Fingerprint and Face Authentication Portable Digital

Electronic Voting Machine

Brandon Sage Cagape
College of Engineering
Education
Electronics Engineering Program
University of Mindanao, Davao
City, Philippines
b.cagape.513587@umindanao.ed
u.ph
John Carlo Lisondato
College of Engineering
Education
Electronics Engineering Program
University of Mindanao, Davao
City, Philippines
johncarlolisondato1@gmail.com
Princess Diane Maboloc
College of Engineering
Education
Electronics Engineering Program
University of Mindanao, Davao
City, Philippines
dianemaboloc@gmail.com
John A. Bacus*
College of Engineering
Education
Computer Engineering Program
University of Mindanao, Davao
City, Philippines
john_bacus@umindanao.edu.ph

Abstract—The paper presents the Electronic Voting Machine
(EVM) device to facilitate digital elections with the use of
Raspberry Pi as its brain. The EVM is designed to authenticate the
voter through fingerprint or face authentication. The face
authentication method is incorporated with an anti-spoofing
technique. Local Binary Pattern Histograms (LBPH) and Haar-
Cascade Classifier models were used to detect and recognize faces
and eye-blink counters for anti-spoofing. Both authentications
were combined and incorporated into the voting graphic user
interface (GUI), programmed through Python and its libraries to
create the EVM, wherein the voter must authenticate through
fingerprint or face recognition if they failed the prior method. The
accuracy tests resulted in an overall 80% and 95.56% accuracy for
fingerprint and face authentication, respectively. The anti-
spoofing technique resulted in an overall accuracy of 100%. The
mock elections of 20 voters conducted to test the functionality of
the EVM resulted in an 80% fingerprint authentication success
rate, while 100% of the remaining 20% passed the face
authentication. Those who failed the fingerprint authentication
proceeded to face authentication, resulting in an overall 100%
success rate in the authentication of all voters. The database
results matched the receipt of the voters, demonstrating the
device's overall efficiency of 100%. In conclusion, the paper
proposes an efficient and secure EVM that ensures fair and
transparent digital elections.
Keywords— Electronic Voting Machine, Local Binary Pattern
Histogram (LBPH), Haar-Cascade Classifier, Anti-Spoofing,
Raspbian OS, FirebaseDB
I. INTRODUCTION
Voting is one of the fundamental rights that an individual
possesses as an essence of democracy. It gives them the freedom
to choose candidates they think are most suited to represent the
people and their interests. Among the different voting systems
in the world, the Philippines has adopted the Paper Ballot system
wherein the voters shade the circle beside the candidate’s name
on the ballots provided to them and are then fed into a machine
that will count their votes. This system is good to some extent;
however, there are disadvantages. One is the possibility of ghost
voting and the production and use of defective ballots, marked
as wastage. Despite the number of faulty ballots being a small
percentage overall, this percentage is still significant, especially
in small-scale voting [1]. This wastage can be avoided by
investing in Electronic Voting Machines (EVM). The other
disadvantage of the Paper Ballot system is that it is susceptible
to fraud. There is an issue in the recent Philippine Presidential
Elections in which most voters were advised to voluntarily
surrender their ballots to the poll watchers as the machine that is
supposed to read their ballots is under repair. Even if there are
no reported fraudulent activities, it is still possible; therefore,
switching to fully automated voting is advisable to prevent fraud
[2]. The Paper Ballot system can also hinder the voting ability
of marginalized population, such as the illiterate, [pregnant]
women, Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), and senior citizens,
since the voting interpretation and validity is left at the discretion
of election officers. Electronic Voting Machines will prevent
this, ensuring their votes are correctly counted [3]. Aside from
significantly reducing electoral costs, tackling fraudulent
activities, and ensuring the participation of the marginalized
population, using EVMs will also make vote counting quicker
since the results are declared within 2-3 hours compared to the
paper ballot system, which takes an average of 30-40 hours vote-
counting time [4].
A study of [5] uses PIC16F877A as a microcontroller in an
Electronic Voting Machine, making the voting process faster,
more reliable, and more efficient. However, there is a problem
with the fingerprint data since the database images have high
resolution requiring more memory to be allocated. There is also
an Arduino-based EVM that is particularly used in school
elections. This EVM is workable but not 100% efficient since it
can only accommodate three (3) candidates and has limited
memory [6]. A face recognition feature is commonly used in an
Electronic Voting Machine to authenticate the user registered on
the server. In the case of twin voters, a two-fold biometric
authentication is used to avoid it [4]. In biometric testing of the
study [7], the parameters False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and
False Reject Rate (FRR) are applied. The FAR is an
identification percentage used when there is an unexpected
acceptance of an unauthorized user, whereas the FRR is the
percentage of registered but rejected or unmatched users. Based
on the calculations, there is a FAR of 2%, an FRR of 10%, and
an overall 94% high accuracy indicating that the biometric is
reliable for user authentication. The OpenCV library is
integrated and then executed by Python language. The Haar-
Cascade and Local Binary Pattern Histogram model is used for
face detection and recognition authentication [8]. Also, the use
of Raspberry Pi 4 as the processing unit in running the face
recognition was conducted [9]. A certain device with a face
recognition feature that also uses Haar-Cascade has a 92%
accuracy in recognizing its subjects. The Local Binary
Histogram (LPB) algorithm resulted in an accuracy of 91%,
which both accuracy rates are considered high percentages [10].
One of the disadvantages of face recognition features is that it is
prone to identity fraud because of facial spoofing. Facial
spoofing is using a person’s face through a photo, a video, or a
hyper-realistic mask to steal their identity [11]. This act can be
prevented by different anti-spoofing techniques such as using
sensors or dedicated hardware for detecting facial features,
challenge-response methods of the user in real-time and
recognition algorithms (specular feature projections, depth
feature fusion, image quality assessment, deep learning) [12].
The study focuses on an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM)
with two authentication methods for authentic, transparent, and
credible voting systems. Specifically, the EVM features
biometric authentication combined with face recognition
authentication that will ensure the credibility of the voting
system [13]. To completely authenticate the user, an anti-
spoofing technique will be implemented together with face
recognition to prevent identity theft through facial spoofing. The
technique that will be used is the challenge-response technique,
wherein the user is requested to interact with the system in a
specific way, such as doing facial expressions or head
movements [14]. An EVM is in the form of a portable
standalone tablet kiosk for convenience in voting. A receipt is
printed after voting for the voters to ensure that their votes are
read correctly. The receipt will be put in a drop box, which the
committee keeps for manual recounting in case a candidate files
a petition for it [15].
This study aims to develop a standalone Electronic Voting
Machine (EVM) with two authentication systems. More
specifically, this electronic voting machine should be able to
recognize and authenticate the fingerprints and faces, supported
by the anti-spoofing technique of the registered users as
implemented. This study also aims to perform an effective
voting procedure and accurately count the number of votes from
the registered users and tally them. Furthermore, the votes
counted from the system should match the manual vote count
from the receipts printed after the voting process.
This study would be of great importance as it will make
voting more convenient with the aid of a device that will make
the flow of the electoral process smoother. The Electronic
Voting Machine (EVM) will be a standalone computer kiosk to
make the voting process ideal for the voters and will not be a
hassle. The monitor screen used for the voting process will have
bigger fonts to make the on-screen instructions very clear and
readable for people, especially senior citizens and those with
poor eyesight. With this, they can vote with little to no effort.
The EVM will use fingerprint and face authentication features
to ensure the authenticity and credibility of the voting process.
An anti-spoofing technique with a face recognition feature will
be implemented to prevent identity theft through facial spoofing.
This technique will also prevent fraud as only the voter can
access their registered account. Moreover, since the voter will
be the one to decide which fingerprint (left or right thumb, index,
middle, ring, pinky) they are to register with, they will also be
the only ones aside from the proponents who will know which
one to use for their authentication. This factor will add to the
security of the EVM system.
This study proposes to create an Electronic Voting Machine
that uses two authentication methods, fingerprint and face
recognition, to prevent fraud and the possibility of ghost voting.
Producing an EVM will also remove the need to print out ballots
where there is unavoidable production of defective ones. The
EVM will be set in a kiosk style similar to closed Automatic
Teller Machine (ATM) places, making it easy to navigate for
first-time voters while giving them enough privacy when voting.
The only difference will be that the EVM kiosk will be lower
and table-like compared to the ATMs to cater to PWDs,
especially those in a wheelchair. This adjustment will also make
the voters, especially the senior citizens, more comfortable when
voting. As a limitation, blind people are the only PWD excluded
from being catered to because including them would yield
additional features to be considered, which would cause
additional expenses and complicated intricacies in the Electronic
Voting Machine. Compared to the usual voting system of the
Philippines, using indelible ink after voting will no longer be
needed because the implementation is small-scale; the system
can check whether the individual has already voted.
Additionally, voter information and vote counts are saved on a
cloud database, presuming that there is a sudden and
unprecedented data loss. A receipt will be printed after voting
for transparency and for the voters to ensure that their votes are
read correctly. The receipts generated will then be dropped in a
drop box and kept by the committee for manual recounting,
especially when there are anomalies or a candidate requests it.
This aspect is another way of preserving data in case of
corruption or loss. This study aims to implement small-scale
voting, such as school body elections and vote-based contests,
using this Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). Specifically, the
implementation will occur at our university, The University of
Mindanao.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Conceptual Framework
The study used Raspberry Pi as the main processing unit of
the system, which ran the Raspbian operating system. The
component used was compatible with the Adafruit fingerprint
scanner through its USB. Also, the Python language was used
for programming because of its compatibility with the libraries
used. The Open Computer Vision Library, or OpenCV, was
widely used for image processing and computer vision projects.
Additionally, the library was utilized to build the Haar-Cascade
model for face detection/anti-spoofing and LBPH (Local Binary
Pattern Histogram) model for face recognition [8]. Aside from
this, the Pyqt5 library designed the system's graphical user
interface (GUI).
Fig. 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study.
The system required fingerprint or face acquisition to validate
the voter's identity for authentication, which was the system’s
input. The fingerprint acquired was preprocessed to optimize the
sample and extract significant features to find the matched
fingerprint from the database [15-16]. If the system failed to
authenticate the registered voter's fingerprint, it proceeded to
face authentication. The system first performed face detection,
increasing the face recognizer's accuracy since it marked the
voter's face before proceeding to recognition. Afterward, the
face recognition algorithm matched the extracted voter's face
from the database. Moreover, the same face detection algorithm
was used for the anti-spoofing procedure. It detected the voter's
eyes and then required them to blink twice to prevent identity
theft. There were two authentication methods, but the voter was
only required to pass one of the biometric authentications before
proceeding to the voting proper, wherein the voter voted for their Fig. 3. LBPH (Local Binary Pattern Histogram)
preferred candidates among the selection and finalized their
votes. Furthermore, this comprised the electronic voting C. Voter’s Registration
machine. Before the election day, people eligible to vote were
registered ahead of time with their personal information, which
included their names and samples for fingerprint and face
recognition, the two methods of authentication for the EVM.
Furthermore, they were given informed consent regarding our
study. As shown in Fig. 4, voters must touch the fingerprint
scanner with their desired finger for authentication. The images
were processed with a highly sensitive pixel amplifier, then
extracted templates that were stored/saved in the database as a
unique ID.
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework

