## 4 Performance Evaluation and Result Analysis
### Summary Tables  
Table 3 lists the key performance metrics, such as the error probability, latency, throughput, energy efficiency, and computational complexity, of the referenced decoding techniques. The attainable performance of the decoding schemes is with reference to the coding scheme given under the parameters column of Table 3. Table 4 is the comparative analysis of the selected decoding schemes with the benchmark SCL decoding of 5G NR polar code with given parameters. Column six of Table 4 evaluates the coding gain of the decoders over the state-of-the-art SCL decoder. The abbreviation NA is used in tables for data that are not available in the referenced articles.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Decoder Parameter** & **Benchmark (SCL & **Complexity/Area** & **Latency** & **Energy Efficiency** & **Coding Gain (Over \\
**[Ref]** & **Decoder)** & **Efficiency (AE)** & **SCIL Decoding** & **SCIL Decoding** \\ \hline SCL-flip, T = number of bit-flip attempts [29] & CA-SCL decoding of polar code of length N = 1024 and rate R = 0.5 & At SNR 1.5 dB, T = 50 same as the SCL-16 & NA & NA & \(\approx\)0.2 dB gain at FER 10\({}^{-4}\) over CA-SCL with L = 32, T = 50 for SCL-flip \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{AED-16 [32]} & SCL decoding of 5G NR polar code (128, 60 + 11) for CRC = 11, L = 16 & AE 8.9 times better than SCL-16 & 5.3 times less than SCL-16 & 4.5 times better than SCL-16 & 0.2 dB coding gain at FER 10\({}^{-4}\), similar performance at higher SNR \\ \hline AE-SCL P= 8, L = 4 [33] & SCL decoding of (512, 251) polar code, L = 32 & NA & 2.68 times less than SCL-32 & NA & 0.47 dB gain over SCL at WER 10\({}^{-3}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{SCAL-8 [34]} & Polar code (128, 60), \(I_{min}\) = 27, under SCL-8 decoding & 168.2 Gbps/mm\({}^{2}\) & 2 ns more than SCAL 8 & 8.62 pJ/bit, for SCL-8 & \begin{tabular}{c} Coding gain of \\ 0.024 dB over SCL-16 \\ at FER 10\({}^{-5}\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Fast Log-SCS [35]} & NR PUCCH polar code N = 512, 1024, Log-SCL decoder, list = 11 & Reduction in complexity in comparison to Log-SCL (L = 32) & Normal latency 21\% lower than CA-SSCL decoder & NA & 0.2 dB coding gain over fixed-point fast SSCL \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Adaptive OSD [36]} & CA-SCL, list = 8 for block lengths N = 64, R = 0.5 & NA & Close to 1 clock cycle at SNR 4.6 dB & NA & \(\approx\)0.4 dB coding gain over CA-SCL \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ORB GRAND [40]} & CA-SCL (list size L = 16) CA-Polar (128, 106), R = 0.82 & 10\({}^{2}\) queries for BLR 10\({}^{-3}\) & 2.47 ns & 2.47 ns & \
\begin{tabular}{c} More energy efficient \\ at higher SNR as \\ 1 query/bit at 5.5 dB \\ \end{tabular} & 0.5 dB gain over CA-SCL \\ \hline SCL-GRAND [42] & Polar code (64, 43) CA-SCL (L = 12) & \(\approx\)10\({}^{2}\) queries / time & NA & NA & 0.7\(\sim\)0.2 dB gain \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{IBPL [45]} & SCL decoder for & & & &
\begin{tabular}{c} for R = 0.68, \\ 0.7\(\sim\)0.2 dB gain \\ \end{tabular} \\ \cline{1-1}  & polar code length N = 128 bits, R = 1/2 & NA & NA & NA & \(\approx\)0.4 dB gain over CA-SCL \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Summary of comparative analysis.