Transparent SSD Failure Prediction Through Interpretable Artificial Intelligence Techniques

Authors

  • Hiroshi Nakamura Department of Artificial Intelligence, Tokyo Institute of Computing, Tokyo, Japan Author
  • Yuki Tanaka Department of Information Science, Osaka Advanced Technology University, Osaka, Japan Author

Keywords:

SSD failure prediction, Explainable AI, interpretable machine learning, LIME

Abstract

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

Download data is not yet available.

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

2026-09-04

How to Cite

Transparent SSD Failure Prediction Through Interpretable Artificial Intelligence Techniques. (2026). European Journal of Emerging Artificial Intelligence, 3(09), 1-7. https://parthenonfrontiers.com/index.php/ejeai/article/view/790

Similar Articles

11-20 of 55

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.