1: \begin{abstract}{

2: Despite the utility of neural networks (NNs) for astronomical time-series classification, the proliferation of learning architectures applied to diverse datasets has thus far hampered a direct intercomparison of different approaches. 

3: Here we perform the first comprehensive study of variants of NN-based learning and inference for astronomical time-series, aiming to provide the community with an overview on relative performance and, hopefully, a set of best-in-class choices for practical implementations.  %%

4: %

5: In both supervised and self-supervised contexts, we study the effects of different time-series-compatible layer choices, namely the dilated temporal convolutional neural network (dTCNs), Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) NNs, Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs) and temporal convolutional NNs (tCNNs). 

6: %

7: We also study the efficacy and performance of encoder-decoder (i.e., autoencoder) networks compared to direct classification networks, different pathways to include auxiliary (non-time-series) metadata, and different approaches to incorporate multi-passband data (i.e., multiple time-series per source). 

8: Performance---applied to a sample of 17,604 variable stars from the MACHO survey across 10 imbalanced classes---is measured in training convergence time, classification accuracy, reconstruction error, and generated latent variables. 

9: We find that networks with Recurrent NN (RNNs) generally outperform dTCNs and, in many scenarios, yield to similar accuracy as tCNNs. 

10: In learning time and memory requirements, convolution-based layers are more performant. We conclude by discussing the advantages and limitations of deep architectures for variable star classification, with a particular eye towards next-generation surveys such as LSST, 

11: %%############################################%% 

12: {the Roman Space Telescope} %WFIRST 

13: %%############################################%% 

14: and ZTF2. 

15: 

16: }\end{abstract}

17: