The Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) approach is a new and promising way to solve partial differential equations using deep learning. The $L^2$ Physics-Informed Loss is the de-facto standard in training Physics-Informed Neural Networks. In this paper, we challenge this common practice by investigating the relationship between the loss function and the approximation quality of the learned solution. In particular, we leverage the concept of stability in the literature of partial differential equation to study the asymptotic behavior of the learned solution as the loss approaches zero. With this concept, we study an important class of high-dimensional non-linear PDEs in optimal control, the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) Equation, and prove that for general $L^p$ Physics-Informed Loss, a wide class of HJB equation is stable only if $p$ is sufficiently large. Therefore, the commonly used $L^2$ loss is not suitable for training PINN on those equations, while $L^{\infty}$ loss is a better choice. Based on the theoretical insight, we develop a novel PINN training algorithm to minimize the $L^{\infty}$ loss for HJB equations which is in a similar spirit to adversarial training. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is empirically demonstrated through experiments.

Multiple-choice exam questions with "None of the above" (NA) options have been extensively studied in educational testing, in which existing research suggests that they better assess true knowledge. However, their impact on Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluation remains underexplored. Through systematic experiments with 28 LLMs on the MMLU benchmark, we examine how NA options affect model performance and confidence calibration. Our analysis reveals that NA options, when used as the correct answer, lead to a consistent 30-50\% performance drop across models regardless of scale--suggesting that LLMs lack the meta-cognitive ability to systematically evaluate and reject all given options when none are correct. This degradation shows strong domain dependence, with minimal impact on mathematical reasoning (14.6\% drop) but severe effects on tasks requiring uncertainty handling like business ethics (48.1\% drop). Our results highlight important implications for benchmark design and raise questions about LLMs' ability to handle uncertainty in real-world applications.