Transparent SSD Failure Prediction Through Interpretable Artificial Intelligence Techniques
Keywords:
SSD failure prediction, Explainable AI, interpretable machine learning, LIMEAbstract
Solid-state drives (SSDs) have become critical storage components in computing infrastructures, cloud platforms, enterprise systems, and intelligent devices, making reliable failure prediction an important component of predictive maintenance and system dependability. Conventional machine-learning models can identify complex relationships among storage-health indicators, workload characteristics, error statistics, thermal conditions, and operational behavior, but their limited interpretability can restrict their practical adoption. This research develops a conceptual framework for transparent SSD failure prediction through interpretable artificial intelligence (AI), emphasizing the integration of predictive modeling with post-hoc explanation mechanisms such as Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The methodological foundation is positioned within the broader development of advanced AI systems, including transformer-based, multimodal, reasoning-oriented, and neural architectures represented in the supplied literature. The framework separates prediction from explanation while establishing an evidence-oriented pathway through which individual SSD-health indicators can be associated with predicted failure risk. The analysis indicates that transparency should not be treated as an auxiliary visualization layer but as an integral property of the predictive-maintenance pipeline. The study further identifies important trade-offs between predictive complexity, explanation fidelity, computational overhead, and operational usability. By incorporating interpretable AI principles into SSD failure prediction, the proposed approach provides a structured basis for trustworthy maintenance decisions while acknowledging the limitations associated with model-agnostic explanations, distribution shifts, feature correlations, and the absence of universally representative SSD failure datasets.
Downloads
References
1. J. Achiam, “GPT-4 technical report,” 2023, arXiv:2303.08774.
2. R. Anil, “Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models,” 2023, arXiv:2312.11805.
3. J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proc. NAACL-HLT, vol. 1, 2019, pp. 1–8.
4. W. Gerstner, W. M. Kistler, R. Naud, and L. Paninski, Neuronal Dynamics: From Single Neurons to Networks and Models of Cognition. Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014.
5. D. Guo. “Deepseek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning.” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:275789950
6. A. Liu, “Deepseek-v3 technical report,” 2024, arXiv:2412.19437.
7. C. Liu, S. D. Zhang, and R. Jabbarvand. “Codemind: A framework to challenge large language models for code reasoning.” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267682042
8. W. Liu, “QFFT, question-free fine-tuning for adaptive reasoning.” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:279402374
9. Z. Lu. “MathCoder2: Better math reasoning from continued pretraining on model-translated mathematical code.” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:273233982
10. W. Maass, “Networks of spiking neurons: The third generation of neural network models,” Neural Netw., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1659–1671, 1997.
11. R. Qiao. “We-math: Does your large multimodal model achieve human-like mathematical reasoning?,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:270870136
12. J. Pei, “Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture,” Nature, vol. 572, no. 7767, pp. 106–111, 2019.
13. H. Touvron, “LLAMA: Open and efficient foundation language models,” 2023, arXiv:2302.13971.
14. W. Wei, “Event-driven learning for spiking neural networks,” 2024, arXiv:2403.00270.
15. J. Wu, “Progressive tandem learning for pattern recognition with deep spiking neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 7824–7840, Nov. 2021.
16. X. Xing, “SpikeLM: Towards general spike-driven language modeling via elastic bi-spiking mechanisms,” in Proc. 41st Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2024, pp. 54698–54714.
17. R.-J. Zhu, Q. Zhao, G. Li, and J. K. Eshraghian, “SpikeGPT: Generative pre-trained language model with spiking neural networks,” 2023, arXiv:2302.13939.
18. N. Muennighoff. “S1: Simple test-time scaling.” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276079693
19. Kumar, S. K. (2026). Explainable AI for SSD Failure Prediction: Using LIME and SHAP for Transparency. Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 5(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.55708/js0504001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hiroshi Nakamura, Yuki Tanaka (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published by The Parthenon Frontiers and its associated journals are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) International License unless otherwise stated.
Authors retain full copyright of their published work. By submitting their manuscript, authors agree to grant The Parthenon Frontiers a non-exclusive license to publish, archive, and distribute the article worldwide. Authors are free to:
-
Share their article on personal websites, institutional repositories, or social media platforms.
-
Reuse their content in future works, presentations, or educational materials, provided proper citation of the original publication.