B. Face Detection and Recognition Model

Fig. 2 shows the overall concept of the Haar-Cascade
classifier model. It used Haar features to determine the lines or
edges of the samples wherein there were changes in the pixel
intensity. It also used the integral images technique to summate
pixels over the image sub-area [10]. Aside from this, pre-trained
files were available to detect specific body parts like the face for
face detection. Eye detection requires the voter to blink their
eyes to prevent anti-spoofing.

Fig. 2. Ha-ar Cascade Classifier

Fig. 3 illustrates the Local Binary Pattern Histogram or
LBPH model, one of the simplest algorithms used in facial
recognition. The model located the image structure and
compared each pixel to its adjacent pixels. The adjacent values
were then converted to binary based on a threshold, where 1s
represented values above the threshold, while 0s represented
values below the threshold. The algorithm's accuracy was
proportional to the number of samples in the dataset, and a
minimum of 100 samples was required to achieve optimal
accuracy [8]. In this study, 200 image samples were collected
from each voter.
Fig. 4. Fingerprint Registration Block Diagram
In Fig. 5, 200 face images were collected from each voter
using a camera. The images were then pre-processed to provide
good-quality images rather than false ones. Next, feature
extraction was implemented to extract the face components.
Lastly, images were trained by converting extracted features of
each image to binary, resulting in the center point being the
decimal equivalent. These significant features were the face
encodings stored in pickle files used in face recognition.

