## 4 Performance Evaluation and Result Analysis  
Sixth-generation networks are expected to meet high power efficiency, reliability, and throughput standards. Polar codes can outperform state-of-the-art low-density parity-check (LDPC) and Turbo codes when successive cancellation list (SCL) decoding is combined with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code for error correction. However, the decoding complexity of the SC-List decoder is very high for large list sizes, making it less suitable for low-latency applications of URLLC. Also, URLLC requires precision up to the single-bit level in block lengths and coding rates to support scenarios with varying latency and capacity restrictions. Universal decoders can provide bit-level granularity for rate-matching schemes by decoding binary linear codes. The selection of the optimal decoding algorithm that achieves the latency-reliability trade-off efficiently would help in the design of adaptive error-correction schemes. In this section, we compare the performance of decoders listed in the summary in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref** & **Decoder** & **Parameters** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Performance Indicators**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & **BLER/FER/BER** & **Latency** & **Throughput** & **Energy Efficiency** & **Computational Complexity** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[29]} & Successive & Polar code (PC) & & & Average extra & & Average normalized \\  & Successive & length N = 256, 1024, & & & attempts \(\approx\) 7 at SNR & & & complexity \(\approx\) 8 at \\  & cancellation list flip & & & & 2 dB for T = 10, & & SNR 2 dB for L = 8, \\  & (SCL-flip) decoder & & & & N = 256 & & T = 10, N = 1024 \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[30]} & & Rayleigh fading & & & & & \\  & & channel with unit & & & & & \\  & & variance, BPSK & & & & & \\  & decoder (DFD) & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[33]} & Automorphism & Polar code (128, 60), & & & & & \\  & the decoding & & AED ensemble & & & & \\  & (AED) & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[33]} & Automorphism & & & & & & \\  & ensemble decoder & & & & & & \\  & with SCL (AE-SCL), & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[34]} & Successive & & & & & & \\  & cancellation & AWGN, BPSK, PC & & & & \\  & automorphism list & & & & & \\  & (SCAL) & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Summary of performance metrics for universal decoders. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref** & **Decoder** & **Parameters** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Performance Indicators**} & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & **BLER/EER/BER** & **Latency** & **Throughput** & **Energy Efficiency** & **Computational Complexity** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{[35]} & Fast logarithmic successive cancellation stack (Fast Log-SC) & Rayleigh fading, QPSK, polar code & \(\approx\)10\({}^{-3}\) at SNR 2 dB & 20 us for N = 1024 & \multirow{8}{*}{416.20 Mbps} & Estimated value 0.24 p/bit, & \(\approx\)10\({}^{4}\) function evaluations at \\  & Fast logarithmic successive cancellation stack (Fast Log-SC) & Rayleigh fading, QPSK, polar code