In `model_v4`, `k3 = 3.7725e-11` gave good total `id_dqvv` (7411) for iter0, but `id_c29i` was too high (ended at 20k) and initial rates were too slow.
`model_v5` with `k1=0.61` (fast `id_c29i` drop) and `k3=1.13e-9` gave:
  Iter0: `id_dqvv`=7338. Initial `d[dqvv]/dt` (sim) `~4123`. Exp `~2427`. Sim too fast.
  Iter6: `id_dqvv`=3676. Initial `d[dqvv]/dt` (sim, t=0.3) `619/0.3 = 2063`. Exp (t=0.3) `364/0.3 = 1213`. Sim too fast.

Since the new R1 will keep `[id_c29i]` higher than in `model_v5` (where it went to 0), the current `k3 = 1.13e-9` will likely lead to *even more* `id_dqvv` production and faster initial rates.
So, `k3` probably needs to be reduced from `1.13e-9`.

Let's try to estimate `k3` assuming `id_c29i` is effectively `10000` for a significant portion of time relevant for R3, and `k1_fwd, k1_rev` are set.
This is getting complicated to estimate manually.
Let's try `model_v6` with the proposed R1 and keep `k3 = 1.13e-9` first. If `id_dqvv` is overproduced, we'll reduce `k3`.

The kinetic law for R1 will be `k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev`.
This can be written in SBML by having `k1_fwd` and `k1_rev` as parameters.
The term `k1_rev` is a constant flux.

One concern: if `id_c29i` is consumed by R3 such that `k1_fwd * id_c29i < k1_rev`, the net rate of R1 could become production of `id_c29i`. This is fine, it means the "pool" is replenishing `id_c29i` to maintain the 10000 level. The `max(0, ...)` formulation is more for irreversible reactions that shouldn't run backward. For a reversible reaction, `k_fwd * S - k_rev * P` can be negative (net reverse flux). Here, `P` is implicit, so `k_fwd * S - k_rev_const` is the form.

## Action

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

# Define model_v6 parameters
k1_fwd_v6 = 0.61
k1_rev_v6 = 6100.0  # k1_fwd * 10000
k2_val_v6 = 0.00254
k3_val_v6 = 1.13e-9 # Start with model_v5's k3, may need adjustment

def create_model_v6_sbml(p_k1_fwd, p_k1_rev, p_k2, p_k3):
    sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string) # Start from base
    model = sbml_doc.getModel()

    # Reaction 1: id_c29i <-> P (implicit)
    r1 = model.createReaction()
    r1.setId("R1_c29i_reversible_deg")
    r1.setReversible(True) # Set as reversible, though kinetics are custom
    r1.setFast(False)
    
    reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant()
    reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_c29i")
    reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
    reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
    
    # No explicit product, handled by kinetic law form kf*S - kr
    
    kinetic_law_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
    k_fwd_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter()
    k_fwd_param_r1.setId("k1_fwd")
    k_fwd_param_r1.setValue(p_k1_fwd)
    k_fwd_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    
    k_rev_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter()
    k_rev_param_r1.setId("k1_rev")
    k_rev_param_r1.setValue(p_k1_rev)
    k_rev_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    
    # Formula: k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev
    # Important: ensure this rate cannot make id_c29i negative if it's only consumed by this reaction.
    # However, SBML simulators usually handle this. If id_c29i is very low,
    # k1_fwd * id_c29i might be less than k1_rev, leading to net production by R1.
    # This is the desired behavior to maintain id_c29i around 10000.
    math_ast_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev")
    kinetic_law_r1.setMath(math_ast_r1)

    # Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
    r2 = model.createReaction()
    r2.setId("R2_1zyi_degradation")
    r2.setReversible(False)
    r2.setFast(False)
    reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r2 = kinetic_law_r2.createParameter(); k_param_r2.setId("k2_1zyi_deg"); k_param_r2.setValue(p_k2); k_param_r2.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"); kinetic_law_r2.setMath(math_ast_r2)

    # Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
    r3 = model.createReaction()
    r3.setId("R3_dqvv_production")
    r3.setReversible(False)
    r3.setFast(False)
    reactant1_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)
    reactant2_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant2_r3.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant2_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant2_r3.setConstant(False)
    product_r3 = r3.createProduct(); product_r3.setSpecies("id_dqvv"); product_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); product_r3.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r3 = kinetic_law_r3.createParameter(); k_param_r3.setId("k3_prod_dqvv"); k_param_r3.setValue(p_k3); k_param_r3.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"); kinetic_law_r3.setMath(math_ast_r3)
    
    writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
    return writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Create SBML string for model_v6
model_v6_sbml_string = create_model_v6_sbml(k1_fwd_v6, k1_rev_v6, k2_val_v6, k3_val_v6)
shared_variables.add("model_v6_sbml_string", model_v6_sbml_string)

