How does interface curvature compare to vorticity gradient in controlling excitation amplification strength?

Your question asks about *competition* between two mechanisms—interface curvature and vorticity gradient—in amplifying wave or perturbation growth. The preprints touch both phenomena, but don't directly compare their relative strengths in excitation amplification.

Here's what the archive does cover:

On interface curvature: Several papers show that curved surfaces *fundamentally alter* dynamics. Vortex dipoles on negatively curved catenoids follow geodesics and exhibit self-propulsion [AG-2025.11-673], while vortex clusters on a torus display confined collective motion with geometric drift [AG-2025.06-941]. Curvature also determines optimal surfaces for turbulent circulation statistics [AG-2025.09-816]. These suggest curvature acts as a *geometric constraint* that channels energy flow.

On vorticity gradient: A two-layer flow with shear-induced vorticity in the lower layer produces an *extra* elementary excitation beyond what irrotational flows allow [AG-2024.09-427]—three modes instead of two. This points to vorticity gradient as an *amplification source*. Separately, vorticity actually *suppresses* ergoregion instability in rotational flows [AG-2024.10-601], showing context-dependent effects.

On spectral amplification more broadly: Interfacial waves can transfer energy across scales in a cascade, but the mechanism depends sensitively on amplitude and dissipation [AG-2024.10-215]—neither curvature nor vorticity gradient is isolated there.

The papers don't directly measure whether curvature or vorticity gradient *dominates* excitation growth in a given scenario, so I cannot answer which is the stronger control parameter from this archive.