Fig. 5. Face Registration Block Diagram
D. Voter’s Recognition
To be able to vote, one had to pass either fingerprint or face
authentication. The voter was to authenticate first through the
fingerprint authentication method. However, if the voter’s
fingerprint biometric is not recognized, they will be redirected
to face authentication instead. If the voter failed to authenticate
themselves from both methods, they could not proceed to the
voting proper.
Fig. 6 shows the fingerprint and face recognition block
diagram. This diagram started when the voter touched the
fingerprint scanner for authentication. If successfully
authenticated, the scanned fingerprint is enhanced through the
HSP amplifier and matched to the stored fingerprint data. Once
a match was found, the voter information was fetched from the
database for authentication, and then the recognized voter could
proceed to the voting display.
Fig. 6. Fingerprint and Face Recognition Block Diagram
When the voter fails to authenticate through fingerprint
recognition, it will proceed to face recognition. The voter's
images were scanned, and their facial features were extracted.
The system then compared the sample image with the stored
face encodings to determine the best match. If the sample image
matched the stored encodings, the voter’s name was selected,
and their information was fetched from the database. The system
then proceeded to the voting display.
If the voter fails again to authenticate through face
recognition, then the voter will not be able to vote.
E. System Integration
The EVM and registration were separated, as shown in Fig.
7. A laptop was used to collect voter data, including their names
and authentication data. The gathered data was sorted and
transferred to the storage of the Raspberry Pi. The transferred
features were then used to authenticate the voters. Additionally,
the Internet of Things (IoT) database was used to store the users
who had already voted, together with their votes, in the Firebase
database to prevent data loss in case the Raspberry Pi storage
gets corrupted. Additionally, this cloud database only connected
when the EVM validated the voter’s already-voted status or
appended the recent voter and their vote selection.
Fig. 7. System Integration
F. Hardware Development
Fig. 8 illustrates the prototype design of the Electronic
Voting Machine. The size and dimensions of the prototype were
based on the needs and capacity of the potential categories of
voters. There was a presumption that one of the potential
categories of voters who would use the Electronic Voting
Machine was Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), with the
exclusion of blind voters [17]. The Electronic Voting Machine
was placed on a table so that it reached the height of 48" (~1.2m),
which was the ideal height of an EVM according to the Kiosk
ADA Accessibility ADA Compliance for it to be accessible to
the PWDs, especially the people on a wheelchair like the
disabled.
Fig. 8. Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) Prototype Design
G. Statistical Analysis TABLE II. CONFUSION MATRIX FOR FACE AUTHENTICATION
ACCURACY TEST RESULTS
This study employed two authentication methods to verify
the legitimacy of the voting process by conducting trials and
calculating the overall accuracy for fingerprint and face
authentication using a confusion matrix. Furthermore, precision,
which measured the accuracy of positive predictions, recall,
which measured the ability of the model to identify positive
cases, and F1 score, which provided a balanced measure of both
metrics, were computed. Additionally, the False Reject Rate
(FRR), the rate of registered voters that were not authenticated,
was compared to the precision. In contrast, the False Acceptance
Rate (FAR), the rate of unregistered voters authenticated with
another person's identity, was compared to the recall. Database
vote selection and voting receipt selection were compared.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Of the total trials for the registered voters, forty-five (45)
A. Electronic Voting Machine were authenticated (True Positive), and none (0) were rejected.
On the other hand, of the total trials for the unregistered voters,
Fig. 10 shows the actual device used to conduct the mock three (3) were falsely identified as other people (False Negative),
election with the following components used: the monitor screen,
while forty-two (42) were classified as unknown (True
mouse, camera, and thermal printer, all of which were connected
Negative).
to the Raspberry Pi 4 to perform the voting procedure.
From the accuracy testing, the face recognition algorithm
had a confidence value of 97%. The resulting confidence value
of the registered voters ranged from 98.09% to 99.82%, while
the unregistered voters ranged from 89.98% to 97.98%. With
this, the algorithm confidence level was tuned to 98.09, adjusted
from the lowest confidence value of the registered voters to
prevent false negative results on the actual mock election.
The overall accuracy of the face authentication method is
95.56% using equation (1). The precision and recall are 100%
and 91.84% using equations (2) and (3), respectively. Lastly, the
F1-score resulting from equation (4) was 95.75%. Moreover, the
Fig. 9. Actual Device False Rejection Rate (FRR) resulted in 0% using equation (5),
while the False Acceptance Rate (FAR) resulted in 8.16% using
B. Accuracy Testing Results equation (6).
The accuracy test results for the fingerprint authentication
are shown in Table I. Fifteen (15) samples were tested, with
three trials conducted for each sample. The overall accuracy was
calculated by taking the percentage average of the three trials