# Simulate model_v6 for iteration_0 conditions
sim_data_v6_iter0 = simulate(model_v6_sbml_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v6_iter0", sim_data_v6_iter0)

# Simulate model_v6 for iteration_6 conditions
sbml_doc_iter6_cond_v6 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(model_v6_sbml_string)
model_iter6_cond_v6 = sbml_doc_iter6_cond_v6.getModel()
model_iter6_cond_v6.getSpecies("id_c29i").setInitialConcentration(2000000.0)
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v6_sbml_iter6_cond_string = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_iter6_cond_v6)
sim_data_v6_iter6 = simulate(model_v6_sbml_iter6_cond_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v6_iter6", sim_data_v6_iter6)

print("Model v6 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.")

def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    epsilon = 1e-9
    y_true_np = np.maximum(y_true, 0); y_pred_np = np.maximum(y_pred, 0)
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred_np + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true_np + epsilon))))

# --- Analysis for iteration_0 ---
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history["iteration_0"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v6 (last 5 rows, iter0):")
print(sim_data_v6_iter0.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.tail())
print("\nRMSLE values for model_v6 vs experimental (iteration_0):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    error = rmsle(exp_data_iter0[species].values, sim_data_v6_iter0[species].values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
sim_dqvv_change_v6_iter0 = sim_data_v6_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v6_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v6={sim_dqvv_change_v6_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter0:.2e}")

# --- Analysis for iteration_6 ---
exp_data_iter6 = experiment_history["iteration_6"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v6 (last 5 rows, iter6):")
print(sim_data_v6_iter6.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.tail())
print("\nRMSLE values for model_v6 vs experimental (iteration_6):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    error = rmsle(exp_data_iter6[species].values, sim_data_v6_iter6[species].values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
sim_dqvv_change_v6_iter6 = sim_data_v6_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v6_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v6={sim_dqvv_change_v6_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter6:.2e}")

# Print first 5 rows for dynamics check
print("\nSimulated data v6 (first 5 rows, iter0):")
print(sim_data_v6_iter0.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.head())

print("\nSimulated data v6 (first 5 rows, iter6):")
print(sim_data_v6_iter6.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.head())
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v6 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.

--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---
Simulated data v6 (last 5 rows, iter0):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi      id_c29i   Time
996   9662.318276  463150.699201  9991.391736  298.8
997   9663.886423  462796.341247  9991.398317  299.1
998   9665.453371  462442.254440  9991.404892  299.4
999   9667.019122  462088.438575  9991.411463  299.7
1000  9668.583675  461734.893445  9991.418028  300.0
Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

RMSLE values for model_v6 vs experimental (iteration_0):
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.4192
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0610
RMSLE for id_c29i: 0.3574
Iter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v6=9.67e+03, Exp=7.44e+03

--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---
Simulated data v6 (last 5 rows, iter6):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi      id_c29i   Time
996   6008.410308  464869.204151  9991.359823  298.8
997   6009.984256  464513.534221  9991.366428  299.1
998   6011.557001  464158.136430  9991.373028  299.4
999   6013.128544  463803.010569  9991.379623  299.7
1000  6014.698885  463448.156430  9991.386212  300.0
Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   5132.300486  459840.844468  10132.461796  298.8
997   5134.916350  459606.398356  10128.315557  299.1
998   5137.531659  459372.220578  10124.174560  299.4
999   5140.146412  459138.310672  10120.038796  299.7
1000  5142.760611  458904.668178  10115.908257  300.0

RMSLE values for model_v6 vs experimental (iteration_6):
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.3480
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0655
RMSLE for id_c29i: 0.3349
Iter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v6=6.01e+03, Exp=5.14e+03

Simulated data v6 (first 5 rows, iter0):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1  1238.023325   998000.753012  3.331617e+06   0.3
2  2267.280723   996211.712772  2.775195e+06   0.6
3  3123.219243   994597.286106  2.311986e+06   0.9
4  3835.219261   993127.971220  1.926380e+06   1.2
Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2

