neutrino dataset is 77%.

CCQE-like results are less model dependent than CCQE-corrected results (as they do not rely on the experiment’s own MC correction strategy), but make the analysis dependent on the simulation of the background in the [MiniBooNE]{}detector, which cannot be tuned to the [MiniBooNE]{}data in the same way [MiniBooNE]{}’s background model could be. CCQE-corrected results are used in this analysis. A downside of using the CCQE-corrected data is the explicit subtraction of $\pi$-less $\Delta$ decay events in the [MiniBooNE]{}analysis, which forms part of the Nieves [multinucleon–neutrino]{}prediction which we treat as signal in the analysis. Unfortunately, there is no obvious way to account for this effect, so we ignore it for the analysis presented. We note that Nieves [*et al.*]{} also used the CCQE-corrected dataset to compare to their full models [@nieves_MB_nu_2011; @nieves_MB_anu_2013].

[MiniBooNE]{}antineutrino
-------------------------

The [MiniBooNE]{}antineutrino data has been released in the same format as the neutrino mode data. Again, the double-differential CCQE-corrected results are used. The overall normalization uncertainty was given as 13.0% for antineutrino running. This is likely to be strongly correlated with the normalization uncertainty for the neutrino mode data, as the uncertainly comes mostly from the flux normalization uncertainty. However, as this information was 