not released, no correlation is assumed in this analysis.

The correction strategy for the antineutrino dataset is more complicated than for the neutrino mode sample because of the relatively high $\nu_{\mu}$ contamination in the $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ beam, which is the largest background in the antineutrino CCQE sample ([MiniBooNE]{}is an unmagnetized detector). There is also a large CC1$\pi^{-}$ background, the analogue of the CC1$\pi^{+}$ contamination in the neutrino dataset. Two properties are used to measure the $\nu_{\mu}$ background [@AguilarArevalo:2011sz]: 8% of $\nu_{\mu}$-induced CC interactions produce no decay electron due to muon-nucleus capture; and the $\nu_{\mu}$-induced CC1$\pi^{+}$ events can be identified independently of $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$-induced CC1$\pi^{-}$ as most $\pi^{-}$ mesons are absorbed. Unfortunately, this property makes CC1$\pi^{-}$ a bigger background to the CCQE analysis in antineutrino mode, and means that there is no sample with which to directly tune the CC1$\pi^{-}$ production from the NUANCE resonance model, so the neutrino mode CC1$\pi^{+}$ has to be used (as was done for the neutrino mode sample). Other backgrounds are subtracted using the NUANCE interaction model after some tuning and corrections. As a result of the two large backgrounds in the antineutrino sample, the purity of the CCQE-like sample is 61%, making the correction larger than for 