Simulated data v6 (first 5 rows, iter6):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  2.000000e+06   0.0
1   619.349061   998619.184321  1.666645e+06   0.3
2  1134.833002   997343.244741  1.389129e+06   0.6
3  1563.997881   996154.562244  1.158104e+06   0.9
4  1921.428387   995038.491363  9.657764e+05   1.2
Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  2.000000e+06   0.0
1   364.186520   999105.329025  1.635856e+06   0.3
2   662.179168   998146.871710  1.338683e+06   0.6
3   906.153736   997136.960056  1.096162e+06   0.9
4  1106.041173   996085.649893  8.982437e+05   1.2

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 11/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_v3, model_v4_sbml_string, sim_data_v4, model_v5_sbml_string, sim_data_v5_iter0, sim_data_v5_iter6, model_v6_sbml_string, sim_data_v6_iter0, sim_data_v6_iter6)

### 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_v6` results are very promising!
Parameters: `k1_fwd=0.61`, `k1_rev=6100`, `k2=0.00254`, `k3=1.13e-9`.
R1: `id_c29i -> ` (rate `k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev`)

**Analysis for `iteration_0` ([c29i]_0 = 4e6):**
*   **`id_c29i`**:
    *   Initial sim drop (t=0.3): `4e6 - 3.33e6 = 0.67e6`. Exp: `0.73e6`. Very good.
    *   Final sim value: `9991`. Exp: `10577`. Plateau is matched extremely well!
    *   RMSLE: `0.3574`. This is a massive improvement from `9.19` in `model_v5`! This is excellent.
*   **`id_1zyi`**:
    *   RMSLE: `0.0610`. Still very good.
*   **`id_dqvv`**:
    *   Initial sim production (t=0.3): `1238`. Exp: `728`. Sim is still faster initially.
    *   Final sim production: `9669`. Exp: `7435`. Sim now overproduces by `(9669-7435)/7435 * 100% ≈ 30%`.
    *   RMSLE: `0.4192`. Slightly worse than `model_v5` (0.3035) due to overproduction and faster initial rate.

**Analysis for `iteration_6` ([c29i]_0 = 2e6):**
*   **`id_c29i`**:
    *   Initial sim drop (t=0.3): `2e6 - 1.666e6 = 0.334e6`. Exp: `0.364e6`. Very good.
    *   Final sim value: `9991`. Exp: `10115`. Plateau matched extremely well again!
    *   RMSLE: `0.3349`. Massive improvement from `9.18`! Excellent.
*   **`id_1zyi`**:
    *   RMSLE: `0.0655`. Still very good.
*   **`id_dqvv`**:
    *   Initial sim production (t=0.3): `619`. Exp: `364`. Sim faster initially.
    *   Final sim production: `6015`. Exp: `5140`. Sim overproduces by `(6015-5140)/5140 * 100% ≈ 17%`.
    *   RMSLE: `0.3480`. Slightly worse than `model_v5` (0.2639).

**Summary of `model_v6`:**
The reversible degradation for `id_c29i` (R1: `rate = k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev`) has dramatically improved the fit for `id_c29i` dynamics and its final plateau value for both experimental conditions. This is a major breakthrough.

The main remaining issue is `id_dqvv`:
1.  It's overproduced in both conditions (by 30% in iter0, 17% in iter6).
2.  The initial rate of `id_dqvv` production in simulation is still too high compared to experimental data.
    *   Iter0: Sim(t=0.3) `1238` vs Exp `728`.
    *   Iter6: Sim(t=0.3) `619` vs Exp `364`.

Both issues (overproduction and too-fast initial rate) point to `k3` (for `id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`) being too high.
The current `k3 = 1.13e-9`.
Since `id_c29i` now stays higher for longer (plateaus at 10k instead of going to 0 like in `model_v5`), R3 is more active for longer, leading to more total `id_dqvv`.

We need to reduce `k3`.
Let's try to scale `k3` down.
For iter0, `id_dqvv` sim/exp = `9669/7435 ≈ 1.30`. So `k3` might need to be `1/1.30 ≈ 0.77` times current `k3`.
For iter6, `id_dqvv` sim/exp = `6015/5140 ≈ 1.17`. So `k3` might need to be `1/1.17 ≈ 0.85` times current `k3`.
Let's try an average reduction, say by a factor of `0.80`.
New `k3_v7 = 1.13e-9 * 0.80 = 0.904e-9`.

This reduction in `k3` should:
1.  Reduce the total amount of `id_dqvv` produced, hopefully bringing it closer to experimental values for both conditions.
2.  Reduce the initial rate of `id_dqvv` production, which is currently too high in simulations.

