A Explainability-Driven Approach to SSD Failure Detection Using LIME and SHAP Analysis
Keywords:
SSD failure detection, Explainable Artificial Intelligence, LIME, SHAPAbstract
The Solid-state drives (SSDs) have become critical components of modern computing infrastructures because of their high performance, low latency, and increasing deployment in data-intensive systems. However, SSD degradation and failure can develop through complex interactions among workload characteristics, operational conditions, device behavior, and accumulated wear, making reliable failure detection a challenging predictive task. Conventional machine-learning-based failure prediction can provide accurate classifications while remaining difficult for engineers and system administrators to interpret. This creates an important requirement for explainability, particularly when predictive decisions influence preventive maintenance, storage migration, or system availability. This paper proposes an explainability-driven framework for SSD failure detection that integrates predictive modeling with Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The methodology treats explainability not as a post-processing visualization but as an analytical layer connecting SSD telemetry, predictive outputs, feature contributions, and operational decisions. The framework incorporates principles derived from evolutionary optimization, intelligent search, recommender systems, large language model research, and computational materials discovery to establish a broader theoretical foundation for data-driven optimization and interpretable decision support. Particular emphasis is placed on feature-level attribution, local versus global explanations, explanation consistency, failure-risk prioritization, and the trade-off between predictive complexity and interpretability. The resulting framework provides a systematic basis for identifying influential SSD health indicators, validating model behavior, and translating failure predictions into actionable maintenance decisions. The study further identifies limitations associated with explanation stability, correlated telemetry variables, model dependence, and the absence of a standardized explanatory ground truth. The proposed approach contributes an interpretable architecture for trustworthy SSD failure detection and establishes directions for future empirical validation.
Downloads
References
J. Bobadilla, F. Ortega, A. Hernando, and A. Gutiérrez, “Recommender systems survey,” Knowl. Based Syst., vol. 46, pp. 109–132, Jul. 2013.
H. Bradley, H. Fan, T. Galanos, R. Zhou, D. Scott, and J. Lehman, “The OpenELM library: Leveraging progress in language models for novel evolutionary algorithms,” in Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XX. Singapore : Springer, 2024, pp. 177–201.
M. Bran, S. Cox, O. Schilter, C. Baldassari, A. D. White, and P. Schwaller, “ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools,” 2023, arXiv:2304.05376.
J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, and R. Slowinski, Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Berlin, Germany : Springer, 2008.
M. J. Buehler, “MechGPT, a language-based strategy for mechanics and materials modeling that connects knowledge across scales, disciplines, and modalities,” Appl. Mech. Rev., vol. 76, no. 2, 2024, Art. no. 21001.
“Chatgpt 3.5. ” OpenAI. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference
C. A. C. Coello, G. B. Lamont, and D. A. Van Veldhuizen, Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems. New York, NY, USA : Springer, 2007.
K. Deb, “Evolutionary algorithms for multi-criterion optimization in engineering design,” Evol. Algorithms Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 135–161, May 1999.
A. Gupta, Y.-S. Ong, M. Shakeri, X. Chi, and A. Z. NengSheng, “The blessing of dimensionality in many-objective search: An inverse machine learning insight,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data (Big Data), 2019, pp. 3896–3902.
Q. Guo, “Connecting large language models with evolutionary algorithms yields powerful prompt optimizers,” 2023, arXiv:2309.08532.
Y. Koren, S. Rendle, and R. Bell, “Advances in collaborative filtering,” in Recommender Systems Handbook. Boston, MA, USA : Springer, 2021, pp. 91–142.
B. Li, K. Mellou, B. Zhang, J. Pathuri, and I. Menache, “Large language models for supply chain optimization,” 2023, arXiv:2307.03875.
E. Meyerson, “Language model crossover: Variation through few-shot prompting,” ACM Trans. Evol. Learn. Optim., vol. 4, pp. 1–40, Nov. 2024, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3694791
M. U. Nasir, S. Earle, J. Togelius, S. James, and C. Cleghorn, “LLMatic: neural architecture search via large language models and quality diversity optimization,” in Proc. Genet. Evol. Comput. Conf., 2024, pp. 1110–1118.
A. R. Oganov, C. J. Pickard, Q. Zhu, and R. J. Needs, “Structure prediction drives materials discovery,” Nat. Rev. Mater., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 331–348, 2019.
X. Wu, S.-h. Wu, J. Wu, L. Feng, and K. C. Tan, “Evolutionary computation in the era of large language model: Survey and roadmap,” 2024, arXiv:2401.10034.
H. Xu, “GPS: Genetic prompt search for efficient few-shot learning,” 2022, arXiv:2210.17041.
W. X. Zhao, “A survey of large language models,” 2025, arXiv:2303.18223.
Z. Zhao, “Recommender systems in the era of large language models (LLMs),” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 6889–6907, Nov. 2024.
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
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Minh T. Nguyen

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