TABLE I. FINGERPRINT AUTHENTICATION ACCURACY TEST RESULTS

Table III shows the overall accuracy of the anti-spoofing

technique (blink twice) used after a successful face
authentication. The overall accuracy was computed by the
success count over the total number of trials in which the result
was 100%.
Based on the results, a low accuracy of 60% was observed
in the first trial. During the testing, some fingers sampled in the TABLE III. ANTI-SPOOFING TEST RESULTS
first trial had wet or dirty fingers, which caused them not to be
recognized. After noticing the problem, they clean their fingers,
increasing accuracy in the next two trials.
The accuracy test results for face authentication are shown
in Table II, presented in a confusion matrix with two
classifications: registered and unregistered voters. Thirty (30)
samples were used, with three trials conducted for each sample.
C. Mock Election Results
The results in Fig. 10 showed the type of authentication in
which the voters have successfully verified. It is marked as
“Successful” if the voter has authenticated in that authentication
method, while an “Error” is marked when the voter has failed to
do so. In the case of the face authentication method, the voter is
marked as “Passed” when it already has successfully
authenticated with their fingerprint, where they will no longer
need to authenticate for their face.
Based on the results, all voters were able to authenticate
themselves successfully. 16 out of 20 voters authenticated with
their fingerprints, while 4 out of 20 voters had to go through face
recognition to authenticate themselves. The overall
accuracy is computed by the percentage of the fingerprint and
face authentication method's success rate. Given this, the
accuracy of fingerprint and 0face authentication are 80% and
20%, respectively, which resulted in an overall accuracy of
100%.
In addition, comparing the accuracy results of the fingerprint
authentication to the results of the prior accuracy testing, the
authentication method also had 80% accuracy.
Fig. 10. Fingerprint and Face Authentication Results
D. Database Votes and Receipt Votes Comparison
Based on the results in Fig. 11, all twenty (20) voters
authenticated and proceeded to the voting proper successfully.
The candidates chosen by each voter were stored in the EVM
system, and the printed receipt containing the voter’s name and
selected candidates were dropped in the drop box after
confirming their selections. The casted votes stored from the
database were compared to the receipts, and as presented in
Table V, all votes matched from each other, resulting in an
accuracy of 100%.
TABLE IV. DATABASE VOTES AND RECEIPT VOTES COMPARISON
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
A Raspberry Pi-based IoT portable electronic voting
machine system was successfully designed, incorporating
fingerprint and face authentication methods for voter identity
verification. The Adafruit fingerprint sensor was used for
fingerprint authentication, achieving an overall accuracy of 80%.
The lower accuracy threshold was attributed to failed fingerprint
detection in the first trial, primarily due to wet or dirty
fingerprints. Face authentication, utilizing Haar-Cascade
Classifier and Local Binary Pattern Histogram (LBPH) models,
achieved an overall accuracy of 95.56%. An anti-spoofing
technique ensured 100% accuracy in detecting and preventing
spoofing attempts. While the face authentication method
successfully authenticated all registered voters, a few
unregistered voters were mistakenly recognized, resulting in a
False Acceptance Rate (FAR) of 8.16%. In a mock election with
20 registered voters, 80% were authenticated using the
fingerprint authentication method, while the remaining 20%
proceeded to face authentication and achieved 100% overall
authentication accuracy. Vote results from the database and
voter's receipts matched with a 100% match for all 20
authenticated voters.
For future studies, the researchers recommend displaying the
user interface using a touchscreen LCD to reduce device
bulkiness and facilitate easier GUI navigation. Additionally, a
more sensitive fingerprint sensor with a high tolerance for wet
or dirty fingerprints is suggested.
REFERENCES
[1] ] K. M. AboSamra, A. A. AbdelHafez, G. M. R. Assassa, and M. F. M.
Mursi, “A practical, secure, and auditable e-voting system,” Journal of
Information Security and Applications, vol. 36. Elsevier BV, pp. 69–89,
Oct. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2017.08.002.
[2] R. M. Alvarez, I. Levin, and Y. Li, “Fraud, convenience, and e-voting:
how voting experience shapes opinions about voting technology,” Journal