The parameters for `model_v7` will be:
*   `k1_fwd = 0.61`
*   `k1_rev = 6100.0`
*   `k2 = 0.00254`
*   `k3 = 0.904e-9` (reduced from `1.13e-9`)

This seems like a good refinement. The model structure with the reversible R1 seems correct. Now it's about fine-tuning `k3`.

## Action

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

# Define model_v7 parameters
k1_fwd_v7 = 0.61
k1_rev_v7 = 6100.0
k2_val_v7 = 0.00254
k3_val_v7 = 0.904e-9 # Reduced k3

def create_model_v7_sbml(p_k1_fwd, p_k1_rev, p_k2, p_k3): # Same structure as v6
    sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
    model = sbml_doc.getModel()

    # Reaction 1: id_c29i <-> P (implicit)
    r1 = model.createReaction(); r1.setId("R1_c29i_reversible_deg"); r1.setReversible(True); r1.setFast(False)
    reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant(); reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r1.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
    k_fwd_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter(); k_fwd_param_r1.setId("k1_fwd"); k_fwd_param_r1.setValue(p_k1_fwd); k_fwd_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    k_rev_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter(); k_rev_param_r1.setId("k1_rev"); k_rev_param_r1.setValue(p_k1_rev); k_rev_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev"); kinetic_law_r1.setMath(math_ast_r1)

    # Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
    r2 = model.createReaction(); r2.setId("R2_1zyi_degradation"); r2.setReversible(False); r2.setFast(False)
    reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant(); reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant_r2.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r2 = kinetic_law_r2.createParameter(); k_param_r2.setId("k2_1zyi_deg"); k_param_r2.setValue(p_k2); k_param_r2.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi"); kinetic_law_r2.setMath(math_ast_r2)

    # Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
    r3 = model.createReaction(); r3.setId("R3_dqvv_production"); r3.setReversible(False); r3.setFast(False)
    reactant1_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_1zyi"); reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)
    reactant2_r3 = r3.createReactant(); reactant2_r3.setSpecies("id_c29i"); reactant2_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); reactant2_r3.setConstant(False)
    product_r3 = r3.createProduct(); product_r3.setSpecies("id_dqvv"); product_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0); product_r3.setConstant(False)
    kinetic_law_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r3 = kinetic_law_r3.createParameter(); k_param_r3.setId("k3_prod_dqvv"); k_param_r3.setValue(p_k3); k_param_r3.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i"); kinetic_law_r3.setMath(math_ast_r3)
    
    writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
    return writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

# Create SBML string for model_v7
model_v7_sbml_string = create_model_v7_sbml(k1_fwd_v7, k1_rev_v7, k2_val_v7, k3_val_v7)
shared_variables.add("model_v7_sbml_string", model_v7_sbml_string)

# Simulate model_v7 for iteration_0 conditions
sim_data_v7_iter0 = simulate(model_v7_sbml_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v7_iter0", sim_data_v7_iter0)

# Simulate model_v7 for iteration_6 conditions
sbml_doc_iter6_cond_v7 = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(model_v7_sbml_string)
model_iter6_cond_v7 = sbml_doc_iter6_cond_v7.getModel()
model_iter6_cond_v7.getSpecies("id_c29i").setInitialConcentration(2000000.0)
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
model_v7_sbml_iter6_cond_string = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_iter6_cond_v7)
sim_data_v7_iter6 = simulate(model_v7_sbml_iter6_cond_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v7_iter6", sim_data_v7_iter6)

print("Model v7 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.")

def rmsle(y_true, y_pred):
    epsilon = 1e-9
    y_true_np = np.maximum(y_true, 0); y_pred_np = np.maximum(y_pred, 0)
    return np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(np.log1p(y_pred_np + epsilon) - np.log1p(y_true_np + epsilon))))

# --- Analysis for iteration_0 ---
exp_data_iter0 = experiment_history["iteration_0"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v7 (last 5 rows, iter0):")
print(sim_data_v7_iter0.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.tail())
print("\nRMSLE values for model_v7 vs experimental (iteration_0):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    error = rmsle(exp_data_iter0[species].values, sim_data_v7_iter0[species].values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
sim_dqvv_change_v7_iter0 = sim_data_v7_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v7_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter0 = exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter0['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v7={sim_dqvv_change_v7_iter0:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter0:.2e}")

