This paper introduces Sentence Splitter, a self-supervised framework built upon a T5-based encoder--decoder architecture for uncovering the latent factual structure of natural language sentences. The proposed method identifies the semantic boundary between a descriptive prefix (head) and its factual completion (tail) by formulating sentence splitting as a discrete segmentation problem, where a sentence of length $N$ admits $N$ possible split points but only one recovers the intended head--tail structure. Rather than explicitly searching over all candidate boundaries, the model learns to recover the factual completion through probabilistic sequence generation. To eliminate the need for manual annotation, symbolic head--tail pairs are first verbalized into natural-language templates that provide supervision for training the Sentence Splitter. The trained splitter is then applied to raw text to extract aligned prefix--tail pairs, which are subsequently used to train a generative model that proposes additional plausible completions through a lightweight bootstrapping process. This unified pipeline provides a scalable and structure-aware approach to constructing self-supervised training data while bridging symbolic knowledge and natural language. Experiments on both structured and naturally occurring text demonstrate that the proposed splitter generalizes beyond synthetic templates and that the resulting structure-aware supervision consistently improves downstream performance on knowledge graph completion and commonsense question answering, highlighting the effectiveness of recovering latent factual structure for knowledge-centric NLP.
Incomplete Knowledge Graph Question Answering (IKGQA) requires completing missing edges to continue reasoning. A growing line of work verifies completed edges against retrieved text, treating textual support as a proxy for edge quality. We ask a question that, to our knowledge, has not been systematically tested: does textual verifiability actually track correctness? Exploiting the gold deleted triples provided by the standard random-deletion protocol, we measure both. The finding is counterintuitive: among gold-correct completed edges, 76-96% have no supporting passage even under exhaustive retrieval, robustly across deletion rates (20%/40%), datasets (CWQ/WebQSP), and relation types (structural, commonsense, long-tail). Most Freebase-style facts simply do not occur as head-tail co-mentions in text. Textual faithfulness therefore measures provenance, not correctness -- separated by a paradigm-level gap no in-corpus retrieval closes. This reframes edge completion. Since most completed edges -- correct or not -- are causally redundant for the answer (95-97% of correct answers do not depend on any unsupported edge), the central question shifts from "is the edge correct?" to "admit or abstain under provenance uncertainty?" Within this framing we present TGComplete, a provenance-favoring admission policy that retrieves evidence at a reasoning breakpoint, verifies a candidate through a lightweight loop, and abstains when support is absent. Against the generate-to-complete baseline GoG, it attains higher edge precision against gold (15-21% vs 3-14%), with no statistically detectable EM loss and 3.1-7.4 times higher strict faithfulness of admitted edges -- at the cost of lower recall. We position TGComplete not as uniformly better, but as a principled point on a precision/provenance-recall trade-off, appropriate when auditability matters.