of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 15, no. 2. Informa UK
Limited, pp. 94–105, Apr. 03, 2018. doi:
10.1080/19331681.2018.1460288.
[3] R. Küsters and T. Truderung, “Security in e-voting,” it - Information
Technology, vol. 56, no. 6. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, pp. 300–306, Nov.
30, 2014. doi: 10.1515/itit-2014-1062.
[4] P. Katta, O. A. Mohammed, K. Prabaakaran, M. Divya, G. Jayashree, and
D. Keerthika, “Smart voting using Fingerprint, Face and OTP Technology
with Blockchain,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1916, no.
1. IOP Publishing, p. 012139, May 01, 2021. doi: 10.1088/1742-
6596/1916/1/012139.
[5] A. I. Abeesh, P. Amal Prakash, R. Pillai Arun, H. S. Ashams, M. Dhanya,
and R. Seena, "Electronic Voting Machine Authentication using
Biometric Information," in International Journal of Engineering Research
& Technology (IJERT), vol. 5, issue 16, pp. 1-6, Apr. 24, 2018. DOI:
10.17577/IJERTCONV5IS16012.
[6] Vinayachandra, K. G. Poornima, M. Rajeshwari, and K. K. Prasad,
“Arduino Based Authenticated Voting Machine (AVM) using RFID and
Fingerprint for the Student Elections,” Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, vol. 1712, no. 1. IOP Publishing, p. 012004, Dec. 01, 2020. doi:
10.1088/1742-6596/1712/1/012004.
[7] B. U. Umar, O. M. Olaniyi, L. A. Ajao, D. Maliki, and I. C. Okeke,
“Development of A Fingerprint Biometric Authentication System For
Secure Electronic Voting Machines,” Kinetik: Game Technology,
Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and
Control. Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, pp. 115–126, Mar. 04,
2019. doi: 10.22219/kinetik.v4i2.734.
[8] M. Bansal, "Face Recognition Implementation on Raspberry Pi Using
OpenCV and Python," International Journal of Computer Engineering &
 Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 16-20, May 31, 2019. doi: & Security, vol. 26, no. 5. Elsevier BV, pp. 373–380, Aug. 2007. doi:
10.34218/ijcet.10.3.2019.016. 10.1016/j.cose.2006.12.011.
[9] E. K. M. Sanchez, N. B. Linsangan, and R. E. Angelia, “Three Triangle [15] Y. Lee, S. Park, M. Mambo, S. Kim, and D. Won, “Towards trustworthy
Method for Face Recognition using Dlib and OpenCV,” 2020 IEEE 12th e-voting using paper receipts,” Computer Standards & Interfaces,
International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information vol. 32, no. 5–6. Elsevier BV, pp. 305–311, Oct. 2010. doi:
Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and 10.1016/j.csi.2010.03.001.
Management (HNICEM). IEEE, Dec. 03, 2020. doi: [16] [V. Malathy, N. Shilpa, M. Anand, and R. Elavarasi, “Radio frequency
10.1109/hnicem51456.2020.9400134. identification based electronic voting machine using fingerprint module,”
[10] S. M. Bah and F. Ming, “An improved face recognition algorithm and its IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 981, no.
application in attendance management system,” Array, vol. 5. Elsevier 3. IOP Publishing, p. 032018, Dec. 01, 2020. doi: 10.1088/1757-
BV, p. 100014, Mar. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.array.2019.100014. 899x/981/3/032018.
[11] S. Najam, A. Z. Shaikh, and S. Naqvi, “A Novel Hybrid Biometric [17] J. Lazar, J. B. Jordan, and G. Vanderheiden, “Toward unified guidelines
Electronic Voting System: Integrating Finger Print and Face for kiosk accessibility,” Interactions, vol. 26, no. 4. Association for
Recognition,” Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Computing Machinery (ACM), pp. 74–77, Jun. 26, 2019. doi:
Technology, vol. 37, no. 01. Mehran University of Engineering and 10.1145/3337779.
Technology, pp. 59–68, Jan. 01, 2018. doi: 10.22581/muet1982.1801.05.
[12] E. Fourati, W. Elloumi, and A. Chetouani, “Anti-spoofing in face
Your Name Title* Research Field Personal
recognition-based biometric authentication using Image Quality
Assessment,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 79, no. 1–2. website
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, pp. 865–889, Oct. 10, 2019. Brandon Cagape student Computer vision
doi: 10.1007/s11042-019-08115-w.
[13] S. L. Rikwith, D. Saiteja, and R. Jayaraman, “Enhancement of Electronic John Carlo student Computer vision
Voting Machine Performance Using Fingerprint and Face Recognition,” Lisondato
2021 2nd International Conference on Smart Electronics and
Communication (ICOSEC). IEEE, Oct. 07, 2021. doi: Princess student Computer vision
Maboloc
10.1109/icosec51865.2021.9591895.
[14] N. Komninos, D. D. Vergados, and C. Douligeris, “Authentication in a John Bacus Adviser Computer vision
layered security approach for mobile ad hoc networks,” Computers