# --- Analysis for iteration_6 ---
exp_data_iter6 = experiment_history["iteration_6"]
print("\n--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---")
print("Simulated data v7 (last 5 rows, iter6):")
print(sim_data_v7_iter6.tail())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.tail())
print("\nRMSLE values for model_v7 vs experimental (iteration_6):")
for species in ['id_dqvv', 'id_1zyi', 'id_c29i']:
    error = rmsle(exp_data_iter6[species].values, sim_data_v7_iter6[species].values)
    print(f"RMSLE for {species}: {error:.4f}")
sim_dqvv_change_v7_iter6 = sim_data_v7_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - sim_data_v7_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
exp_dqvv_change_iter6 = exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[-1] - exp_data_iter6['id_dqvv'].iloc[0]
print(f"Iter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v7={sim_dqvv_change_v7_iter6:.2e}, Exp={exp_dqvv_change_iter6:.2e}")

# Print first 5 rows for dynamics check
print("\nSimulated data v7 (first 5 rows, iter0):")
print(sim_data_v7_iter0.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter0.head())

print("\nSimulated data v7 (first 5 rows, iter6):")
print(sim_data_v7_iter6.head())
print("Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):")
print(exp_data_iter6.head())
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Model v7 created and simulated for iteration_0 and iteration_6 conditions.

--- Comparison for iteration_0 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 4e6) ---
Simulated data v7 (last 5 rows, iter0):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi      id_c29i   Time
996   7740.098865  464149.238322  9993.097384  298.8
997   7741.356292  463794.433103  9993.102657  299.1
998   7742.612760  463439.899122  9993.107926  299.4
999   7743.868267  463085.636172  9993.113191  299.7
1000  7745.122815  462731.644045  9993.118452  300.0
Experimental data (iteration_0, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   7423.357489  460260.732653  10593.713165  298.8
997   7426.301317  460025.889605  10589.623848  299.1
998   7429.244616  459791.315237  10585.539786  299.4
999   7432.187387  459557.009097  10581.460971  299.7
1000  7435.129633  459322.970733  10577.387393  300.0

RMSLE values for model_v7 vs experimental (iteration_0):
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.2097
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0626
RMSLE for id_c29i: 0.3572
Iter0 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v7=7.75e+03, Exp=7.44e+03

--- Comparison for iteration_6 conditions ([c29i]_0 = 2e6) ---
Simulated data v7 (last 5 rows, iter6):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi      id_c29i   Time
996   4811.308527  465525.232390  9993.076935  298.8
997   4812.569683  465169.374573  9993.082224  299.1
998   4813.829875  464813.788797  9993.087508  299.4
999   4815.089104  464458.474855  9993.092789  299.7
1000  4816.347372  464103.432539  9993.098065  300.0
Experimental data (iteration_6, last 5 rows):
          id_dqvv        id_1zyi       id_c29i   Time
996   5132.300486  459840.844468  10132.461796  298.8
997   5134.916350  459606.398356  10128.315557  299.1
998   5137.531659  459372.220578  10124.174560  299.4
999   5140.146412  459138.310672  10120.038796  299.7
1000  5142.760611  458904.668178  10115.908257  300.0

RMSLE values for model_v7 vs experimental (iteration_6):
RMSLE for id_dqvv: 0.1603
RMSLE for id_1zyi: 0.0665
RMSLE for id_c29i: 0.3346
Iter6 Change in id_dqvv: Sim_v7=4.82e+03, Exp=5.14e+03

Simulated data v7 (first 5 rows, iter0):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   990.575149   998248.104007  3.331842e+06   0.3
2  1814.352304   996664.274919  2.775570e+06   0.6
3  2499.578563   995220.148804  2.312460e+06   0.9
4  3069.725572   993892.156715  1.926895e+06   1.2
Experimental data (iteration_0, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  4.000000e+06   0.0
1   727.995775   999468.620138  3.268076e+06   0.3
2  1322.943853   998805.696373  2.670766e+06   0.6
3  1809.306765   998036.018193  2.183317e+06   0.9
4  2207.062381   997179.827781  1.785516e+06   1.2

Simulated data v7 (first 5 rows, iter6):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  2.000000e+06   0.0
1   495.526667   998742.958099  1.666757e+06   0.3
2   908.025787   997569.868641  1.389318e+06   0.6
3  1251.509677   996466.660870  1.158339e+06   0.9
4  1537.619325   995421.645135  9.660378e+05   1.2
Experimental data (iteration_6, first 5 rows):
       id_dqvv         id_1zyi       id_c29i  Time
0     0.000000  1000000.000000  2.000000e+06   0.0
1   364.186520   999105.329025  1.635856e+06   0.3
2   662.179168   998146.871710  1.338683e+06   0.6
3   906.153736   997136.960056  1.096162e+06   0.9
4  1106.041173   996085.649893  8.982437e+05   1.2

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 10/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_6)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml_string, sim_data_v1, model_v2_sbml_string, sim_data_v2, model_v3_sbml_string, sim_data_v3, model_v4_sbml_string, sim_data_v4, model_v5_sbml_string, sim_data_v5_iter0, sim_data_v5_iter6, model_v6_sbml_string, sim_data_v6_iter0, sim_data_v6_iter6, model_v7_sbml_string, sim_data_v7_iter0, sim_data_v7_iter6)

### 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
`model_v7` results with reduced `k3 = 0.904e-9`:
Parameters: `k1_fwd=0.61`, `k1_rev=6100`, `k2=0.00254`, `k3=0.904e-9`.

**Analysis for `iteration_0` ([c29i]_0 = 4e6):**
*   **`id_c29i`**: RMSLE `0.3572`. Final sim `9993` vs exp `10577`. Excellent.
*   **`id_1zyi`**: RMSLE `0.0626`. Excellent.
*   **`id_dqvv`**:
    *   Initial sim (t=0.3): `990`. Exp: `728`. Sim still faster initially, but closer than `model_v6` (was 1238).
    *   Final sim: `7745`. Exp: `7435`. Overproduction reduced to `(7745-7435)/7435 * 100% ≈ 4.1%`. Much better.
    *   RMSLE: `0.2097`. This is the best `id_dqvv` RMSLE for iter0 so far! (model_v6 was 0.4192, model_v5 was 0.3035).

**Analysis for `iteration_6` ([c29i]_0 = 2e6):**
*   **`id_c29i`**: RMSLE `0.3346`. Final sim `9993` vs exp `10115`. Excellent.
*   **`id_1zyi`**: RMSLE `0.0665`. Excellent.
*   **`id_dqvv`**:
    *   Initial sim (t=0.3): `495`. Exp: `364`. Sim faster initially, but closer than `model_v6` (was 619).
    *   Final sim: `4816`. Exp: `5140`. Underproduction now `(5140-4816)/5140 * 100% ≈ 6.3%`. This is good.
    *   RMSLE: `0.1603`. This is the best `id_dqvv` RMSLE for iter6 so far! (model_v6 was 0.3480, model_v5 was 0.2639).

**Summary of `model_v7`:**
This model is performing very well across the board for both experimental conditions.
*   `id_c29i` dynamics and plateau are captured excellently.
*   `id_1zyi` dynamics are captured excellently.
*   `id_dqvv` total amounts are now very close for both conditions (4% over for iter0, 6% under for iter6).
*   `id_dqvv` RMSLE values are the best yet for both conditions.

The only minor remaining discrepancy is that the *initial* rate of `id_dqvv` production in simulations is still slightly higher than in experiments:
*   Iter0: Sim rate (0-0.3s) `990/0.3 = 3300`. Exp rate `728/0.3 = 2427`. Sim is ~1.36x faster.
*   Iter6: Sim rate (0-0.3s) `495/0.3 = 1650`. Exp rate `364/0.3 = 1213`. Sim is ~1.36x faster.

This consistent factor suggests that `k3` might still be a tiny bit too high for the very initial phase, or the model doesn't capture a slight lag or more complex initial kinetics for R3. However, the overall RMSLE for `id_dqvv` is very good, meaning the shape over the entire time course is well matched. Trying to perfectly match the very first time point might be overfitting to noise or a subtle mechanism not easily captured by simple mass action.

Given the excellent performance on RMSLE for all species, especially `id_c29i`, and good agreement of final values across two different conditions, this model (`model_v7`) seems very robust and likely close to the true underlying mechanism (within the constraints of the given species).

The current parameters are:
*   R1 (`id_c29i <=> P`): `k1_fwd = 0.61`, `k1_rev = 6100.0`
*   R2 (`id_1zyi -> `): `k2 = 0.00254`
*   R3 (`id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv`): `k3 = 0.904e-9`

I am quite satisfied with this model. The RMSLE values are low, and it performs well under perturbation.
The prompt 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 reversible reaction for `id_c29i` degradation was a key discovery that generalized well.

I could try one more minor tweak to `k3` to see if the initial `id_dqvv` rate can be improved without worsening overall RMSLE or final amounts too much.
If current `k3` makes initial rate ~1.36x too fast, maybe `k3_v8 = k3_v7 / 1.36 = 0.904e-9 / 1.36 = 0.6647e-9`.
This might make the total `id_dqvv` production too low.
Let's try `k3_v8 = 0.70e-9` as a slightly larger reduction.

Alternative: The current model is already very good. Further fine-tuning might be overfitting.
The RMSLE values are:
Iter0: dqvv: 0.2097, 1zyi: 0.0626, c29i: 0.3572
Iter6: dqvv: 0.1603, 1zyi: 0.0665, c29i: 0.3346

These are all quite low. `id_c29i` RMSLEs are especially impressive given where they started.
I think this model is a strong candidate for submission.
The mechanism of reversible degradation for `id_c29i` was key.

Let's consider if any other experiment would be useful.
Perhaps changing `[id_1zyi]_0`?
If `[id_1zyi]_0` is halved, `model_v7` would predict:
- R2 (`k2*[id_1zyi]`) rate halves, so `id_1zyi` degrades slower, total `Δ[id_1zyi]` might be less than half due to longer persistence.
- R3 (`k3*[id_1zyi]*[id_c29i]`) rate halves (initially). This would reduce `id_dqvv` production.
This could provide further validation for `k2` and `k3`.

However, with 10 iterations remaining, and a very good model in hand, submitting might be a reasonable choice. The goal is to discover mechanisms, and the reversible R1 is a significant mechanistic finding.

Let's review the initial rate of `id_dqvv` again.
Iter0: Sim `990` at t=0.3. Exp `728`.
Iter6: Sim `495` at t=0.3. Exp `364`.
The ratio Sim/Exp is `990/728 = 1.36` and `495/364 = 1.36`. This consistency is good.
If I reduce `k3` by a factor of 1.36, the initial simulated values should match the experimental ones.
New `k3_final = 0.904e-9 / 1.36 = 0.664705...e-9`. Let's use `0.665e-9`.

This will reduce total `id_dqvv` production.
Current `Δid_dqvv` for iter0: Sim `7745`, Exp `7435`. (Sim is 1.04x Exp).
If `k3` is reduced by 1.36, `Δid_dqvv` might also reduce by roughly that factor (not exactly, as `[id_c29i]` and `[id_1zyi]` also change).
`7745 / 1.36 = 5695`. This would be too low compared to Exp `7435`.

So, matching the very first time point perfectly might compromise the overall fit. The current `k3 = 0.904e-9` gives a good balance. The RMSLE for `id_dqvv` is already low.

I will submit `model_v7`.

## Action

### Submit
```python
import libsbml
import numpy as np # Not strictly needed for submission string, but good practice if used in helper

# Parameters for the final model (model_v7)
k1_fwd_final = 0.61
k1_rev_final = 6100.0
k2_val_final = 0.00254
k3_val_final = 0.904e-9

def create_final_sbml_string(p_k1_fwd, p_k1_rev, p_k2, p_k3):
    # Create the SBML document and model
    try:
        sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
        if sbml_doc.getNumErrors() > 0:
            print("Errors in reading input_sbml_string:")
            for i in range(sbml_doc.getNumErrors()):
                print(sbml_doc.getError(i).getMessage())
            # Fallback or error handling: create a new document if input is problematic
            # For this context, assume input_sbml_string is valid enough to get basic structure
    except Exception as e:
        print(f"Error processing input_sbml_string: {e}")
        # Basic fallback if input_sbml_string is utterly broken (should not happen in this environment)
        sbml_doc = libsbml.SBMLDocument(2, 4) # Level 2 Version 4
        model = sbml_doc.createModel("fallback_model")
        comp = model.createCompartment()
        comp.setId("id_lqze"); comp.setSize(1); comp.setConstant(True)
        s = model.createSpecies(); s.setId("id_dqvv"); s.setCompartment("id_lqze"); s.setInitialConcentration(0)
        s = model.createSpecies(); s.setId("id_1zyi"); s.setCompartment("id_lqze"); s.setInitialConcentration(1e6)
        s = model.createSpecies(); s.setId("id_c29i"); s.setCompartment("id_lqze"); s.setInitialConcentration(4e6)
        # This fallback is minimal and might miss unit definitions etc.

    model = sbml_doc.getModel()
    if model is None: # Should not happen if input_sbml_string is valid
        model = sbml_doc.createModel("id_t7ma_recovered") # Use original model ID if possible
        # Re-add compartment and species if model was missing
        comp = model.createCompartment()
        comp.setId("id_lqze"); comp.setSpatialDimensions(3); comp.setSize(1); comp.setConstant(True)
        
        s_dqvv = model.createSpecies(); s_dqvv.setId("id_dqvv"); s_dqvv.setCompartment("id_lqze"); s_dqvv.setInitialConcentration(0); s_dqvv.setBoundaryCondition(False); s_dqvv.setConstant(False)
        s_1zyi = model.createSpecies(); s_1zyi.setId("id_1zyi"); s_1zyi.setCompartment("id_lqze"); s_1zyi.setInitialConcentration(1000000); s_1zyi.setBoundaryCondition(False); s_1zyi.setConstant(False)
        s_c29i = model.createSpecies(); s_c29i.setId("id_c29i"); s_c29i.setCompartment("id_lqze"); s_c29i.setInitialConcentration(4000000); s_c29i.setBoundaryCondition(False); s_c29i.setConstant(False)


    # Reaction 1: id_c29i <-> P (implicit), effectively id_c29i -> with rate k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev
    r1 = model.createReaction()
    r1.setId("R1_c29i_reversible_deg")
    r1.setReversible(True) 
    r1.setFast(False) # Required in SBML L3, often tolerated or ignored in L2
    
    reactant_r1 = r1.createReactant()
    reactant_r1.setSpecies("id_c29i")
    reactant_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
    # reactant_r1.setConstant(False) # L3 attribute

    kinetic_law_r1 = r1.createKineticLaw()
    k_fwd_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter()
    k_fwd_param_r1.setId("k1_fwd")
    k_fwd_param_r1.setValue(p_k1_fwd)
    k_fwd_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    
    k_rev_param_r1 = kinetic_law_r1.createParameter()
    k_rev_param_r1.setId("k1_rev")
    k_rev_param_r1.setValue(p_k1_rev)
    k_rev_param_r1.setConstant(True)
    
    math_ast_r1 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev")
    if math_ast_r1 is None:
      print(f"Error parsing formula for R1: k1_fwd * id_c29i - k1_rev")
    else:
      kinetic_law_r1.setMath(math_ast_r1)

    # Reaction 2: id_1zyi -> (degradation)
    r2 = model.createReaction()
    r2.setId("R2_1zyi_degradation")
    r2.setReversible(False)
    r2.setFast(False)
    
    reactant_r2 = r2.createReactant()
    reactant_r2.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
    reactant_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
    # reactant_r2.setConstant(False)

    kinetic_law_r2 = r2.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r2 = kinetic_law_r2.createParameter()
    k_param_r2.setId("k2_1zyi_deg")
    k_param_r2.setValue(p_k2)
    k_param_r2.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r2 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k2_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi")
    if math_ast_r2 is None:
      print(f"Error parsing formula for R2: k2_1zyi_deg * id_1zyi")
    else:
      kinetic_law_r2.setMath(math_ast_r2)


    # Reaction 3: id_1zyi + id_c29i -> id_dqvv
    r3 = model.createReaction()
    r3.setId("R3_dqvv_production")
    r3.setReversible(False)
    r3.setFast(False)
    
    reactant1_r3 = r3.createReactant()
    reactant1_r3.setSpecies("id_1zyi")
    reactant1_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
    # reactant1_r3.setConstant(False)
    
    reactant2_r3 = r3.createReactant()
    reactant2_r3.setSpecies("id_c29i")
    reactant2_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
    # reactant2_r3.setConstant(False)
    
    product_r3 = r3.createProduct()
    product_r3.setSpecies("id_dqvv")
    product_r3.setStoichiometry(1.0)
    # product_r3.setConstant(False) # Product constant refers to species, not speciesReference

    kinetic_law_r3 = r3.createKineticLaw()
    k_param_r3 = kinetic_law_r3.createParameter()
    k_param_r3.setId("k3_prod_dqvv")
    k_param_r3.setValue(p_k3)
    k_param_r3.setConstant(True)
    math_ast_r3 = libsbml.parseL3Formula("k3_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i")
    if math_ast_r3 is None:
      print(f"Error parsing formula for R3: k3_prod_dqvv * id_1zyi * id_c29i")
    else:
      kinetic_law_r3.setMath(math_ast_r3)
    
    writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
    return writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)

final_sbml = create_final_sbml_string(k1_fwd_final, k1_rev_final, k2_val_final, k3_val_final)
# print(final_sbml) # For debugging if needed, but not for submission output
```
